Dean's World

Your mistake was in thinking Michelle was ever going to do anything other than attack attack attack you for criticizing her. What in her history gave you the idea? We're talking about a woman who actually thinks spending a month or two scanning over mostly secondary sources means she's a historian who knows WW2 better than people who've spent a lifetime reading everything they could get their hands on and still believe there is more to read and know. You actually thought she was going to let you correct her?

How different the American attitude would be if we realized these goons were essentially the arabist wing of the KKK. It's the Klan in turbans trying to get their hands on nukes. It's the worst form of MOB.. Malignant Organized Bigotry.

Brilliantly and eloquently stated.

As I said: Malkin is a celebrity with a bankable persona. She is a character in a game. You are a real person trying to interact with lucrative ongoing business venture as if it were itself a regular person. That's not going to work out.

I'm trying to remember Malkin's reason for not supporting the port deal with the United Arab Emirates. Didn't it have something to do with not being able to trust Arabs--even our moderate Arab allies?

One of the things you said before Dean, was that Malkin listed some irrelevant comments that you wrote to a troll here, highlighting your cursing instead of your arguments. But if you look at the comments she took photos of, you would see that she included comments where you directly linked LGF with the most atrocious anti-American ally behavior and rhetoric. Putting Malkin and Co, with the people you seek to criticize Dean, will not exactly get them on your side. Wasn't this the heart of the argument you sought to make for our Muslim allies, that putting our allies with the people we seek to criticize will not help us or our allies? And you did the exact same thing when you characterized LGF and Malkin as the same or as worse

Few people think you are making this stuff up, Dean. I know, at least, that people who disrespect our Muslim allies exist, like Ralph Peters. Peter who hold American lives greater to such an extent that they are willing to sacrifice our allies, to nobody's gain. Shortsighted in my view. However, just because I don't think you are making this stuff up, doesn't make your characterizations of Malkin and LGF correct. Meaning, justified.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006007.htm

That's the direct link to the page where she listed your comments to that one guy. Just cause I don't want to reprint what you said word for word. But anyways, when you put LGF, JihadWatch, and Jawa Report as being on one side, the opposite side of you, that is setting up the diplomatic channels. This combined with your original post, which detailed what you disliked about people disrespecting our Muslim allies, has a curious effect. Malkin is ostensibly allied with Jawa Report and JihadWatch, primarily because they do focus on the evils of Islam, and not the good of Islam. Malkin sees no need to focus on the good of Islam, when she can focus on good people. If Malkin didn't focus on the good of the people, Dean, then your premise that they woulld believe our allies like Karzai to be liars, would be correct. But it is not correct after all.

So your original post linked Malkin to those who you disliked on the Right, ostensibly your friends. your comments to that one guy, then linked Malkin to her allies, JihadWatch and LGF.

Why am I talking about this here? Simple, I believe. You mentioned comments that you did not list things, correct? The reason why Malkin or LGF says that, is only because if they are going to defend themselves, they want something concrete to defend against. If you are not attacking them, then do not characterize them as being with the side that you dislike Dean.

If I am not wrong, that was your original argument correct, that the Right should not muddle things and mistakenly characterize our allies as being on the side of our enemies by attacking Islam without clarification? Do you not see how similar this was to how you made your point?

I do find it mildly insulting that Dean seems to think anyone who doesn't agree with the answers he has found is a bigot and a traitor.

I am also fairly sure that Dean's tactics of painting those who disagree with him with that brush is counter-productive to the end he wants to achieve, so if we have all made a grevious sin in painting Muslims with too broad a bruch, Dean has committed the same sin in painting those of us who do so with too broad a brush.

My mistake for the 3 comments. However, since this is for Dean's benefit, I'm sure I can get some leniency.

To be fair to dean, I don't think Dean meant it as an accussation against those who disagreed with him, nor did I take it as an accussation against me or others that we were traitors. After all, I did agree with Dean's basic premise that those who are willing to throw Karzai and Maliki under a bus because of X, are in fact somewhat acting in a domestic insurgency path. They try to help, some of them, but they aren't.

It was clear to me, don't know about anyone else, that Dean was raging off at that one person when he used the word traitor. Obviously I didn't like Dean's original comment, but that was because about what he said concerning Malkin and Muslims. Dean didn't use the word traitor in his post just as I wouldn't use the word to characterize skippy-san or Ralph Peters. I believe their policies are an obstacle, not a solution, but I fall far short of believing them traitors. Dean let down the restrictions on the dogs of war for one specific guy, and I think Dean made it clear that his enmity for this "one guy' was specific to that one guy.