Who would have imagined that Americans could go, in a few weeks, from the terror of seeing two skyscrapers topple to civil discord over the diet and clothing of war in Guantanamo, some of whom were released only to turn up to shoot at us again on the battlefields of Afghanistan? Our grandfathers would have dubbed Arafat a gangster, and al Sadr a psychopathic faker; many of us in our infinite capacity for fairness and non-judgementalism deemed the one a statesman and the other a holy man.

So our enemies realize that the struggle, lost on the battlefield, can yet be won with images and rhetoric offered up to alter the mentality and erode the will of an affluent, leisured and consensual West. They grasp that we are not so much worried about being convicted of being illiberal as having the charge even raised in the first place.

The one caveat they have learned? Do not provoke us too dramatically to bring on an open shooting war, in which the Arab Street hysteria, empty threats on spec, and silly fatwas nos. 1 through 1,000 mean nothing against the U.S. Marines and Cobra gunships. Instead, their modus operandi is to push all the way up to war -- now provoking, now backing down, sometimes threatening, sometimes weeping -- the key being to see the struggle in the long duration as a war of attrition, if you will, rather than a brief contest of annihilation.

Lost is the fact that in America torturers get punished, while in the Arab world they get promotions. Huge percentages of Arabs are illiterate, which means these pictures will tell the whole story, particularly in the hands of the vilely anti-American Arab media. This will harden hearts against us and almost certainly result in lost American and Iraqi lives....

These pictures are so inflammatory, so offensive to Muslim and American sensibilities, whatever news value they have is far, far outweighed by the damage they are doing. 'Context' -- the supposed holy grail of responsible journalism -- is lost in the hysteria and political grandstanding.

Of course, CBS had every right to do what it did. But that's irrelevant. Nobody's suggesting the government should have stopped them. I'm suggesting that CBS should have stopped itself. Now we'll all have to live with the consequences -- and some of us will die from them.

The only workable recipe for lasting Middle East peace is the enormously difficult one of remaking Palestinian society from the bottom up. Of destroying its poisonous culture of violence, death-worship, and Jew-hatred. Of educating its people for democracy and tolerance. Of replacing its cruel and corrupt rulers with leaders genuinely committed to moderation.

Only when -- only if -- such a transformation takes place will the Palestinians be ready for statehood. To confer sovereignty on them now would be disastrous, a guarantee of violence for years to come. If there is one thing a regime that can call the execution of a mother and her four daughters "heroic" doesn't need, it is a reward.

let's not fool ourselves into believing that our genuine efforts to make amends will mollify the Arab street or foreign nations predisposed to think the worst of us. Surely we don't think for a second that the perversely biased Arab media outlet Aljazeera, for example, will be impressed by our contrition.

Accountability means that we accept responsibility, mete out swift and sure justice to the perpetrators and take corrective measures to prevent this kind of thing from occurring again. It does not mean that we beat ourselves up to the point of questioning the righteousness or justice of our cause.

This incident is the exception involving a very small fraction of soldiers. They do not represent the average soldier, who is honorable and puts his life on the line every day to protect American security and freedom and establish Iraqi self-rule. Let's not paint our entire armed forces, the Defense Department, the Bush administration and the United States itself with a wide brush of condemnation.

A law pushed through by Gov. Jeb Bush to keep a severely brain-damaged woman alive was struck down by a Florida judge Thursday in the latest turn in one of the nation's longest and bitterest right-to-die cases.

Lynn Faulkner, his daughter, Ashley, and their neighbor, Linda Prince, eagerly waited to shake the president's hand Tuesday at the Golden Lamb Inn. He worked the line at a steady campaign pace, smiling, nodding and signing autographs until Prince spoke:

"This girl lost her mom in the World Trade Center on 9-11."

Bush stopped and turned back.

"He changed from being the leader of the free world to being a father, a husband and a man," Faulkner said. "He looked right at her and said, 'How are you doing?' He reached out with his hand and pulled her into his chest."

My critics come from the right wing of Christianity. But I dare say we all know how to use this language. Liberals and centrists, feminists and anti-feminists, advocates for and against gay rights, Presbyterians and Roman Catholics, Episcopalians and Baptists -- we all tend to sound alike when our feathers get ruffled, our faith is challenged, and we go on the attack.

