THE DAILY STANDARD welcomes letters to the editor. Letters will be edited for length and clarity and must include the writer's name, city, and state.

*1* Thomas Joscelyn--for the second time--quite correctly points out that I cited a working relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq in the first edition of my book, Through Our Enemies' Eyes. For the second time, I would like to say clearly, publicly, and unequivocally that I was wrong in that analysis. In the second and greatly expanded version of my book--which will be published in January 2006--I take great pains to identify the errors that I made on this issue, and the overwhelming amount of classified all-source intelligence that proved to me--and the CIA--that the judgments in my first book regarding the existence of a close al Qaeda-Iraq relationship were dead wrong. Once the new edition comes out, Joscelyn can ask the Bush administration why it ignored the data provided them by the CIA, or, alternatively, they can ask George Tenet why he did not deliver the judgment of his officers to the president and his lieutenants. The answer to either question would, I think, be of great interest.

Let me again thank The Weekly Standard for helping me to set the record straight.

--Michael F. Scheuer

*2* I'd like to thank Lt. Kate Thornton Buzicky for her article in The Daily Standard. My son is a plebe at West Point and it's always a pleasure to hear that we have such dedicated and intelligent young people in the Armed Services. Don't let living in Cambridge for three years, amidst a group of people who wouldn't lift a finger to defend their own grandmothers, bother you. There are many of us out here in the hinterlands, even in Blue States like my own New Jersey, who support you and salute you for your service.

--Larry Rosenshein

*3* I'm speechless. Do these people, whom William Kristol calls Pathetic, not understand that AQIZ and the local insurgents have an information campaign as well? A vote like this is a huge propaganda win for our enemies, giving hope to an increasingly demoralized and fractured enemy. They all claim to support the troops, but giving an enemy that we have on the run incentive to hang on is a funny way of showing it.

Semper Fi
--An Infantry Officer in Al Anbar Province

*4* I am a U.S. Army Major currently enrolled in Command and General Staff College. Current curriculum subjects include campaign planning, war termination objectives, and considerations of the U.S. military role in setting the conditions for a successful peace. In class last evening we discussed past U.S. irresolution which has sent messages of weakness and perfidy to our enemies abroad. I brought up the 58-40 vote yesterday and commented on my surprise that there could even be 40 votes, in our Senate, in favor of a timetable for withdrawal. Our success in Iraq will be predicated on conditions on the ground, not on winsome aspirations of those who seemingly do not have the long term national interest at heart. I have areas of disagreement with this president, but admire his tremendous courage and foresight "to continue the mission."

--Sean Higgins

*5* Normally, I would not acknowledge, let alone waste my time on commenting on the derogatory language and crude lies Stephen Schwartz has dished out in his article Europe's Wahhabi Lobby.

Stephen Schwartz has launched a blistering personal attack on the integrity of many dedicated people who have fought against all forms of discrimination, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in the Western world.

Besides ridiculing the noble purpose of OSCE's efforts to highlight the issue of prevailing hatred and discrimination, which all Muslim communities are experiencing, Schwartz picked and chose single sentences out of paragraphs and speeches and then presented these out of context words as proof that Imam Sajjid, CRE Commissioner M.Aziz, Nuzhat Jafri of the Canadian Council of Women, and I are all supporters of extremism, apologists for terrorism, and anti-American.

Nothing can be as preposterous as this propaganda. He even insulted Noam Chomsky in his short conversation with me. He constantly interrupted the meeting, leaving me to wonder what Schwartz's hidden agenda is, who sent him to this conference, and what is his aim in maligning these people en mass.

Contrary to what Schwartz writes about me, I have never presented myself as an expert on Islam. I am not a practicing Muslim, let alone a religious fanatic or part of the Wahhabi movement. I am often at odds with those who claim to represent the "Truth". But I have done a lot of research on discrimination and racism and have written many books on those topics. At present, I am the president of the largest NGO network in Europe, which has over 650 organizations as members.

I have been involved in many of the movements for human rights in Denmark, Scandinavia, and the EU for the last 25 years and no one has ever accused me of the sort of things Schwartz does. Yes, I have been criticized by the authorities for raising my voice in defense of the common man, for equality and a decent society. I also take part in media monitoring to see the trends in the society and I am very concerned the way Western media portrays ethnic minorities, especially Muslim communities. I am proud of my achievements.

I have also condemned all forms of extremism and terrorism in my speeches, interviews to the international media, and writings. I am whole heartedly against religious extremism, fanaticism, or misuse of any religion by its followers, and that includes Islam. In order to judge for themselves your readers can go to bashy.dk and see for themselves what sort of person I am.

As far as Mr. Stephen Schwartz is concerned, I just wish him well, even if he has tried to spread rumors and lies about me and other people whom I respect deeply for their untiring work to create a bridge between diverse communities in Europe. I believe that progressive, thinking people should never label others without knowing them, studying their works closely, and listening to them with an open mind.

