Of course, the lefties like Greenwald, will go berserk because this smacks of classic "imperialism", but I believe the pragmatists like Hillary, Biden, and 80% of the American people will see this as the best deal we can cut and it will prevail.

Could you please explain this characterization of GG as a lefty? Have I missed his pounding the blog for a command-and-control economy, centralized planning, and nationalization of all industry? Was I absent the day he demanded cradle-to-grave entitlements for all persons in the U.S., including cable TV, and paying single women to have as many children as they like at $2000 a month per babe? Perhaps I over-looked his embarrassing effusions of hagiography regarding the wisdom and insight of Stalin, Castro and Hugo Chavez?

Seriously, I constantly encounter many on "left" and "right" making assumptions about Glenn's political posture which he himself has never claimed. So where exactly do YOU get off being so sure he is a lefty," or that only those go "berserk" about imperialism?

The only thing funnier than hagiography in this context is demonology, and who better than Mona to supply it?

Excuse me? Who did I "demonize?" Further, I said nothing about FDR -- he was not a Communist, and thus not given to centralized planning of the economy. I'd call him a liberal, not a lefty.

My point was and is that based on no knowledge of where Glenn stands on the issues and persons I invoked, this rtf 100 and others label him a lefty, or even a "Democratic operative." Well then, I guess I'm those things as well, since I agree with 95% of Glenn's substantive points. So, I would like to know on what basis -- other than Glenn's opposing the Iraq War and Bush/the neocons -- rtf 100 designates Glenn a "lefty?"

Do you, WT, not think that is an interesting question?

Welcome to my world Mona. You better learn how to duck.

Thank you, but you'd be surprised at the ducking practice I've had for decades. Imagine living in a smallish Midwestern town (pop 50K) in the 80s, and loudly advocating for gay rights and the end to drug prohibition -- during the heyday of Ron and Nancy's "Just Say No" ramped up drug war with the new office of "Drug Czar," and with AIDS scaring the crap out of the public re: homosexuals. Further, I did not want to impeach Earl Warren, and liked the civil libertarian rulings from "liberal" courts; never was I a "law and order" conservative.

I was considered a dreaded "liberal" by many back then. Sodomy laws were still enforced against gays, and Will and Grace was nowhere on the horizon, much less gay marriage. There is a reason I never joined the Republican Party.

And yes, your question was an interesting one, but Glenn -- wisely, I think -- has steadfastly refused to answer

I didn't ask Glenn, and have no need to. My inquiry was directed at rtf 100, and others like him who label Glenn a "lefty."

As for this: I'd have more sympathy for you if you hadn't thought of these folks as your friends and allies for so long,

That depends on what you mean by "allies for so long." I stopped voting after Reagan (because he didn't do what he said he would, and instead ramped up the police state with the effing drug war by putting it on steroids, among other sins) and focused on issues advocacy. I did vote for Bush in '04, for reasons about which I have already extensively made effusive mea culpas. If only the Schiavo atrocity had occurred before that election; that travesty began to deprogram my post-911 psychosis, as I saw "libertarian" Bush supporters get all on board with that deranged, religion-driven moral panic that threatened the very rule of law and sovereignty of state courts on such end-of-life issues.

My point was only that [Glenn] is wise to restrict the content of his posts to that which is relevant to the point he is making. Folks who for ideological reasons wish to draw broader inferences than are warranted by the evidence, or simply wish to be overbearing jerks, are certainly welcome to do so, don't you think?

Well, sure; ain't no law against it(nor should there be). But don't you think it is pretty hilarious that rtf 100 and others have -- all over the intertubes -- derided Glenn as some sort of radical, raging, Commiesymp leftist based only on his blog record and his published books? Glenn doesn't quote Marx or even Chomsky; he repeatedly makes recourse to Publius and Tom Paine. How, then, does anything in his written record justify this ubiquitous assertion that he is "far left," other than that must now mean "opposes Bush and neocons?" THAT was my point. And I think taunting the rtf 100s of this world to address that issue serves a purpose.

To give perverse credit where it is due, Donohue strongly supported the suppression of the Danish Cartoons and agreed they should not be published; with a caveat that he, of course, deplored the violence. He was wrong -- those Cartoons should have been broadcast far and wide after they came to have incontrovertible news value for setting of riots in many parts of the world. But Donohue and Islamofascists understand each other perfectly.

About the term "Islamofascist," I never employ it save with an explanation, in order not to give aid and comfort to the morons on the right who misuse it. Islamofascism can properly be understood as a species of "clerical fascism," which has been an academic term of art since at least the 1920s. Non-bigoted academics will, in fact, use the term in that fashion, as well as refer to Xian Reconstructionists as fascists, which they are.