We label, we marginalize, we demean, we use language to wound (from curse to haughty dismissal), we quote Scripture to our ends, and we justify our assault as necessary defense of God-given truth. I have done my share of such aggression.

The feminist cultural assumption justifying women in combat is that violence against women in war and violence done by women during warfare are costs society must accept in order for "equality" to advance. Conservatives were shouted down when they warned that placing women in combat would not only expose them to abuse but could turn them into abusers....

When Elaine Donnelly explained to the feminists that women in combat would mean the exposure of women to rape and torture in captivity, their response was to say that America could get used to violence against women, and that men could be conditioned out of their chauvinism. And that's what the feminized military endeavored to do, setting up programs to teach male soldiers how to handle being in captivity with brutalized women.

"It does give a sense the city is endorsing a day of prayer," said ACLU attorney Paula Knudsen. "The fact the mayor is speaking in his official capacity, it does cause some concern." Still, she said, it's a "gray area," not an issue the ACLU would likely challenge. "A court may not agree it is a violation of the separation of church and state," she said.

This will make Barry Lynn even more incensed than he is now: Pray for him today. Lynn is president of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and he has declared war on the National Day of Prayer. The National Day of Prayer is today, and Lynn is enraged that it has been taken over by the "Religious Right."

Whatever the reasons, the unwillingness to contend for critical social issues--particularly the understanding of marriage as solely between a man and a woman--is puzzling. One would think that economic conservatives, not just religious or social conservatives, would be defending and promoting marriage, an institution that is as vital for a vibrant economy as is constitutional government. But perhaps economic conservatives have not considered how the state of the economy depends upon the state of the family, a relationship that even language affirms, as the etymology of both economy and household originate from the same Greek word, oikos....

To be certain, the passage and ratification of the Federal Marriage Amendment will not by itself undo the social revolution of the past 40 years. Yet, the amendment would draw an important line in the sand and neutralize the homosexual effort to weaken further a vital economic institution, the family. Make no mistake about it: If the courts impose gay marriage on the states, it will work against the economic vitality of the nation by encouraging the formation of sterile households that lack the economic dynamics of traditional marriage.

This photo got me to thinking. What profit comes from Christians repeatedly making clear our position that homosexuality is a sin? The homosexual crowd is all too aware of our position. Will a rally like that at Safeco Field on Saturday do anything more than further the gap between homosexuals and Christians?

When John Kerry approaches the altar rail to present himself for communion, why are so many people saying that he should be given communion? If we have a separation of church and state, then the right of the church is to decide who does and who does not receive communion. If you are saying that a member should be given communion even if he counsels laws that violate rights believed by the church to be universal, then you are not arguing the separation of church and state. You are arguing the supremacy of the state. State believes abortion OK; therefore, church must not discriminate against anyone who also says it is OK.

Yes, I've joined the Army so I don't really care that much about being my being drafted... I'm already in. But I absolutely hate the idea of forcing someone to fight for a cause they do not feel led to support. A volunteer military has been proven to be more effective than any drafted or forced service. The men and women who choose to join know what they are getting into and are willing to give their lives for what they believe in.

Personally, I do not want to be put in a situation where I have to rely on someone who was forced into the military. He/She would be a potential danger to myself and anyone else in that unit.

Also, by extending the age of the draft limit they may ultimately choose men and women who have established their lives, careers, families...etc., causing serious damage to the rest of their lives or their families' lives all because their names were drawn out of a hat.

Reenacting the draft and including women could also take mothers away from their children. Even if they were not put in a combat position, they still could be taken away from their children for a very long period of time. Mothers (well anyone with this experience), I ask you this, has your child ever been lost in a department store without you for 10 minutes? How did this affect them? Think what a year without a parent would do to a kid; even weeks between phone calls, letters or emails would still seriously affect the kid. They need the constant love and attention of both parents (one man, one woman, but that is another topic) while they're young and the encouragement of both parents when they're older.

Stopping the draft in the 70's was a great idea. An all-volunteer force is the best form of military you can have. It's not how strong or smart you are that makes a person a great soldier. What makes a good soldier is the belief in what he's doing and the willingness to fight and give his life for the greater good. Knowing all of these things to be true, I still cannot understand why anyone, especially in the government, would reconsider the draft.

