Well, you've heard by now that Senate leader Harry Reid insulted one of this country's brightest military minds, Marine Corps General Peter Pace -- calling him "incompetent." Let me take a few moments to put this in context.

The problem with Fred Thompson’s “context” is that he dismisses Reid and those who don’t think Pace did a good job as “fringe elements” – while completely ignoring that Bush fired the oh-so-competent Peter Pace. If Reid had called on Bush to fire him, that would be "fringe" but if Bush fires him, no big deal.

If Pace did such a good job, where is the right-wing uproar over Bush firing him? (The argument that Bush didn’t want a confrontation with Congress doesn’t fly since he refuses to fire an even more controversial Gonzalez.)

Once again, it’s the double standard on display. Conservatives (e.g. John McCain) are free to criticize our military and are not condemned when they do so. However, if a Democrat does it, it verges on treason.

I’m pretty sure Glenn will deal with this double standard in his new book, since it certainly fits in with its main topic.

I see ABC News has issued a warning that the Democratic candidates are moving “left” and, gasp, are trying to win the support of the “fringe elements” of the left blogosphere, which will “risk general election support.”

Well, thanks, ABC, but until I see you issue a similar warning to the GOP candidates who are, in fact, supporting policies much more out of the mainstream of popular opinion than anything in left blogosphere, I won’t take this “article” or this sort of reporting any more seriously than the latest link on Drudge or Politico.

Fred Thompson is now running as “Cheney’s candidate” adopting his rhetoric, positions and people, and no one in the MSM is warning him about “doom” or “risk” in the general election for doing so. That’s because in the Beltway universe the 18% of the public who still supports Cheney is considered “mainstream America” and the 82% of Americans who oppose him are the “fringe elements” that are so frightening to them.

Boo.

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3290768

So why is Podhoretz so indifferent to the “wave of anti-Americanism” that will be unleashed by bombing Iran?

I think the answer may lie in term itself that seems to have defined by the neo-conservatives themselves. “Americanism” (as now defined) has become the imperialist views and policies of the neo-conservatives such as Podhoretz and all the policies that flow from that ideology – acceptance of torture, lawlessness and now, genocide. That is what the rest of the world (including our strongest allies) is against.

Anti-Americanism, then, is to a very large extent the revulsion to the ideology of the neo-cons. And since they aren’t going to change their views, they’ll accept this revulsion and confuse the issue by labeling it “anti-Americanism” - thereby making it sound a lot more important than disagreement with the fringe policy positions of AEI and Commentary magazine.

The neo-cons have thus been quite successful in wrapping their ideology in the flag and patriotism. Those Americans who oppose their ideology of imperialism here at home are branded “anti-American” even though their views represent the majority view of America.

Twain’s “war prayer” was quoted earlier in this thread. Twain was denounced as a traitor for opposition to the American empire (the occupation of the Philippines) and he was one of the top leaders in the Anti-Imperialist league. For that opposition, he was of course denounced as “anti-American.”

Here is his response:

"The gospel of monarchical republicanism is 'The King can do no wrong.' We have adopted it with all its servility, with an important change in the wording, 'Our country, right or wrong!' We thrown away the most valuable asset we had---the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he himself) believed them to be wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word; patriotism."

Twain was no traitor, and Podhoretz is no patriot.

Other than Al Gore, who are the politicians who are directly challenging the simpleminded division of Good vs. Evil? Have any of the leading Democratic candidates made this point directly and forcefully? If they have, which one fundamentally challenges this thinking most effectively?

The Republican response, of course, will be to say that anyone who doesn’t hold this “simple-minded view” has forgotten the lessons of 9/11 and fails to understand the enemy we face – and thus, by rejecting the “good vs. evil” mindset, is inherently unqualified to lead this nation. (This is also where they play their "manly man" card about who is tough enough to stand up to the terrorists.)

How does a politician respond to that argument? Isn’t that, ultimately, what this next election will really be about?

Charles Krauthammer, the Podhoretz family and the neo-cons are doing anything and everything possible to foster extremism and encourage more terrorism among Muslim – because they need to justify their own extremism and their own terrorism.

Let’s not kid ourselves. Krauthammer wants to terrorize Muslim countries. That’s what we’d call it if those actions were done to us – “terrorism.”

That’s why they hate us – we are engaging in “terrorism” against them. Why wouldn’t they hate us?

Of course, the neo-cons will say it’s not “terrorism” when we do it because “we’re good and their evil” – it really all comes back to that doesn’t it?

It’s an all-purpose excuse and justification for the most immoral, depraved behavior.