HANNITY: Last question. Is the "Obama doctrine" a doctrine of appeasement?

BOLTON: I think it is, and I think it's an election issue. It should be.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356708,00.html

Now what were you saying?

And if you want to try to convince people that Bolton's book title wasn't characterizing those with different views as wanting "surrender," feel free. You can talk about how Bolton decided to write a book arguing that "surrender is not an option" without suggesting anyone was actually advocating it as an option. What an odd thing to do -- write a whole book arguing against X, even though nobody is advocating X.

I've criticized Obama for his war policies and specifically asked (a) whether "chicken hawk" epithets applied to right-wing war supporters also apply to those supporting the war in Afghanistan without serving and (b) if the Right are cowards for opposing the trial of KSM, what are Obama and Holder for opposing trials for large numbers of detainees?

Nonetheless, Obama does not run around advocating one war after the next - Bolton not only supported the war in Iraq but also advocated bombing of Iran (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/sep/30/conservatives.iran); Obama does not traffic in the language of self-proclaimed toughness, courage, appeasement, surrender and the like; Obama has not argued against trials on the ground that he's too scared to be in the same city as terrorist suspects; he doesn't write book accusing people of surrender and giving interviews accusing others of "appeasement." When it comes to desperate attempts to prove one's own strength and courage, there is no comparison between Bolton and Obama -- or between Bolton and virtually anyone else not employed at the Weekly Standard, National Review or by the Podhoretz family.

Finally, the vast majority of what I write these days is about the Obama administration, often critically. If you want to try to convince people that I choose topics based on what's easiest for a so-called "liberal columnist" to write about -- or that I only criticize easy targets -- feel free to try to make the case. I think you'll have an even more difficult time with that than with the claim that Bolton didn't suggest anyone was advocating "surrender" when he entitled his book: "Surrender is Not an Option."

There are multiple issues -- not just one -- that one can discuss surrounding these topics:

(1) Is it rational to be frightened about having a terrorism trial in New York?

(2) Do conservatives stand for strength and courage, and in opposition to cowardice and surrender, as they claim?

I think both topics are relevant and important. This post is about (2). For those who think that only (1) matters and who don't want to read about (2), great: ignore this one and go look at the multiple posts I've written over the week that pertain directly to (1). If you don't care about a particular issue, nobody is forcing you to read about it.

That said, I think whether a certain position -- "we're too scared to have terrorist trials" -- is reflective of cowardice and surrender matters in deciding whether to adopt it, so this post is really about (1) and (2). I also include arguments in this very post refuting Bolton's fear (that many other large cities have held terrorist trials without problems). Still, the cowardice of the Right is a worthwhile topic unto itself.

I'm always amazed that there are people who think the Right should be able to run around accusing everyone of being cowardly, surrender-happy Neville Chamberlains, and who get so upset when it's pointed out that these conservatives are actually guilty of the accusations they spew at others. It's almost as though some people think that if they shut their eyes and pretend that unpleasant political rhetoric doesn't exist, then it will just fade away.

Although the central theme of your article was the lament over this administration's continuing the Stalinist practices of the last, and you certainly are entitled to some speculation, I doubt you would give [insert ideological opponent here] the same latitude.

Excerpt the sentences where I "speculated" about why Carter resigned.

Then read peakDavid's comment above because it applies every bit as much to you.

Need to forcefully lay out that this is an article about policy contrast, eliminate any just saying garbage.

I actually think the problem is that you don't know how to read. There is no way within the confines of the English language to make these points clearer -- the very ones you claim I didn't make but should have:

Carter said he was resigning due to "personal issue," and -- like Greg Craig before him -- remained loyal to Obama by refraining from criticizing any administration policies. I have no idea what actually motivated Carter's abrupt resignation, but here's what I do know: so many of the detention and other "War on Terror" policies Obama has explicitly adopted were the very same ones which Carter (as well as Obama) repeatedly railed against during the Bush years, in Carter's case primarily in blogs he maintained both at The Washington Post and at Slate. . . . As I said, I have no idea whether any of this played a role in Carter's resignation, and it's certainly possible that loyalty to Obama would prevent him from voicing these complaints. But what is abundantly clear is that many (though not all) of the Bush/Cheney policies which Carter found most offensive are ones which the new administration has explicitly adopted as its own.

I even repeated it ("As I said . . . ") for people like you who I knew would miss it the first time. Virtually every article reporting on his resignation has tried to imply a connection between Obama's detention policies and his resignation. I went out of my way to explicitly disclaim any knowledge of such a connection, focusing instead in the conflicts between Carter's views and Obama's policies - exactly that which you lament so sadly and regretfully I did not do.