Thanks Melo.  Boy this thing is really long, and it covers a very wide range of topics, with references to writings that one should really understand better than I do, before commenting.  It would probably take me a week to put together an organized response.

I'm half way through it, and being called away in a few minutes, but will come back and finish it.  One thought I have had that is common throughout my read, is how there is such a different view of the world held by various factions--perhaps it's always been so.  And a second thought is that dialogue between the groups, even in the same country like America, that superciliously belittles the alternate points of view, make it difficult to discuss and reconcile the views--or perhaps find common ground.

Example of different points of view:

Critics of the regime, who seem intent upon discrediting it in every way possible, barely address the question of U.S. vulnerability to retaliation as a result of the regime's seemingly bizarre, and sociopathic, policies.  As a result, the average citizen might well feel assured (however horrified s/he may be by the regime's actions) that in the wake of 9/11, further concern about blowback from U.S. enemies appears to be unfounded.

(Actually I didn't mean to use this as an example of the belittleing, but en passent, "the regime's seemingly bizarre, and sociopathic, policies", this language is a little beyond the pale for me.)  But on to my point on differing world views.  If I interpret this comment correctly, and it's in a context that I think supports my interpretation, this is the view that America is the aggressor; that the US has basically started this whole thing, or at least made it far, far worse than it should be by her actions.

But obviously there is another very legitimate point of view:  America didn't start this "war on terror".  The attacks have been many, and have killed many Americans.  This view lists the attacks, the Cole, the fact that 9/11 was after all the 2nd attack on the World Trade Center.  America tried an approach that viewed these events, like the 1rst WTC attack as "criminal actions".  And the attacks just continued to build.

This was the example of belittling that I was going to use:

With every act of blatant, arrogant dishonesty (the invasion of Iraq),  of open disdain for criticism (the handling of Katrina), of intentionally demonstrative illegality (presidential eavesdropping),  of brutality and ruthlessness (Guantanamo and other institutions of torture),  of disdain for Democratic traditions ( the suspension of habeas corpus under the Patriot Act),  the current regime provides a steady flow of reassurance that it is the worlds toughest gang and can do whatever it likes with impunity.  Daily it proclaims its competence to brutally dominate in a world run by nation-gangs (Huntington's "tribes").

Sorry, I've got to run, I may come back to this.  and I certainly will finish the article.

Parts of this seem to be an feckless polemic.  For example, from the closing two paragraphs:

What will happen when citizens perceive the U.S. juggernaut to be hurtling into a chasm?

Answer: the public will vote the bums out of office.

The public may be confused from time to time, but contrary to the opinions of some political activists, Abraham Lincoln was surely correct: the public is not stupid. We are a social species, and overwhelming evidence indicates that perception and intelligence are not so differentially distributed among us as propagandists would have us believe. We can and must address issues of our survival honestly and realistically, whatever the consequences.

I agree with this.  The people generally make good decisions--not always.  But from 1994 to today, the American public has elected Houses of Congress that are increasingly conservative, and Republican, for six straight elections.  They've done the same in 2 of 3 Presidential elections.  Since 9/11, two victories in the House of Congress, and one in the Presidential election.  And though I can't see how the Democrats could possibly suffer another loss in November of this year,,,,they still have to actually win.  So the author professes to believe the public will make the right choice,,,he/she must realise he is saying the Republican/Conservatives have been the right choice (after all ole Abe would certainly agree six straight victories can't be wrong)--which of course the author is not saying, but it's a non sequitar in the concluding paragraph.

Sorry Melo, I'm sure you're getting much more commedntary than you bargained for.  But I was unable to find the semblence of a working policy that the author wanted to present as an alternative.  And this is the one place where the Democrats may be vulnerable in the '06 elections.  We all wish things were going better, and can see mistakes that have been made.  And maybe their "we can do better" theme may work.   But I'm not sure.  They may need to present solutions and alternatives that can withstand debate,,,,alternatives that will convince people that they have a better way.  But maybe not, too,,,,certainly the Republicans are doing a wonderful job of just screwing  lot of things up.