But then Baker loses his mind - it's as if he were suddenly possessed by Grima Wormtongue, or, worse, Noam Chomsky:

We desperately need to find effective ways to engage and comprehend the world beyond the current policy of vengeance and retribution. Media organizations, so effective at transmitting official pronouncements, could start playing a more constructive role by refusing to serve on the Bush administration's news management team and by bringing in smart analysts to tell us what, exactly, Bin Laden is talking about.

No, the current policy of "vengeance and retribution" is EXACTLY what we need to do, and just as importantly, what we need to convey to those who would seek to harm us.

As someone who has studied bin Laden's pronouncements, one of his justifications for 9/11 was the decadence we displayed by not vigorously defending ourselves against earlier attacks. He despised us for what he perceived to be our weak attempts at appeasement. This is at the very core of the illogic of the anti-war argument: we don't fight now to perpetuate an endless war - we fight now to preclude the need for endless war.

The fact that we are, and will continue to, AGGRESSIVELY and tenaciously pursue the annihilation of our enemies is precisely the message we need to convey to bin Laden and his ilk. This pursuit yields double results: each terrorist we kill or imprison is no longer available to harm us, AND, we also send a message that such a course of action will only yield death and defeat to those who might be inclined to follow.

Then Baker-Wormtongue contradicts himself by saying that what we REALLY need is for the media to analyze what bin Laden has to say. I thought we needed to hear it straight from the horse's mouth - we are already getting analysis and summaries.

Which is it? What are these "smart analysts" going to tell us that the current analysts aren't? That bin Laden has a point? That we really ARE decadent, soulless, godless, materialistic parasites upon the planet that deserve to be killed? I have no idea what Baker is trying to say here and it appears he doesn't either. Bin Laden's evil is so obvious and total that there IS no other side here, nor is there the legitimate option of "neutrality" - there is only the option of listening to his vile, noxious logorrhea, then explaining why he and his "ideas" must be wiped from the face of the earth without hesitation or pity.