Our “civilization warriors” have worked themselves up into such a frenzy that they perceive almost anything as evidence of how close we are to the imposition of “Sharia Law” in the U.S. – including how our cowardly Commander Guy has backed down in the face of Islam, speaking in hushed, “politically correct” terms required by that Islamofascist-loving Karen Hughes. Seriously.

Here’s Diana West from her “Just Shut Up” column in The Jewish World Review:

Or, to put it more elegantly, as did Daniel Pipes: "The Muslim uproar has a goal — to prohibit criticism of Islam by Christians and thereby impose Shariah norms in the West. Should Westerners accept this central tenet of Islamic law, others will surely follow. Retaining free speech about Islam, therefore, represents a critical defense against the imposition of an Islamic order."

The question is, Will we retain our free speech about Islam? Speaking at the United Nations this week, Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf asked the international community to ban the "defamation of Islam" — a rendition of "shut up" that's a constant refrain at the UN — but it looks like mum's already the word. Just read through George W. Bush's address to the world body. "Islamic fascists" are out. "Extremists who use terror as a weapon to create fear" are in.

We probably have presidential pal and roving ambassador Karen Hughes to thank for Mr. Bush's discreet-to-the-point-of-incomprehensible talk. "Diplomats say that Muslims hear [the phrase "Islamic fascists"] as an attack on their religion, thereby validating the extremists' false charge that the United States is at war with Islam," writes Morton Kondracke, explaining Mrs. Hughes' semantic sentiments, which he says have put the kibosh on administration straight talk.

So, according to Pipes, if we don’t insult all Muslims (instead of just the radical, extremist ones) then we giving in to the “Islamic Fascists” and losing the war for our civilization.

Got that? If we don’t insult all Muslims, then criticism of Muslims is “prohibited” and free speech no longer exists.

In Daniel Pipes’ world, Bush should’ve referred to Sattar Abu Risha (the head of the Anbar Salvation Council who he credited for ushering in the “bottom-up reconciliation” in Anbar) as an “Islamic Fascist.”

Yup, I’m sure that would’ve helped.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0906/west092606.php3

I think Mike Godwin needs to add a corollary to his famous law, we just need a name for it:

1) As an online discussion involving Islam grows longer, the probability of someone bringing up Ward Churchill – the least important (and relevant) person in the universe – approaches one.

2) The first person to bring up Ward Churchill (as some sort of representative of any major group or set of ideas in the U.S.) immediately forfeits the argument, exposing himself as an absolute ass.

Churchill's corollary? Hmmm.

If troops want more time at home, Kagan says, there is an easy way to achieve that: "win the war we're fighting."

At the same time, they say this will be a “generational war” that will go on for decades.

If troops can’t come home until they “win” and we know they won’t “win” for many, many years, what’s that going to do to the morale of the troops?

How are we going to get people to join the military if they are confronted with these two seemingly contradictory ideas? Why would they join the military if they know that their needs (to have a family or any sort of life outside of a “permanent war”) are dismissed so cavalierly by “military expert” Fred Kagan.

Some expert.

Nonetheless, I have written many, many times before about the personality types who are warmongers and how the relationship between their personality attributes and their twisted policies. I will definitely continue to do so. – GlennGreenwald

This is what our troll quoted when condemning Glenn about his use of photos, but you’ll notice that Glenn didn’t say “physical attributes,” he said “personality” attributes. Those are two completely different things.

You can be fit, trim and handsome and still have an “authoritarian personality” that has been discussed (and condemned) so much on this blog. An attractive person can espouse very "ugly" authoritarian ideas, and in doing so expose their "personality type."

When Glenn posts photos of all of these war-mongering personalities, it becomes embarrassingly obvious that many of them are not exactly the macho “warriors” that their “manly” rhetoric would have us believe.

If having “muscles” and being able to bench press huge amounts of weight is the qualification for advising us on foreign policy, perhaps we should be listening to the inmates, er, excuse me, “graduates” of the Charm School of Joliet, rather than the American Enterprise Institute.

I don’t care whether someone is skinny, fat, or unattractive to look at; what matters most, and what’s important is the “personality attributes” that Glenn spoke of.

Sometimes you can tell that by how someone looks, and other times, you can be very surprised. It’s Kagan’s rhetoric: his words, his advice, his policies (and their inherent contradictions and hypocrisy) – that exposes his “personality traits” - not his photo.