War generates a lot of great writing. War also generates a lot of bad writing. War just generates a lot of writing.

For example, in a March 8 article from Counterpunch.org, the monotonously anti-Western essayist Edward Said tells us – amid his usual 1,616-word cascade of unsupported screed – “Wherever you look in the Congress there are the tell-tale signs either of the Zionist lobby, the right-wing Christians or the military-industrial complex….” He also calls his critics “illiterate” and informs us that, “It is no exaggeration to say that this war is the most unpopular in modern history.” Really? More people were in favor of, say, the 1994 Rwandan slaughter in which half a million Tutsis were massacred?

At the other end of the political spectrum perches columnist Cal Thomas, who, in an April 8 column informs us that, “From Hollywood's Martin Sheen and Michael Moore to European `leaders,' the United Nations and aging peaceniks and their illegitimate progeny, the left has suffered a stunning defeat. These losers were wrong from the beginning because their view of humanity and of good and evil is flawed.”

As usual, Thomas gloats readily and ignores about 62 percent of the argument. Virtually no one doubted we'd win this thing. Most critics focused on the long aftermath and how well this will sit with the rest of the world. It could all work out fine, but we don't know that yet. In 10 years, will Iraqis be dancing in the streets for their Muslim fundamentalist “liberators,” just as they danced for us and, mere weeks before that, Saddam?

I bring all this up because, over the last few months, this newspaper has trekked through a blizzard of letters for publication, many of which share these rhetorical tendencies – Said's cynicism and sheer length, Thomas' gloating glibness. I need to reiterate a few house rules around here:

The word limit on letters is 250, no matter who you are. Those who ignore that rule are insulting me personally.

Do you think I am placed here merely to amplify your brilliance and make you an exception? No. I am an angry, frustrated man whom you've probably cursed as I've blown past you in traffic. I will not recognize your genius. Unless I'm feeling generous enough to cut the necessary number of words from your letter, I will despise you and all your ancestors. Then I'll write “long” on your letter with a red felt-tip pen, put it in the reject file and make a point of forgetting about it forever.

As to long local opinion essays on our op-ed page, we aren't running any about the war. If we printed one, its critics could justifiably demand we print their equally long response. There would be no end to it. So if you don't think you can cover all the points in 250 words, split up the work. Have a friend cover the points you miss.

And consider the Gettysburg Address. Admittedly, it is just over the limit for one of our letters, so my answer to your sarcastic question is no, we wouldn’t print it. But it's instructive that President Lincoln explained the entire Civil War in 266 words. And I can cut it down to 225.

Also, letters have contained many more insults than usual and a great deal more condescension. From my reading, I gather that those in favor of the war have been “sheep,” those against it are “warped” and everyone on both sides of the debate are “morons.” We don't need this. In the newspaper, as on the playground, insults merely attract other insults.

In closing, it occurs to me I have not provided examples of good war writing to offset all this talk of the bad. So let me quote one line from a great war essay, edited for space:

“We here resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of, by and for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

Actually, take out “here,” the second and third “that” and “from the earth,” and I've got it down to 219.