Because by my lights, one aspect of adulthood, including genuine male adulthood, is being able to understand that other people will have different views from one's own, and they are entitled to them, and that holding them does not constitute a disqualification of any kind.

Fine. Nicely written. But just as journalism consists of more than writing down what "both" sides say, understanding views different from one's own involves evaluating them as well. Some views are based on stupid misconceptions about reality. Klavan's fiction, and what passes for non-fiction, pander to some of these views.

When you define this post by Glenn as a "cartoon" are you stating that Klavan's childish nonsense and Glenn's writing are equivalent?

I think that is the only mode Klavan writes in. So I would not be too inclined to believe much of anything in his "non-ficiton". From the piece that Gerson referred to earlier:

Leftist movies portraying our troops as reprobates and fools may not make it to the wilds of Nuristan. But you can bet they make it to the headquarters of our enemies and give them encouragement, not to mention ideas. They make our soldiers’ mission harder and increase the danger to their lives. And here’s a funny thing some people in LA may not understand about those lives: they’re real.

This from a guy who has had a couple of books turned into movies. But I guess they were "rightist" movies.

Let's look at material from the beginning and end of your long post from a few pages back. Beginning:

I posted a letter to Glenn, in which I expressed an opinion that his comparison of a brutal suppression of Iranian people by Iranian government with the “suppression” of the “torture photos” by the U.S. government was not appropriate.

End:

If you don’t trust anything that Joscelyn has written in this article, then you would prove my suspicion: you would rather believe a foreign terrorist than a Republican.

In the first quote you , you appear to have misunderstood the article. Glenn did not do what you wrote that he did. You are just making that up, and so it is no surprise that you get attacked for what you write.

In the second quote, you commit a ludicrous logical error; I do not know whether it is intentional or not. It is indeed possible to trust nothing in the article and still not prefer to believe a foreign terrorist over a republican. It should be clear that both republicans and terrorists lie, but neither always lies. If you think that there is a paradox there, you might consider getting an education.

But the natural response to a call for public education is....nothing. Far better to at least get people's attention. Some called "coarse" might bristle, but then think about it.

Apparently he even has legions of people willing, even eager, to make fatuous excuses for him.

But they all sound like "My dog ate my homework." Or actually, "His dog ate his home work." I knew that dog could good for something besides publicity, but let's not mistreat the poor beast.

Well, I think Glennis letting you off easy; I do not know why.

You wrote this:

I want to make sure I understand how these situations are identical and desirable.

Why do you want to do that? Glenn wrote this:

The premise of Thomas' question was compelling and (contrary to Obama's dismissal) directly relevant to Obama's answers: how is it possible for Obama to pay dramatic tribute to the "heartbreaking" impact of that Neda video in bringing to light the injustices of the Iranian Government's conduct while simultaneously suppressing images that do the same with regard to our own Government's conduct?

Whether the situations are "identical" and/or "desirable" has nothing to do with what Glenn wrote. This is often referred to constructing a straw-man, you know, that which is a component of what comes out of the hores's ass.

now that Obama is in charge it's OK for the USA to torture and screw up foriegn policy with most libs at Salon now.

No, not really. Not the impression I get. Prove yourself right.

Now to the crux of my words: When you have lost the moral high ground while claiming devine right, you have lost and the Mulahs have done just that. They don't have the power to control their posse and if they ordered this activity, they have lost all moral standing. They have lost.

Has the US also lost? One has reason and the right to protest torture where ever it happens, but one has greater influence over one's own government. Do you similarly protest what the US has done?

I’m not too sure anyone knows the “right” answer in regard to these hard-core cases, but simply letting them go can’t be in our best interests.

A voice of reason at last! It is indeed so totally obvious that if we continue hold folks we cannot charge or convict, that we will gain the respect of those all over the world who will then be happy to lay down their arms and start an Obama love fest.

There is no way letting them go could ever help convince the world that the US has turned the corner on what the hard left calls the "Bush evil deeds". After all, the world is so totally opposed to Obama, holding him in far lower regard than Bush, there is no point in actually following through on promises he made.

No, it is clear. They (our prisoners) must express joy to sacrifice their freedom so that their countrymen can be happy in their new found understanding of how right it is for the US to pursue its interests with such vision and bold understanding of the World's needs.

QED

I am very hard to please, but I am willing to give him another chance.