I wholeheartedly agree!:

If an American believes that our country is being gravely threatened by the New Nazi Germany in Iran and that nothing short of military action will save us, I would think they would be eager — even feel compelled — to go out and make that case and try to awaken their fellow citizens from their slumber in the face of this Great Persian Threat. And if someone believes that there are traitors in our media — or in our Congress — who should be prosecuted, convicted, and hanged, I would think they would be out making that case by specifcally fingering the Media or Congressional Traitors and specifying the fate they deserve. Those who believe that there are influential people in our political institutions breaking the law and who deserve prosecution ought to make that case clearly.

One of the principal reasons why political extremists are able to masquerade as mainstream figures is because they are permitted to engage in this intellectually dishonest exercise where they advance radical and contemptible ideas only through innuendo and code. Their meaning is clear, but they are able to maintain a safe distance from the arguments they are pushing because they lack the courage to embrace them openly (Michael Rubin: “such things are better discussed in private, and I would be glad to do so”) and are never pressed to be more explicit.

Anyone who mocks the idea of negotiating with Iran while insisting that it is “intolerable” to allow them to acquire nuclear weapons or continue to “meddle” in Iraq should be pressed to say clearly what they do advocate. And those who spew dirty little innuendo about “punishment” and “accountability” for those who “undermine” the war and troop morale or who “give comfort to the enemy” ought to be asked precisely who they mean and what “accountability” they favor exactly.

The fact that an idea is radical or held by a tiny fringe does not prove that it is wrong. But when advocates of such ideas are too afraid to express their ideas honestly and out in the open, that is a pretty compelling sign that even they know how rancid and repugnant those ideas are.

Cowards, the whole lot of them!

(see, it’s not that hard to say what you mean)

And read this on the destructive union of the Christian Right with Straussian Neo-Conservatives. Weep for the future America. As long as these men still have power and credibility, America will be perpetually at war, as we were warned by George Orwell.

In fact, here is Jonah Goldberg, one of the most extreme neo-conservatives on why Iraq:

WHY IRAQ?
So how does all this, or the humble attempt at a history lesson of my last column, justify tearing down the Baghdad regime? Well, I’ve long been an admirer of, if not a full-fledged subscriber to, what I call the “Ledeen Doctrine.” I’m not sure my friend Michael Ledeen will thank me for ascribing authorship to him and he may have only been semi-serious when he crafted it, but here is the bedrock tenet of the Ledeen Doctrine in more or less his own words: “Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.” That’s at least how I remember Michael phrasing it at a speech at the American Enterprise Institute about a decade ago (Ledeen is one of the most entertaining public speakers I’ve ever heard, by the way).

This is neo-conservative doctrine out of their own mouths:

The United States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense.

We needed to go to war with Iraq because we needed to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq made the most sense. What the hell?