I believe in our system and our nation, else I would not have sworn my service to protect it. Even if I cannot see the logic in their decisions, I have faith that God will guide our elected officials to do what is in the best interest of this nation.

Of course, not all American evangelicals are fundagelicals any more than all Muslims are Islamic extremists. But lukewarm evangelicals (like the Islamists) are more likely to vote for their own kind -- even if extremist -- than the opposition.

What do fundagelicals instinctively oppose? Gay marriage, abortion, gun control, taxes, the UN (and the currently top-rated candidate for anti-Christ, Kofi Annan), withdrawal from Iraq, Michael Moore, Janet Jackson's left breast.

What do they believe in? Christian values and the future as foretold in the Book of Revelation. According to a Time Magazine poll (which strains credulity but seems to be valid) 59% of Americans trust that St John's prophecies will be fulfilled -- probably during their lifetime. November could be a last opportunity to vote for God's preferred candidate. Iraq (ancient Babylon) figures centrally in the fundagelist vision of things, as does the Rapture, and the imminent mass conversion of the Jews (hence fundagelist-Zionism).

Bush professes value for life (and so opposes abortion and stem-cell research), but inflicts selective death (in death-penalty support, military adventures and civilian casualties). He supports limited government (and so opposes national health care), but uses federal power when it suits (and so blocks environmental protection in Oregon, atheistic language in California and perhaps same-sex marriage everywhere). He speaks highly of human rights, but denies prisoners access to counsel, trial or public voice in Guantanamo Bay....

What is Bush's overall ethical world view? He is a conservative, yes, but also a blind, deceitful ideologue about Iraq. He speaks of duty, but makes consequential calculations when it suits. He demonizes "evildoers" in the name of Christian belief, but is open to negotiation on the sacredness of life and the value of individual freedom. Indeed, Bush often trumpets his Christianity, but he really resembles the Manicheans, the early-church heretics condemned by Saint Augustine because their good-versus-evil world view undermines personal responsibility.

There's only one way to prevent this tragedy from occurring in the future -- and that is to stop the ridiculous, politically correct social engineering that places young women in harm's way in America's military conflicts.

It's time to stop the madness.

It's simply inconceivable that our nation would deliberately subject women to such horrors -- and risk the very military objectives for which the women are assigned. In a time of war like this, we should be able to see more clearly than usual that the No. 1 priority for the U.S. military is to defend the country by winning victories on the battlefield, not serving as an equal-opportunity employer.

It's considered unfashionable to make such statements anymore, so I guess I'll have to be the one to say it: Women don't belong on warships, let alone in command of them. Women don't belong in the cockpits of fighter planes and bombers that can be shot down over enemy territory. Women don't belong on the front lines in any military capacity. There, I said it.

I don't say this because I am a male chauvinist. I say it because I treasure and honor women. I have the utmost respect for women -- just ask my wife and my five daughters. In fact, it is partially because of that respect that I think it is nothing short of insane to put women at risk on the front lines of war.

What is most striking about the ghoulish March for Women's Lives is not that it was a heavily attended rally in favor of abortion rights. Rather, it is its massive "blue"-state-style effort to take abortion from the pitiful shadows of human history to a place in the cultural sun where it is meant to exist as a sacred right of enlightened womanhood -- something to celebrate. And this the Post style piece does with gusto, with its protest idyll of "happy, combative squeals," Powerpuff Girls, their "best boyfriends and husbands ever (with) perfect three-day stubble," and a Gloria Steinem who "practically glowed."

Maybe it is one thing to wrangle over the moral and spiritual price of abortion; it is very much another to elevate abortion into a cause for righteous glee as the March for Women's Lives did. "Carole King came on just as the wind picked up, and reminded the crowd, a capella, what it feels like when the earth moves under your feet," the Post wrote in closing, waxing dangerously lyrical. "Such an old chestnut, this endless abortion debate, yet it all sounded somehow renewed."

Whether this triggers a blue-state tingle, or a red-state chill, is there anyone who thinks the ultimate image of abortion is renewal?