I've been reading about the outrageousness of today's editorials the NYTimes. So I went to see the elephant. It's worse than I thought. Even Tom Friedman is hung up on having the U.N.'s approval before we can deal with Saddam. It would be funny if so many people didn't rely on the Times to do their thinking for them.

What do any of these people know about what it takes to mount a real response to 9/11? Or whether the president has sufficient evidence?

I first became aware of Friedman when he was a guest on the Charlie Rose program shortly after that date, along with Bernard Lewis. By comparison, Friedman's knowledge and understanding of the Middle East is shallow, and he can't seem to ever really get below the surface.

I then read this letter regarding an earlier report about Jane Fonda's having "deeply offended even those who opposed the war [in Vietnam]."

The writer comments:

Actually, many of us in the 1970's were fortified by her outspokenness against the war in Vietnam.

I never doubted her sincerity in bringing the truth to the American people.

Among today's actors, Martin Sheen has protested United States aggression for years, standing strong with peace activists around the country.

Funny, all I remember today is what the POW's thought of her.