Exit strategies: In a multipart series The Guardian asks leading thinkers how the US can extricate itself from Iraq. A sampling:

Jonathan Schell: "President Bush said recently of the Iraqis, 'It's going to take a while for them to understand what freedom is all about.' Hachim Hassani, a representative of the Iraqi Islamic party, might have been answering him when he commented to the Los Angeles Times, 'The Iraqi people now equate democracy with bloodshed.' Under these circumstances, staying the course cannot benefit Iraq. On the contrary, each additional day that American troops continue to fight in Iraq can only compound the eventual price of the original mistake. More lives, American and Iraqi, will be lost; the society will be disorganised and pulverised; and any chances for a better future will be reduced, not fostered."

Noam Chomsky: "Reparations - not just aid - should be provided by those responsible for devastating Iraqi civilian society by cruel sanctions and military actions, and - together with other criminal states - for supporting Saddam Hussein through his worst atrocities and beyond. That is the minimum that honesty requires."

Howard Zinn: "The truth is, no one knows what will happen if the US withdraws. We face a choice between the certainty of mayhem if we stay and the uncertainty of what will follow if we leave."

Bloggers question Nicholas Berg's death: Many have been picking up on inconsistencies and confusing facts related to the videotaped beheading of American Nicholas Berg, some questioning the timing of its release (while Berg was captured April 10, the airing of the video distracts attention from US abuses at Abu Ghraib, some say) to the theory that Berg was already dead when the taped decapitation occurred.

Youch! A zinger from Thomas Friedman. Behold:

Why, in the face of the Abu Ghraib travesty, wouldn't the administration make some uniquely American gesture? Because these folks have no clue how to export hope. They would never think of saying, "Let's close this prison immediately and reopen it in a month as the Abu Ghraib Technical College for Computer Training — with all the equipment donated by Dell, H.P. and Microsoft." Why didn't the administration ever use 9/11 as a spur to launch a Manhattan project for energy independence and conservation, so we could break out of our addiction to crude oil, slowly disengage from this region and speak truth to fundamentalist regimes, such as Saudi Arabia? (Addicts never tell the truth to their pushers.) Because that might have required a gas tax or a confrontation with the administration's oil moneymen. Why did the administration always — rightly — bash Yasir Arafat, but never lift a finger or utter a word to stop Ariel Sharon's massive building of illegal settlements in the West Bank? Because while that might have earned America credibility in the Middle East, it might have cost the Bush campaign Jewish votes in Florida.

And, of course, why did the president praise Mr. Rumsfeld rather than fire him? Because Karl Rove says to hold the conservative base, you must always appear to be strong, decisive and loyal. It is more important that the president appear to be true to his team than that America appear to be true to its principles.