So the vicious reputation as wild-eyed and unhinged  might just be that we were just cranky from being woken up prematurely from our afternoon nap?

Stop fighting insurgents and propping up an inherently weak government; and instead concentrate on peacekeeping and neutral mediation.

It is hard to get into something that starts off with such a proposition. That's right out of the Left's manual of 40 years ago.

Of course the question is, what if the other side doesn't want to negotiate?? That is they don't want to negotiate to do anything beyond giving their side time to rearm. See Vietnam. See Palestine. See Lebanon. See Iran.

See OBL's declaration....

REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?

BIN LADIN: .....So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

And just to show you how much nonsense can be spread... read the following.

In cases where a serious insurgency cannot be managed, the state and its supporters might consider an approach designed to deliberately encourage the insurgency to mutate into something less dangerous such as an organized criminal organization. This is never desirable, but there may be rare instances where organized crime is less of a threat than sustained insurgency. Call this strategic methadone

I mean can anyone actually read the above and keep a straight face??? It supposes an insurgency that cannot be managed..... What's that??? Let me tell you. That's an insurgency that is winning. And the strategy is to turn it into a organized criminal organization? Wow and all that.

Hey folks!!! If they had wanted to be a criminal organization that's what they would have been doing. The radical Moslems want power. They want control of nation states, they don't want to sell dope and make lots of money.... They don't want to control Las Vegas..

When I asked Edger for what he would do about the war on terror, he linked the following. Now I know that many of you will think that no one could possibly buy this stuff, but believe me. Edger does.

Let's take a look.

Stop fighting insurgents and propping up an inherently weak government; and instead concentrate on peacekeeping and neutral mediation.

Yes, that is what passes as wisdom... Actually this is right out of the Left's handbook on from the 60's. Surrender, surrender, surrender.

Why? Because the terrorists aren't interested in negotiation beyond what time they can obtain to get more weapons and a more advantageous position. I give you Vietnam, Lebanon, Palestine, North Korea and Iran.

Want more??

In cases where a serious insurgency cannot be managed, the state and its supporters might consider an approach designed to deliberately encourage the insurgency to mutate into something less dangerous such as an organized criminal organization. This is never desirable, but there may be rare instances where organized crime is less of a threat than sustained insurgency. Call this strategic methadone.

Quit laughing. Yes, he really wrote that.

The man actually writes that in a case where the terrorists are winning, the state should deliberately turn them into organized criminals. Hey guy!!! They don't want to run LV or NYC! They want to be the government!!! Do you think these folks are blowing themselves up for MONEY??? Good grief.

But strangely enough, he does recognize one very important point.

But one of the characteristics of this quintessentially psychological method of violence is that its effect is limited to those who know of it. When, for instance, the Viet Cong killed a local political leader, it might have had the desired psychological effect on people in the region, but did little to shape the beliefs, perceptions, or morale of those living far away. Today, information technology amplifies the psychological effects of a terrorist incident by publicizing it to a much wider audience. This includes both satellite, 24-hour media coverage, and, more importantly, the Internet which, Gordon McCormick and Frank Giordano note, "has made symbolic violence a more powerful instrument of insurgent mobilisation than at any time in the past."

Now, since Edger's position is that the bad things the terrorists do are spread and amplified by today's communications, it just follows that anything that helps them is also amplified by today's communications, including psychological help.... That would be anti-war demonstrations.

I don't much like it that he falsely denied that authorship - but Kos contributors who crouch in the cowardice of anonymity do not have much standing to criticize him on that score.

My own working theory till now has been that the anti-Klein sentiment exposes the tyrannical impulses of the American Left. Being a left-leaning journalist is not sufficient, comrade! We demand total unquestioning obedience! You are guilty of deviationism and individualism: Go practice self-criticism until you are prepared to submit to the perfect correctness of the thoughts of Chairman Kos!

The lack of self awareness and the McCathyite language prett much precludes it.

This he quotes from Klien:

The smart stuff [in the left-wing blogs] is being drowned out by a fierce, bullying, often witless tone of intolerance that has overtaken the left-wing sector of the blogosphere. Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices is savaged and ridiculed--especially people like me who often agree with the liberal position but sometimes disagree and are therefore considered traitorously unreliable.

Frum says that's whining, and I guess it is to an extent. But the question is, is it correct??

I give you Edger's rants and Squeaky's on this blog for your consideration.

First, Edger. The subject was different view points and how they should be responded to. That is, of course, free speech.

Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

This is his thinking on why he must do this:

Yes, They are human. But to say that "They are human though, with viewpoints opposed to our own." is to attempt to equate where equating is disingenuous, and deceptive. It is an attempt to legitimize them as holding a "point of view as valid as any other that is worthy of respect and civil debate". They are simply predatory murderers in my view. That is my view, and it has been strengthened, not weakened, by interaction with them. A court of law would not "debate" with an accused murderer against whom there is overwhlming evidence of guilt that his defence should be that it was his "opinion" that it was ok for him to murder, and neither will I.

Squeaky takes a different viewpoint.

Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

I have used this many times as an example. Squeaky has complained that it is out of context. Yet, he also wrote the following.

ppj does as ppj does (none / 0) (#30)
by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 09:58:35 PM EST
(I had written, he quoted.)So because Rove is doing wrong, it is okay for you to do wrong?

(Squeaky's reply)I have no problem with alleging that Rove's grandparents were Nazi's. Even if they were not, he uses Goebbels' propaganda techniques as a bible and may as well be a born and bred Nazi.

Note that the two quotes are about twenty one months apart and the second just defines his attitude.

So does Klein have a point?

Now remember, Squeaky and Edger routinely use these tactics on me and others they disagree with. I routinely quote the above so that anyone can understand. But the fact is that I am a social liberal, and have also posted support for liberal positions such as NHC, gay rights, women's rights, minority rights, drug law reform, etc... My difference is over the WOT.

But rather than debate the war in a mostly reasonable manner, we have what we have.

What is also more interesting is what I have seen on this blog over the past months. The back and forth's between BTD and Talex, and some others, over how the war should be ended. These tiff's appear to be routed in some past disagreements in KOS, but I think they perfectly exhibit the seriousness both persons take the debate, and how neither appears to be willing to lay down their swords and shields against each other, and work together towards another larger goal.

So is Frum correct? He couch's his conclusion in language designed to make his base happy, but is he correct? Will a small minority break the budding relationship betweem the Demos and the radical Left and hand the election to the Repubs?

I think so. Just as a few "I'd rather be right" Repubs stayed home and elected a Demo Congress in '06, I think a few "I'd rather be right" radical
Lefties will run off enough supporters to elect a Repub Pres and Senate in '08.

For example, not long ago, TL posted on the mess in Darfur.  When I pointed out that nothing less than force was going to make a difference there - and that there's no reason to believe force in Darfur will be a happier thing than force in Iraq - I was met with blank stares.

Many times, there simply are no good answers - simply a selection of less bad ones.  Many here want to believe that if we simply leave Iraq, a blessed time of peace will follow.  They also seem to believe that peace can come to Darfur through some magic of "diplomacy", so long as the "diplomacy" first leaves any level of force off the table as an option.