Here’s what I think is going on:

You are all so used to attacking Republicans etc. that you think there are only us (goodies) or them (baddies) and so when I come along with a third option, your brains start squirming in shock and you try valiantly to squeeze me into the Republican category or the looney category or the Nazi category etc. rather than simply considering what I say.

First, your analytic capabilities are considerably weaker than you seem to realize. We don't attack "Republicans etc." What we attack are ideas that are pernicious, be they Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, or Libertarian (who may be Republicans or Democrats depending on how the mood strikes them at the time). What ideas do we consider pernicious? — Those that are averse to forming a more perfect union, establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. You start with a false premise and, as any student of logic will tell you, from a false premise anything whatsoever follows.

We have considered what you have to say and find it wanting. If you had read the responses to you with a regard to seeing what the criticisms are, rather than merely for the purposes of seeing what people called you, you would realize that we consider your "third option" to be naive, simplistic, and divorced from reality. Your simplistic notion that if everybody were happy the world would be a better place is merely a corollary to "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."

This has happened repeatedly. I’ve been called a neocon, a wingnut, a thinktank member, a Hitler clone, a looney, a treehugging dirty hippie, a moonbat, kooky… It’s freaking bizarre!!! It’s like the robot in Lost In Space getting it’s circuits blown, and throwing its arms about saying, “It does not compute, it does not compute…”

Once again, your inability to understand what has been said is the key to your blown circuits. Yes, various people have called you various things (but no one has called you "a Hitler clone"; that's just wishful thinking on your part). But while people may have called you various things (although in most cases they didn't call you them but merely compared you to them), everyone has told you you were wrong. This seems to be the conclusion that "does not compute" in your Lost-in-Space world. You have, in my opinion, been treated remarkably gently. Many people, even those who are known to have a hair-trigger and not to suffer fools gladly, have taken the time to try to explain to you the flaws in your arguments, but you steadfastly refuse to be swayed by either argument or example.

What’s controversial about thinking big, thinking positive and creating a long term plan? Your responses are very strange.

There is nothing controversial about it (and nobody except you has said that there is). What you have been told, by a number of different people, is that both long-term and short-term plans have been advanced but none have been implemented, or, for that matter, even discussed as if there might be a consideration of implementation. They have universally been denigrated as "not Serious" or simply ignored.

Have you ever heard of the Iraq Study Group (also known, via Atrios, as "the Wise Old Men of Washington")? The ISG was a ten-person bipartisan panel appointed by the US Congress. It studied the situation in Iraq for about 8 months and then issued a report of about 150 pages at the end of 2006. The report is readily available on the web, so anyone who wants to can see it. Chief among the panel's recommendations was that the number of US troops in Iraq be reduced and that the US begin discussions with all of Iraq's neighbors (including Iran and Syria) on the stabilization of Iraq. The immediate response of the Decider-in-Chief (in case you didn't know, the US is now a "decidership") was to increase the number of US troops in Iraq (affectionately known as "the surge") and to begin an intensive campaign of discrediting Iran and Syria. Any plan is only as effective as its implementation.

But this is a political blog, so “us vs them” thinking is to be expected.

Another false premise. There is no "us" here. The people who have criticized you for you naivety and simplicity not infrequently take each other to task over differences of opinion. Most of them have even taken Glenn to task at one time or another in the history of the blog, both before and since the Salon days. But mostly we will agree with Glenn because he has analytical skills that far exceed those that you have demonstrated so far. In fact, one of Glenn's major complaints about commentary on his blog is about people who don't read what he has said but instead reply to what they think he has said or what they want him to have said, usually based on their faulty analysis or lack of reading comprehension skills.

One of the aphorisms that Aycharaych left out of his compilation of corollaries to Murphy's Law the other day is this: "Anyone who thinks he knows what is going on just doesn't understand the situation." That, in a very few words, is you to a T.