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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

We should just call this "Operation Blame the Natives". They know we're going to lose, because we essentially already have. It's now just a question of putting the burden of failure on other people as much as possible.

Whenever they ask for an alternative plan, direct them to the one developed by the Iraq Study Group.

Yeah, it sucks, but it does a much better job of acknowledging reality than Bush ever will.

Just one more excuse to blame the Iraqis for Bush's failure.

To cross1242:

The constitution explicitly bans unreasonable searches. The sort of blanket surveillance involved in the sort of spying Bush is having performed has been ruled to be unconstitutional on that ground.

I doubt the Supreme Court would sanction "terminating with maximum prejudice" on the same grounds it has rejected prosecution. At least, not without a few more Republican judges.

We should resist any and all aspects of Islamic religion and culture, or next thing you know, there'll be a Jihadist holding a knife to your throat and ordering you to say "Allahu Akbar" as a condition for him not to cut off your head.

The world doesn't work that way.