When she debated that giant of conservative thought, Magnum P.I. (Tom Selleck) over the gun control issue. That and her recent excursions into 9/11 conspiracism have made her a likely whipping boy. She is about as leftist as Tom Selleck. In fact, I would wager she clocks higher on the RWA and DSO scales than he does.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

http://www.newsgarden.org/columns/images/jenna.jpg

But I don't want to give away the plot for the political intrigue/spy novel I will never get around to writing.

I use Rosie O'Donnell as the example of all the liberal viewpoints out there? Would that be reasonable Glenn?

I obviously don't think and did not say or imply that these individuals represent "all" right-wing adherents. But the four individuals I chose do happen to be the (a) the author of the most-read right-wing blog on the Internet (Reynolds); (b) a Senior Fellow at the think tank with, by far, the most influence in the Bush administration (Ledeen/AEI); (c) the long-time Editor-in-Chief of the most establishment-boosting publication in the Beltway (Peretz/The New Republic), and (d) a contributor the most influential conservative magazine and son of the Father of Neoconservatism (Podhoretz/National Review/son of Norman).

So while they certainly don't represent all of those on the Right, it's not as if I chose some daytime talk show host whose career consists only of expressing political views on the side. These are all, for better or worse, "conservatives" of substantial influence, with a following, among other conservatives.

If there are any conservative commentators that you would care to disavow and deny that they represent mainstream conservative thought, then by all means HAVE AT IT!!

I for one would love it if more conservatives would disavow dehumanization as a rhetorical tactic. I'd be even happier if they stopped advocating indiscrimate killing as an exercise regimen.

It's not as if any of them are an overweight lesbo who you never found funny in the first place who you know knows nothing 'bout politics and nobody takes seriously and who watches teh friggin' View anyway? it's not like any of them glenn identified ever ruined your image of Betty Rubble as the second hottest cartoon of all time, like Rosie did.

Who the "f" cares about Rosie? And why?

You both missed my rather small point. I don't disagree that many on the right consider Muslims or Arabs "untermenschen," and I completely agree it's absurd for Ledeen to characterize attacking Iraq as an example of his non-racism. I was simply pointing out that in the particular quote Glenn cited, he was not characterizing Arabs as untermenschen, as Glenn implied. That's all.

Nobody missed your point. Your point is just wrong. I did not think, say or "imply" that Ledeen was calling Arabs "untermenschen." He plainly was not doing that in that post. Instead, he was claiming that war opponents believe Arabs are "untermenschen."

That was the whole point of my post. My post did not in way mistake Ledeen's meaning. That's what El Cid explained and why he suggested that you read the post more carefully. The whole premise of the post is that "Ledeen accuses war opponents of viewing Arabs as 'untermenschen'" and the whole rest of the post proceeds from that premise.

Exterminationists in glass McMansions shouldn't throw stones.

Unless said stone throwing is directed at their mirrors.

Shorter typical shooter242 comment:

Sieg Heil!

Here is a transcript of Rosie and Tom's dialogue on the Second Amendment.

http://www.geocities.com/rofaq/nradebate.html

The NRA would do well to drop the Ted Nugents and have a Tom Selleck represent them instead. He's a fairly thoughtful and intelligent fellow. I'm not going to bash Rosie here. Trump already has that job.

Selleck describes himself as "registered independent with a lot of libertarian leanings".

Naturally, the "L" Liibertarians are quick to claim him as one of their own. I'm not convinced he would agree with most of the ALP platform.

http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/tom-selleck.html

Maybe he can run as a Republican in 2008. He's better looking than Fred Thompson.

Glenn... The whole premise of the post is that "Ledeen accuses war opponents of viewing Arabs as 'untermenschen'" and the whole rest of the post proceeds from that premise.

Which is nonsense... That is more the province of the paleocon and isolationist/xenophobic right. The Pat Buchanans and such.

Next expect to hear that "the left" opposes tough immigration policies because we all have pools and landscaping that needs to be done by cheap illegal labor. Anyone here own their own pool? I bet Ledeen does. Does he use chlorine it? You betcha.

There is a cancer growing in the Middle East and threatening to metastasize worldwide. President Bush courageously decided to address this problem head on instead of patching it over with band aids like previous administrations. Proper cancer treatment requires radical surgery, including extirpation of some surrounding healthy tissue. This may be regrettable but it is a necessity nevertheless. Ignorant bystanders witnessing such surgery may carp and cavil that it is cruel and barbaric, but it is surely in the best interests of the patient. This is what Ledeen was trying to convey and his words should not be twisted and ridiculed.

Greenwald is trying to inflate merely bad ideas into outright racism. Not every bad idea is racism. And not all the ideas discussed are bad.

G Reynolds was quoting reader mail anyway, it wasn't his idea. And the aspect he picked up on was the idea that attrition might be in favor of the US. An interesting military idea.

The references are to places that are less wealthy, less secular: cultural differences, not racial differences.

The "limitations of the people in that part of the world" mustn't assumed to be racial, but are usually assumed to be cultural, educational, and religious. If it were racial, it would include Arabs in North America or Europe.

G Reynolds asks, intelligently, what should we do if democracy can't work in Iraq. He answers, less intelligently, that 'more rubble less trouble' might be good. I think there are better answers but the question is sound.

And Reynolds original accusation, that the lack of left criticism of chemical warfare by the insurgents represents a racism (of lower expectations) is harsh, and could be wrong, but is evaded by Greenwalds response.

I'll ask it: "Why haven't you dumped heavily on the insurgents for using chemical weapons?".