[Knockwurst]

Vulture -- when I was talking about diplomatic isolation I was talking about Saddam. But in a sense I think we can also seek to isolate the terrorists, though it's much more complicated long-term process, and involves isolating the doctrine of the jihadi, which by the way is being exported from some of the very governments we support such as Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, yes -- Afghanistan was a war of last resort, and we had to dismantle the state sponsered terrorism being exported from there. We should assinate terrorists and cut off their funding, but I really don't believe that regional destabilization is a goal we should be engendering. The consequences of a nuclear armed Iran, being the dominant regional power is scary. Are you really willing to go into Iran and occupy it at this point? Even if you wanted to, the Iraqi occupation has taken away any capability to do it, not to mention getting support from other countries now.

AC Player -- sorry about using conservative when I should have used neo-con or hawk. There are many conservatives who have stood up against GWB's Iraq policy: Pat Buchanan, George Will, William Kristol (I think he's come out against the war belatedly), Chuck Hagel, and they should be congratulated for having the balls to go against the Admistration line.

MMMMMM -- isn't it whak-a-mole? Unfortunately, you're right that we can't cut and run now. We've got to see it through to the bitter end, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to offer up an honest critique of the Adminstration's Iraq policy. I think you're mistaken about the consequences of going into Falluja. If we kill 10,000 civilians there, which I think is a possibility, it will be remembered as an American-led massacre for many years to come.