--Bashy Quraishy
President of ENAR

Stephen Schwartz responds: I did not "constantly interrupt" the OSCE meeting. I spoke twice, briefly. The complainant here, however, monopolized a great deal of time there. But a question remains: since he admits he is not a Muslim or expert on Islam, what was this individual doing at an OSCE meeting on Islam, speaking as if he were a Muslim? I did not "insult" Chomsky. I said I respected his work on language acquisition, about which I know a great deal more than this itinerant propagandist, but that I rejected the claim that "fundamentalism" is a hate term. As far as picking words and terms out of context, all of the Wahhabi apologists at the Warsaw meeting did precisely that when they spoke about President Bush and American foreign policy. The propagandistic drivel handed out at the conference is all on the web, and easy to find.

*6* I couldn't agree more with Sonny Bunch's Pardon the Quite Frankly. I recently passed on an opportunity to speak on Outside the Lines because the producer wanted me to take a specific position, rather than discuss an issue from both sides. The only thing I would say is to me, sports punditry has become indistinguishable from political punditry, a lot of blow-hards looking to get exposure to ring their cash register.

--Dan Kaplan
Finance Editor
Sports Business Journal

*7* To be blunt, Ross Douthat's article on feminism reads more like a promo than a look at reality. If one wants to see what feminism has created, look at the faces of fifty year old divorced and unmarried women, of which there are a great number, or the women who are confused about their identity and who were lied to by people like "Red Betty" Freidan and Gloria Steinem--who pulled the ultimate betrayal by running off and getting married at 61. If you want the real verdict on the success or failure of feminism, wait until the children who grew up under its narcissistic, father-hating influence start writing.

The 2 year olds who are now in the day-care gulags will one day be asking your heroines some pretty tough and nasty questions like, "Where the hell were you when I was growing up?"

--Gus Owens

*8* As a Canadian reader, I have to take issue with James Thayer's approach in Soft Wood, Hard Dispute.

First, Canadians have fought alongside US troops in Afghanistan since the early days of that conflict, and remain there, eh? Our frigates participated in the prewar blockade of Iraq, and continue antiterrorist patrols. This was not mentioned in the article, presumably because Iraq has since overshadowed that campaign, at least politically. Personally I wish we had the capacity to join the Iraq effort as well, but that would not only have been unpopular in Canada, it would also have been impractical, as our tiny forces were already overstretched in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Yes, the size and composition of the Canadian Forces is inadequate, but that is something they share with their European counterparts, and can't be remedied overnight.

Second, having lost several rounds of appeals at NAFTA and the WTO, the United States has no moral authority to continue the softwood dispute or to keep the fines levied to date. Demand for softwood products is high, due not only to an ongoing construction boom across North America, but also because of the post-hurricane rebuilding efforts underway. These tariffs are hurting American consumers and inflating the cost of American building projects.

Third, the U.S. government's ongoing intransigence in this matter has helped reinforce the widely-held view among Canadians that the United States is a bully that does not honor its agreements. Whatever good will, and there was plenty, that the Canadian public felt for their American neighbors on 9/11 is being frittered away on trade irritants and an apparent U.S. expectation that every aspect of U.S. foreign policy ought to meet with acquiescence and support north of the border. This is ridiculous and counterproductive, and caricatures the underlying strong bilateral relationship that benefits both parties on many levels.

Yes, the last two prime ministers and their administrations have been weak and have at times voiced anti-American sentiments for largely domestic consumption. That anti-Americanism plays well in Canada, however, should give my American friends pause to consider why their neighbors and trading partners to the north are so frustrated with U.S. policies.

Any movement in a conciliatory direction would be most welcomed by those in Canada who, like me, look with respect and fondness on our southern cousins. We wish our anti-American neighbors had less ammunition furnished them by the American administration.

James Rae

*9* I accept The Daily Standard defense of the American side in this bilateral dispute, but I find one sentence in James Thayer's "Soft Wood, Hard Dispute" insulting. The author writes, "And then there's Canada's lack of support in the war against Islamist terrorists." I would direct Mr. Thayer to the Canadian Armed Forces website for information on Canada's participation in said war.

I know further articles critical of Canada will appear in your magazine, but I hope they omit fraudulent smears of the kind used by Thayer

. --M. Fuchs

*10* James Thayer should stick to writing fiction. The dispute over softwood lumber was not settled when Clinton was president and Chretien was prime minister and both were on very good terms. So much for blaming the failure to secure a deal on the poor state of relations between the current administrations in Washington and Canada.

As for Canada not helping the United States in the fight against Islamist terrorists, that is right wing propaganda not supported by fact. Canada has had troops on the ground in Afghanistan fighting alongside the American military for years. In fact, our snipers received recognition from the Pentagon. If Thayer wasn't aware of that, how could he have missed the story aboot the four Canadian soldiers that were killed during a training exercise by an overzealous American pilot in Afghanistan?

Most Canadians did not see a link between al Qaeda and Iraq, which is why we agreed to send troops to Afghanistan, where the real war on terror is being conducted, and not Iraq (which has only now become the second front on the war on terror), which we felt would only fan the flames of extremism.

--M. Lemon