we are profoundly disturbed by your continuing efforts to smear ADL as being "extremely reluctant" to condemn Nazi/Hitler attacks emanating from the political right.

If they are so “profoundly disturbed” by the accusation, then why do they remain “extremely reluctant” to condemn these attacks?

Although this really goes without saying, I’m going to say it: it would be extremely easy for them to end this controversy by simply coming out and condemning O’Reilly for his repeated Nazi/Hitler attacks.

It would be much simpler, in fact, than responding the way they did to Glenn, which only serves to keep the controversy alive while simultaneously underscoring and reinforcing Glenn’s point.

That they go to such lengths to avoid a single criticism of Mr. O’Reilly while being extremely quick to condemn Move On (for a comparison not sanctioned by them and immediately removed) speaks volumes on this issue.

O’Reilly is perfectly safe from criticism from ADL for his continued use of Nazi/Hitler comparisons – and he knows it. That is the underlying (if not intentional) message that their response to Glenn gives him and others on the right who support a war against Iran.

But if people are beaten so bloodlessly that they don't feel beaten, and have no real reason to dread a confrontation with the United States, is this really a good thing?

By Glenn “the more blood the better” Reynolds’ standard, Blackwater’s indiscriminate killings (lots of blood) have been good for the mission because other countries after witnessing these horrors will “dread a confrontation” with the U.S.

But does being “bloodthirsty” really help the mission?

Brookings scholar P.W. Singer came to the exact opposite conclusion – that, in fact, Blackwater’s bloodiness undermined the mission because they:

Inflamed popular opinion against, rather than for, the American mission through operational practices that ignore the fundamental lessons of counterinsurgency.

- Participated in a series of abuses that have undermined efforts at winning ‘hearts and minds’ of the Iraqi people.

- Weakened American efforts in the ‘war of ideas’ both inside Iraq and beyond.

- Revealed a double standard towards Iraqi civilian institutions that undermines efforts to build up these very same institutions, another key lesson of counterinsurgency.

- Forced policymakers to jettison strategies designed to win the counterinsurgency on multiple occasions, before they even had a chance to succeed.

All those criticism apply equally to people like Glenn Reynolds who have condoned, encouraged and even reveled in such abuses not only by Blackwater, but by our troops.

Our “bloodthirsty” cheerleaders have done a great deal to make our mission more difficult and weakened - not strengthened – our future efforts to influence events beyond Iraq.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/09/rohrabacher-prince-hero/

Until 9/11, almost all of the items Edwards mentioned were considered (in the words of Thomas Jefferson) “essential principles of our government” and now, in just six short years, those “essential principles” says Bill O’Reilly, “can be easily branded as soft on terrorism.”

That O’Reilly can publicly condemn all the basic principles that our nation once stood for and promoted in the world says a lot about just how successful the fear campaign of Fox News and the right has been.

We were once proud of those principles and now we’re supposed to be ashamed of them because they represent cowardice and “softness” in the war on terror.

If O’Reilly were to look around the world at countries that embrace the principles he endorses – no habeus corpus, phone surveillance without oversight, coerced interrogations - he might not want to brag about the company that he keeps. I doubt he could find a democracy among them.

So last night O’Reilly condemned "soft on terrorism" John Edwards for supporting Habeus Corpus.

But just a few days ago (in the process of condemning Bruce Springsteen) he insisted that there had been no violations of Habeus Corpus:

However, I don't respect the dissent unless Springsteen can back up his opinions with facts. Violations of Habeas Corpus, Bruce? When and where?

That sounds like Bill supports Habeus Corpus, which, he insists, hasn’t been violated.

Which is it Bill? If you support Habeus Corpus and there have been no violations of Habeus Corpus, then why are you condemning Edwards for advocating Habeus Corpus?

Obviously Mr. “Talking Points” can’t keep his talking points straight.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299126,00.html

"Talking Points" believes most Americans reject that foolishness.

We need to keep in mind that when Bill O’Reilly talks about “most Americans” that he’s usually referring to 27% who still support Bush.

The most recent Rasmussen poll showed that the national general election “most Americans” preferred the “foolishness” of Edwards to the oh-so-serious GOP candidates with Edwards leading Giuliani (49% to 41%) and Thompson (49% to 35%).

And on the subject of “coerced interrogation” only 27% thought America should feel free to torture those in captivity.

As Scott Horton pointed out, “it is almost exactly the same fraction of the American public which now expresses confidence in Bush’s performance of his job as president.”

Obviously, what “Talking Points” believes, and what “most Americans” actually believe are completely different things.

And that’s been the case for quite some time.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_rasmussen_obama_edwards_v_1.php

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001399