Everything I write is geared towards activism on Iraq.

It's not so much the Democrats or the Republicans that are the problem as it is foreign policies and imperialism combined with propaganda and the myths and mindsets of American Exceptionalism and entitlement that are the problem.

I think that both you and BTD are well aware of that.

Your work on O'Hanlon alone is more valuable than ALL I have done for a year now.

Here's my point - the point of that work in the short term imo, is to try and make the Dems do the right thing.

You undermine your unparalleled work when you write that this is a fait accompli even if you believe it.

It is your opinion and frankly, a sound one. Probably right. But we can't stop fighting because you are probably right and some will precisely because you ARE Glenn Greenwald.

when atrios says that he thinks that bush will never end the iraq occupation and the Rs will never try to force an end, he's telling the truth as best he can. when glenn says that he thinks the Ds will never try to force an end to the occupation, he's doing the same thing - telling the truth as best as he can.

and i don't think an accurate evaluation of reality affects my willingness to be active in working towards a better outcome... in fact, i think it helps me figure out what actions i want to take.

i do think, as i've said elsewhere, that telling people that what they're doing is useless is demoralizing and can lead to defeatism (this is different than suggesting that there is something else the person could do that one thinks is likely to be more effective).

the fact of the matter is that we really don't know what might end up being critical. i like the story that daniel ellsberg tells about seeing (or reading about?) some young people getting arrested as part of a civil disobediance in protesting the vietnam war.... and it made him think: if he was willing to go to prison, what action could he take to end the war? his answer was the pentagon papers.

If the United States continues to be bogged down in protracted, bloody involvement in Iraq -- and I emphasize what I am about to say -- the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran, and with much of the world of Islam at large.

A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the United States blamed on Iran, culminating in a quote-unquote "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire, eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And, of course, that is just utter b**s*t.  It's an attack made to avoid having the real discussion by  people who must not feel they can make their points fairly and resort to ridiculous  personal attacks to divert the conversation .