my, my. mike yon has a fervent defender. i envy him. (i have one too, but mine has a cooler head.)

but it's interesting how someone can zero in on a word or two and miss the point of a sentence.

so let me say to "huntress":

first, thanks for all the info about mike. however, i based what i wrote only on what he said in the c-span appearance, tho i did include a link to his website for anyone who wants more.

second, i'm going to delete one copy of your comment. you didn't need to post it twice.

third, i have no time to respond to everything in your rambling diatribe, but i will answer a few key points.

..."hawks" and "doves" as you would call them - but I prefer the correct terminalogy - those that lean right politically and those that lean left....

that's incorrect. at various times and places, "hawk" and "dove" get tied to the right and left, but it's not a necessary bond, and it's quite possible to be an independent hawk.

I can support our troops, understand that our enemy wants to kill YOU, and choose to support the use of force to prevent that from happening. That doesn't make me a "hawk" .

again, you're mistaken. supporting the use of force as an instrument of national policy does make you a hawk.

...are you simply so steeped in your biased hatred for the right, that you view anyone who supports our war against an enemy who wants to KILL YOU as being 'hawkish"?

i'm biased, but i don't hate anyone. i disagree with and oppose the right wing on the basis of evidence and reason, not emotion. but, yes, i do "view anyone who supports our war" as hawkish by definition. we make war not on terrorism but on iraq and afghanistan. we fight not defensively but preventively, yet our attempt at prevention only loses us friends, makes us more enemies, and makes us less safe, because it causes suffering and death of innocent folk, like all wars, which is why we must do everything we can to win without fighting and go to war only out of absolute necessity.

I can be fiscally conservative, believe in the importance of a relationship with God, support a womens right to choose, and support gay marriage, while not supporting stem cell research as outlined by the democrats, sI can upport the war against terrorism, and yet donate my time and energy to organizations that work to change the social consciousness through non military options. So am I "right", "left", "hawk' or 'dove'?

tough question. virtually everyone in the country claims to be "fiscally conservative" these days, so it's irrelevant. have you noticed when you pray you talk to yourself? if you oppose embryonic stem cell research, you're somewhat confused, possibly brainwashed. the current "war" against terrorism gets waged in a counterproductive manner that will almost certainly result in devastating blowback over a period lasting several decades, so supporting it enables insanity. congratulations on the rest, two of which are "left," and one of which is "dove," i think.

You pass erroneous judgement on Mike, claiming it to be fact, based on a strategic decision to have this important piece published in The Weekly Standard....

i haven't passed judgment on him at all, certainly not in any negative sense. perhaps if you temporarily suspend your passion and go back and reread both pieces in their entirety, you'll get the context of the introductory remarks that so discombobulate you. as for "claiming it to be fact," no, as i said in my second post, it was my "impression." i've always expressed my opinion freely in this blog and will keep doing so. mike can publish wherever he wants. i only mentioned it because the standard is known to have wanted us to invade iraq very early on—even before bush ran for prez. that, combined with mike's desire for a successful war effort, provides an interesting contrast with what follows it: "...he talked about how bad things are getting in afghanistan and predicted it will get much worse."

you seem to think that's an attack. far from it. i'm glad to see someone with his background realize what's going on.

So your "fact based" pronouncements about where Mikes work has been published have so far been completely wrong..

again, i only went by what he said on c-span. don't take my word for it. listen to the program again if it's still available.

This is why nothing you put forth about AFG or anything else of that matter can be considered with any seriousness.

like when i called him "courageous" and "informed"?

also, see what the CFR's ray takeyh said about opium from afghanistan.

You twist or deny facts to suit YOUR agenda.

my "agenda" is to fight fear and to foster liberty and justice for all. make of it what you will.

i can understand your concern over my opinion. after all, this is such an influential blog. its readers are among the most important residents of the planet.