The Goldberg/Ledeen idea that every so often we have to kick the crap out of someone smaller and less powerful than we are to “show the world we mean business” is the mindset of a coward and bully.

As a young boy, I remember two brothers in the neighborhood. The older one wasn’t muscular or in shape and he was constantly beating up younger kids. The younger brother had huge arms, and was in fantastic shape. He never had to beat up anyone to prove anything. He wasn’t the least bit aggressive – he didn’t have to be - he was confident in himself and had no reason to beat anyone up, ever.

The older brother, the bully, was obviously very insecure and constantly needing to prove himself, but never on anyone bigger or older than he was. His aggressiveness was a sign of weakness, lack of self-confidence and cowardice, not strength. He was mean-spirited and small-minded just like Goldberg, Ledeen & Chickenhawks Inc.

This mean-spiritedness is also seen in their cartoon creation of those “who came to be emblematic of their generation.” This cartoon world enables them to cast themselves as "heroes" for aggressively advocating and truly loving war.

By denouncing others as “weak” for not aggressively promoting war, the chickenhawks are diverting the debate from the real question – is this particular war “justified” and was it necessary? That’s what they don’t want to discuss - the lies, the lack of necessity. They prefer to battle in a cartoon world of their own making where they are “strong” and their opponents – for their lack of aggressiveness – are deemed weak.

Now I don’t think “brave” Jonah would fare to well in bout with a black-belt martial arts expert. But poor Jonah (being the insecure coward that he is) just can’t comprehend the mindset of a martial arts expert who doesn’t go around beating up people:

“We are never the attackers, only the defenders. However, one should never take our position of non-aggression as a sign of weakness or cowardness.”

But that is what chickenhawks insist upon doing. And to the extent that they control the debate with “who is a coward” nonsense they avoid the real question about whether such aggressiveness is justified and necessary. And in this case, in this war, it wasn’t and it isn’t. Not all wars are justified or necessary, and none of them are glorious.

The decision to go to war, when it is not justified, is an act of cowardice and stupidity; and those who oppose it are the brave ones, the confident ones, and the “strong” ones.

Gen. Petraeus ought to address questions from someone whose views on the war are representative of those held by the vast majority of Americans, as reflected above

Don’t they have to simply deny the accuracy of these polls? After all, if the administration takes Bill Kristol’s position (that you can’t support the troops without supporting the mission) then they have to concede that: America no longer supports the troops.

Another total reversal in the view of executive power from 1998 and now can be seen in Bush’s recent executive order regarding the continuance of government in the event of a terrorist attack (which revokes Clinton’s previous order).

The administration has just denied Peter DeFazio of Oregon (who is on the Homeland Security Committee) access to see this document.

Can you imagine the uproar if Clinton had a “secret” plan for takeover of the federal government in the even of terrorism and he wouldn’t let a single Republican see it?

Of course, what would have been “unthinkable” under Clinton is taken as “standard operating procedure” under the new dictatorial powers claimed by Bush & Yoo Ltd.

http://www2.boomantribune.com/story/2007/7/22/1567/29184

I'm pretty sure Malkin's other book didn't defend internment simply because someone was of a specific ethnicity but because they may have been sympathizers of a country with which we were at war. Perhaps lawyer/NYT best-selling author Glenn Greenwald might spend more time thinking these things through.

I guess Ronald Reagan didn’t think this through either. He signed legislation that apologized for the internment on behalf of the U.S. government, which, also spent many years thinking it through.

The legislation stated that government actions were based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership",[6] and beginning in 1990, the government paid reparations to surviving internees.

Exactly what Malkin is up to today, attempting to create race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership.

http://www.answers.com/topic/japanese-american-internment

Time Magazine's Joe Klein on Joe Lieberman:

“I could never imagine myself voting against him. But he was profoundly wrong about the most important issue of the past five years.”

No comment from me is necessary, that statement sums it up all too well.

http://thehill.com/josh-marshall/its-all-but-over-for-lieberman-in-connecticut-2006-02-16.html

As Glenn points out, by embracing Hagee, Lieberman is also embracing a war against Iran on “entirely religious and theological (rather than strategic or geoplitical) reasons” – it is thus a “holy war.”

When Muslims justify a war on religious grounds, it is call a jihad, and they are called radical “jihadists” and dismissed as lunatics that we can’t talk to.

Look in the mirror Joe. What you are looking at is what you claim to be fighting.