I'm also glad that there are people who will work to safeguard the country like those working and running Guantanomo.

Those people are traitors to our country and should be locked up, not praised. Guantanamo is blatantly illegal and "just following orders" doesn't apply to torture.

Is this a police problem, is this a military problem or is this something else?

Primarily, it's a police problem, and the reason we're failing so badly is because we're trying to primarily use the military to solve it. Now, it's not so simple that there aren't situations where military force is needed. But we need - absolutely need - the sort of information which police forces specialize in obtaining: proof of who the bad guys actually are. Neither the military nor the intelligence apparatus are likely to succeed at this task in any meaningful way; it's not what they're designed to do.

One of our resident Republicans recently criticized Leahy (IIRC) for "implied lying" while telling a straight truth. I'm curious what he thinks about this sort of thing, which has essentially been a constant from even before the war - the President frequently telling us things he knows quite well aren't true, no inferrence needed.

You need to stop accusing people of lying when by your own admission they're telling the truth. You also need to stop thinking AEI, WSJ, & HF are unbiased sources in their own right.

BTW, the right-wing judges are at least as activist as the left-wing ones - more so, now, not so much historically. Clarence Thomas and ilk have read executive powers that simply do not exist into the constitution and frankly insult our intelligence when they claim to be "strict constructionists".

In regards to the suggestion of committing to a true war strategy, and basically sending in a whole lot more troops rather than the current levels or near-current levels (i.e. Bush's so-called surge): whether the suggestion has merit or not is fairly irrelevant in the face of the fact that it's simply not going to happen. It's like suggesting that the Israelis and Palestinians just get along and treat each other well for a change; sure, that'd be great, but it's not realistic.

As to why we cannot have a sustained diplomatic effort with boots still on the ground: do you think the administration hasn't been trying? True, they're not very good at it; foreign governments, with some notable exceptions, are not buying into Bush's delusional visions. That may change if we show some willingness to change course (or, perhaps, leadership), but without that, it certainly won't.

Sadly, waiting for a more competent administration to take over in two years may be the best option even for those of us who want out as soon as possible; surely Bush's people would botch a pull-out as badly as they botched going in and everything else.

They're so desperate to avoid covering things that matter - like legislation and policy - that they'll bite any trend, real or imaginary, which will supposedly enlighten people indirectly without paying any attention to what's ACTUALLY going on. We wouldn't anybody voting on reality, after all.

It amounts to placing our sovereignity in the hands of other people...

We're supposedly trying to bring them Democracy, and at the end of the day that's what Democracy is - letting people make choices you may not agree with. We should have gone the distance, and left when they wanted us to leave.

Kirby: Responses to immigration does not break down so neatly by affiliation. Remember, it was Bush who pushed the guest worker program. More fundamentally, though, change is not going to be stopped, much as you'd like it to be. People are going to lose their jobs, their ways of life, no matter what. It can only be ameliorated - and that requires the social nets so beloved of the left and hated by the right.

Jerry Rubin: "Christianists" have managed to re-define freedom of religion as oppression of Christianity, and you've bought that hogwash hook, line, and sinker. But it's simply not true; in fact, it's precisely backwards. Only be preserving freedom of religion for everyone can you have any hope of avoiding being oppressed by a state religion. This is because no matter what your religion is, it will never be exactly what becomes prescribed.

...my reason for posting nasty-grams (almost) every week is because Heather is terrible at what she does.

Not in the slightest bit plausible, Rob. The supply of people who are terrible at what they do is far too large for any such endeavor to be serious. C'mon, George W. Bush alone should keep you occupied for the rest of your life if criticizing someone being bad at their job is what motivates you.

It is true that Hitler came topower in an election, but he quickly got dictatorial powers. I do not believe that could happen here.

The Military Commissions Act gives Bush the right, without any judicial review, to declare anybody he likes a suspected terrorist, torture them, try them in a kangaroo court, and dispose of them. The distinction between that and dictatorial power is only in how it is used. We may not be in a totalitarian state yet, but the groundwork has been certainly been laid.

I'm always amazed at how totally devoted Heather's trolls are. They come here every week, without fail, and always get in before I've even read the column. They love her so much, they must sit around all week waiting for the next piece to painfully misinterpret (how did tomreedtoon get born without any sense of irony at all?).

Neither hate nor jealousy fits the bill - it must be love. Twisted, bitter, and vengeful, yes, but love nonetheless. They wish it was their child in her arms.

It's so soap opera, it fits right in - just another part of Heather's subject matter, regaling her back from the letters section.