Joe Klein issues a challenge to his smart-ass detractors [emphasis added]:

The illiberal left just hates it when I point out that the Democratic Party’s naivete on national security–and the left wing tendency to assume every U.S. military action abroad is criminal–just aren’t very helpful electorally. The fact that I’ve been opposed to the Iraq war ever since this 2002 article in Slate just makes it all the more aggravating. But it’s possible to have been against the war and to hope for the best in Iraq. I’d bet that the overwhelming majority of Americans who now oppose the war are praying for a turn for the better in Iraq. Listening to the leftists, though, it’s easy to assume that they are rooting for an American failure.
And so a challenge to those who slagged me in their comments. Can you honestly say the following:

Even though I disagree with this escalation, I am hoping that General Petraeus succeeds in calming down Baghdad.

I’m looking forward to reading the responses.

Meanwhile: Klein isn’t the only one pushing back. Elsewhere in the leftosphere, individual commenters continue to challenge the questionable but firmly held assumptions of certain bloggers.

For example, there was a very interesting comment left on Abu Aardvark’s blog. AA, whose blog I read for his take on media narratives, wrote about the quickly changing focus of the anger (in the Arab media) over Saddam’s execution. What had started out as “calculated” Iraq-based sectarian rage, AA said, ”conveniently” (for the U.S.) turned to rage at Iran.

To which the commenter replied [emphasis added]:

[quoting AA:] Both comfortably align with American interests as understood by the Bush administration, of course, which is convenient.    

[commenter] Yes it does. You state the obvious. What is less obvious, is why you seem to have a problem with [this alignment with American interests]… maybe I’ve misundertsood what your job is again? I thought you were an expert on public diplomacy?

Here is a case where the interests of a large part of the arab world and the United States coincide, and you seem to be denouncing it as a ploy on the part of Arab Governments and the United States. Isn’t it the goal of public diplomacy to find the common ground and open channels of communication? Or am I missing something? You seem to be sowing the seeds of strife here, to me, and you are jumping through hoops to do it!

This part, for instance:

[quoting AA:] quickly - and largely without explanation - morphed into anger with Iran.

Without explanation? Really? You find it hard to understand why people blame Iran for what the Iranian backed militias in Iraq do? Is that so?

Posted by: Craig | January 07, 2007 at 05:01 AM

As my grandmother used to say: it’s the tone that makes the music (TM).

Lefties interested in making political inroads really should examine their oh-so-20th-century attachment to atonality, and get a little more musical.

A couple of years ago, Bret Stephens, writing in the Wall Street Journal about “Easongate,” made an important observation about this phenomenon (he was talking about  media bias, not about lefties per se, but what he said pertains to our political discourse in general.) 

Stephens nailed defamatory innuendo as the culprit in political discourse.

Whether with malice aforethought or not, Mr. Jordan made a defamatory innuendo. Defamatory innuendo–rather than outright allegation–is the vehicle of mainstream media bias.

This is a crucial insight: it addresses something that all those involved in political discourse (and media critics) should understand—that subtext is at least as important as text in political discourse. (If you want an example, look no further than the flap over John Kerry’s “botched joke.” Even if it was a joke—and I’m willing to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt that it was—it contained a defamatory innuendo. Granted, the innuendo was directed at Bush, not at the troops. But when you use innuendo and your audience misunderstands you, it is you who is to blame, not the audience that doesn’t get the joke. Upshot: when you live in a cocoon, stop saying things that you think “everyone” will understand. “Everyone” doesn’t live inside your cocoon.)

Stephens also commended those present at the Davos conference who directed follow-up questions to Eason Jordan when he made his defamatory innuendo about the American military targeting journalists in Iraq.

Had Mr. Jordan’s innuendo gone unchallenged, it would have served as further proof to the Davos elite of the depths of American perfidy.

Here’s to challenging all faith-based assumptions!