Just showing the liberal roots he admits to having.

What school teaches people to read only the lines they agree with? I thought enrollment was restricted to Media and Political types who are too stupid to work a real job.

Like CY, I once read Dean's blog regularly. Often he seemed about to slip off a cliff into some sort of alternate reality, but I chalked it up to eccentricity - a trait which I admire within limits. Then last year(IIRC), he lept wholeheartedly off that same cliff pushing some goofball theory that HIV was not the cause of AIDS.

I'm not sure if this latest excursion from reality is blatant traffic-whoring or voices-in-his-head, but for sure his credibility has long since left the building...

Maybe he'll take to pitching Truther stuff? That'll draw the moonbats like flies to honey ;->

To borrow a right-wing rhetorical tactic, what world are you guys living in?

I visit Malkin's blog nearly every day, and she is one of the most virulently anti-muslim writers on the Internet. I've lost count of the number of times she has posted articles about someone doing something bad and ending up with something on the order of, "Oh, and guess what? THEY WERE MUSLIM! Big surprise from 'The Religion of Peace'." Everyone she disagrees with on Muslim-related issues is called the "Dhimmi" this or the "Dhimmi" that.

In the past, say, five months, I'd be willing to bet that she has made dozens of posts that were clearly anti-Muslim: aimed at disproving something some Muslim said or at underscoring her idea that Islam is an inherently violent religion.

I'm not reading just the lines I want to read; I'm looking at the whole thing and saying that the woman is clearly anti-Muslim. I just wish she had the balls to stand behind her rhetoric.

Doc,

If you would be so kind, please link the specific "Anti-Muslim" posts that Malkin has made to support your charge. Esmay was challeged to do so, and he failed to come up with anything.

In my experiences reading her site, she has always seems to use the word "Muslim" in a larger defining context. Just to see for myself, I grabbed her archives for August and looked through the posts. If this is a representative month, it disproves your contention.

Malking goes out of her way to explain that the San Francisco shooting rampage by Omeed Aziz Popal was not the work of a jihadi, but was carried out by a mentally-ill person who happened to be Muslim. Quite an odd opportunity to pass up if she is a blind Muslim hater as you allege.

Other times she does mention Islam mockingly as the "religion of peace" in a context, such as this post where she cites an article about the historical fact of Muslims forcing people of other religions to convert at sword-point. If you read the linked post, you'll see that the criticism is well-warranted in that context.

Malkin also provides coverage of moderate Muslims and ex-Muslims that want to live in peace.

Again, provide a contextual link showing your charges to be true if you are going to make them.

First I would like to comment on the concept of spreading Democracy through the world as the article discussed. I really don't feel that this is a reason to make war or approach a nation with hostile intent. In fact, when our local and national politicians advocate voting for their cause to soak the rich I wonder if Decmocracy is really that good of a system (a concern the Greeks had as well).
But as to the war against Muslims in general. As I recall the best analogy on a Christian level would be the Irish terrorist. But here there goal was negotiable and well known and defined in strict limits. Even so, Christians were pretty much universal in their condemnation of random attacks and were supportive of law enforcement, even if they sympathized with the Irish.
On the other hand, it has been estimated that 10% of the billion plus Muslims are associate with terrorist efforts. About 70% of the remaining are sympathetic to the cause. Little condemnation comes from the Muslim community and the terrorist could be stopped tomorrow if the Muslim communities would come on board. Their cause is also wrapped in the religion and not limited as the Irish. Thus we are at war with Islam despite a small proportion may be in line with us now.
In WWII they recognized the problems that Japanese, German, and Italian individuals might have in loyalty to the cause and limited the freedoms of these groups to reduce problems. It worked. We can do that now and get quick resolution or 5-10 years from now with the consequent protracted pain.
Bush started on the right road in Iraq. He has failed as he has opted for the political theater. This is pretty much what we did with Vietnam. We have tried 50 years of appeasement in the area and have failed. It is time to get mean.

CY:

How about this, where Malkin puts ironic quotes around "insulting Islam," as if Islam cannot be insulted, and she talks about the "global jihadi mob." Or maybe this, in which she refers to the "dhimmi MSM" ("dhimmi", of course, being the twenty-first century equivalent for Malkin of the mid-twentieth century "com symp"). Or this, where she decries "kowtowing to Islamic bullies", or even this, where she makes fun of Islamic anger at the Pope's recent remarks by discounting it as "jihadists' Pope Rage."

And this is in just THE PAST THREE DAYS.

Or how about her whole "Buy Danish" cacaraca?

And it's no fair excluding times when Malkin "just happens to mention" that a culprit is Muslim. The only reason she's mentioning it is because the person is Muslim, and she can't abide that.

Doc

Doc, your really stretching and aren't close to getting anywhere.

Roboert Redicker is in hiding in fear for his life for what the jihadists said was "insulting Islam." Jihadi's made that charge, not Malkin.

Calling someone a "dhimmi" is not an insult to the religion itself, but a charge against those who are submissive to it. Again, not inteh ballpark.

You will notice that Malkin said "Islamic bullies," meaning the extremists, not the religion as a whole, just as she was talking about the rag eof Jihadi's not all of Islam, most of which obviously didn't care.

You've got nothing... except your own seemingly intense dislike for Malkin that has you bending over backwards to attack her for things she patently didn't say.

CY:

You're a writer. You have to know that words have deeper meaning than they might first appear to have--there's connotation as well as denotation.

You're right, of course: Malkin has never come out and written, "I HATE MUSLIMS." But she doesn't need to for her message to come across loud and clear.

Let's look for a moment at the word "dhimmi."

Back in the Bad Old Days, white people who sympathized with the African-American cause were called "nigger lovers." The people who used this phrase didn't mean it kindly; this wasn't like saying someone was an "animal lover" or a "plant lover." The Klan never gave out awards for "nigger lover of the year." This was a phrase used to attack people who practiced racial tolerance.

The phrase itself never would have come into being if the people who used it didn't think that working and socializing with blacks wasn't a bad idea. The idea, in other words, gave rise to the phrase.

The same holds true for "dhimmi." Malkin uses this word as an attack phrase against people she feels have sympathy with the Muslim cause--you say it means "submits to," but Malkin applies it to the New York Times, and nobody with any sanity left thinks that the Times literally submits to--receives its marching orders from--Allah or bin Laden. The Times may indeed be sympathetic to aspects of the Islamic cause, and that, in Malkin's view, is its crime--in the pages of the Times, sometimes Muslims are the good guys.

If Malkin didn't think that being sympathetic with Muslims was a bad idea, she wouldn't have a phrase at hand to attack those who practice this sympathy. It's the "n-word lover" situation all over again, except that Southern crackers at least admitted their prejudice; Malkin refuses.