like the similar one from Rush Limbaugh, which may be the topic of a critically important Congressional vote on Monday -- must not go unanswered by the Congress.

I'm soooo ambivalent about this. The Senate ought not be passing resolutions condemning any group of Americans' political speech. (Ok, I know, maybe a Nazi Bund or something, but I mean in the ordinary course of the political discussion.)

The resolution against MoveOn smacks of McCarthyism, and while I think it is helpful to keep Rush's heinous comments in the spotlight, I'm not comfortable about seeing the Senate go wholesale into the business of condemning political pundits and activists. And there are just a few other issues to which they might be better off dedicating their time.

You see, Fox was right to condemn these generals. As Fox sees it, the only good Arab is a dead Arab. What kind of general would have a problem with the wanton killing of Iraqi's? They must be terrorist-loving subversives. No punishment is severe enough for them!

As Bill O'Reilly knows, dark-skinned people are different. Once in a while you see them in a restaurant, pretending to act like white people, with spoons, forks and all. But that's just to fool us whites. They are actually uncivilized, and their lives are worth less than ours.

So some soldiers kill unarmed Iraqi's to raise their kill count? Fox News doesn't see a problem with that, and neither should our generals. :)

Glenn ignorantly does not seem to understand (or dishonestly pretends not to) the difference between an OPINION piece and a FULL PAGE PERSONAL ATTACK AD. Moreover Col. Hunt's piece does NOT NAME NAMES. It is along the lines: if the shoe fits, wear it. There is absolutely no comparison at all.

This article as well as the recent hysterical attacks on Rush Limbaugh clearly demonstrate the desperation of the radical left, who earlier this summer thought they were in the cat bird's seat and on their way forcing a humiliating defeat upon us in Iraq. But events of September (the Moveon ad versus Gen. Petraeus' brilliant testimony, Ahmedinijad's visit, etc.) blew their dream (our nightmare) completely out of the water.

I'm soooo ambivalent about this. The Senate ought not be passing resolutions condemning any group of Americans' political speech. (Ok, I know, maybe a Nazi Bund or something, but I mean in the ordinary course of the political discussion.)

I understand, but disagree. Generally speaking, there are two ways to diffuse a corrupt argumentative standard -- (1) argue that it is unfair/corrupt/dangerous or (2) take it and apply it to the people wielding it.

In our political culture, tactic (1) -- the more noble one -- does not usually work. It comes off as whiny and weak. The only way to destroy these tactics is to demand their equal application, including to the people who invent and disseminate them.

Ultimately, a bad standard applied only to one side is worse than a bad standard applied equally.

The resolution against MoveOn smacks of McCarthyism, and while I think it is helpful to keep Rush's heinous comments in the spotlight, I'm not comfortable about seeing the Senate go wholesale into the business of condemning political pundits and activists. And there are just a few other issues to which they might be better off dedicating their time.

How about if demanding equal application of the Condemnation Standard is the only way to put a stop to it (which is what I think)? Then would you support that? Assume - as I think is true - that there are only two choices:

(1) Republicans keep using formal governmental condemnation as a political weapon, or

(2) Democrats take the same weapon and apply it to Republicans, thereby eliminating the advantage of this pernicious tool, thereby causing it to end.

Which is better? Clearly, you prefer option (3) -- the weapon is never used at all -- but as the MoveOn vote shows, that is not an option in the real world.

For those who came in late:

It's OK If You're A Republican.

Match their faux outrage to eventually numb the public of this ridiculous and time-wasting political device.

There was a day when Americans were too smart to have even allowed this nonsense to have gained legs. Unfortunately that day isn't today.

Liberals cannot continue to see themselves as "above" these stupid games.

The ONLY way to end the absurdity is by perpetuating it, exhausting it, and making everyone damn sick and tired of it. Apparently we haven't reached that point yet.

Glenn, thanks for linking to this article on FOX.com (and for the brilliant satirical parody of a right wingnut). I obviously ought to read FOX more often first thing in the morning, given that it packs a jolt for my blood pressure that's stronger than caffeine. But this Col. Hunt himself seems like a parody - in effect, he's defining every place in the world where terrorists/insurgents/criminals/outlaws mingle with innocent civilians as a "war zone" where we ought indiscriminately to kill first, ask questions later. That's just nuts.

Also, praising the tactic of "baiting" by leaving ammunition or explosive devices for people to pick up and then shooting whomever does is atrocious - when a country's economy has been wracked by war or sanctions for nearly all of the last 27 years (as Iraq's has been), and a huge percentage of the middle class has fled the country, the average person who is left and is living in poverty is going to pick up anything that they think could be valuable to sell to someone else. His statement that "it worked then [Viet Nam] and it works now" is downright chilling. Indeed, everything worked out so very well in Viet Nam, particularly for the folks in Mi Lay (a place where some rules-of-engagement restraint might have been in order).

It's a good thing that this nutcase Hunt never made it past Colonel before leaving the Army, and probably a tribute to a commanding officer who saw the irresponsible, sadistic and conscienceless streak in him and alerted him that his career path within the military had reached its end.