Claire, I agree with you, but could you point to any foreign policy decision of the past 20 years and say that it was among the proudest moments in U.S. strategic thinking? And what makes you think that anyone in the American foreign policy apparatus has thought half-rationally about anything important during the same period? Today's New York Times tells us that these same busy foreign and defense policy folks are talking about permanent bases in Afghanistan. What a great idea! It's worked so well for us in Saudi Arabia. Even if we were to chase Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, so what? They still have Pakistan. And Yemen and Somalia and plenty of other places. Rather than waste hundreds of American lives trying to defeat the Taliban, let's admit that most of the differences between the Karzai regime and the Taliban are nuances of bestial repression. Let's instead make it clear that if Afghanistan ever again becomes a staging post for violence against the U.S. we will turn the place into a parking lot, and then leave them to live happily ever after.

It doesn't matter if Imam Feisal is or isn't a "moderate" Muslim. Should every Muslim in America have to take a "moderacy" test? What would we do with those who fail? Who would score the test?

America is home to lots of immoderate people, both homegrown and immigrants. P.J. O'Rourke said, "America was founded by religious fanatics with guns."

America should reform its immigration policy, and eliminating family reunification as the motivating principle would be a good start. There are no guarantees, but limiting immigration to those of whatever religion who possess the skills and education our economy needs - imams might not be high on the list - would help keep out those more likely to become disaffected jihadists.

Until and unless the Imam commits a crime - which would include conspiracy to commit terrorism - his rights are indistinguishable from those of native born Americans, including the rights to freedom of association, freedom of religion, and freedom to build a house of worship anywhere the local planning board says it's okay. Islam does need a Reformation, but that gives no more justification to persecute those who reject it than the Christian Reformation did to persecute Catholics.

Waffle waffle waffle waffle. I never liked Howard Dean Mark 1, but at least he never left you in doubt about what he thought. This is pathetic.

Claire, you sound as if you think there is something wrong with being an anachronistic, red-baiting fruitcake. As Barry Goldwater said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." He also said, "Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."

Unfortunately, though, Barry Goldwater, a man of incomparably greater stature than any of the intellectual and moral midgets who now dominate Republican politics, if he were still alive and politically active, would today be derided by these people as a crypto-socialist and - horror! - compromiser, and would probably lose his primary race to some wingnut like J.D. Heyworth. After all, the Goldwater family was closely intertwined with the Udall family (Arizona's Democratic aristocracy), and Barry Goldwater and Mo Udall were close friends. You just can't do that sort of thing nowadays. Goldwater, I'm sure, would be shocked by the misplaced and incoherent extremism of so many of today's Republicans.