Putz jumps the shark. Again.

The blogosphere is buzzing over Putz's insane assassination rant.

"Glenn Reynolds, wingnut king" - Oliver Willis.
"Be vewy quiet. I'm creating a massively counterproductive international incident" - LGM.
"Childlike" - Yglesias.
"Instapundit calls for death squads" - Atrios.
"Temper-tantrum proned adolescent boys" - Carnacki.
"What's the difference between Glenn Reynolds and Zawahiri?" - Impolitic.

And those were the good reviews.

Anyway, sensing that he's perhaps exposed a little too much of the deranged, mouth-breathing extremist behind the non-partisan curtain, Putz has updated his post.

Actually, I was trying to suggest something well short of massive air strikes, invasion, or giving them the full Atrios treatment. Nor do I think that targeting actual wrongdoers is the same as the 9/11 attacks. But if civilization will not allow itself to respond to the barbarians who are making war on it -- complete with a nuclear weapons program that violates the "international law" usually invoked with such vigor where U.S. actions are concerned, and the fomentation of widespread murder throughout the region -- then civilization will not persist, and barbarism will flourish.

Simply the hysterical rantings of a loon. Now the Iranians are "barbarians" who are "making war" on us (even though our military denies this) and our civilization will collapse if we don't kill their scientists. Excellent.

He continues,

And some of those who are outraged say it's terrible to attack "religious figures and scientists." But wait -- wasn't the left calling American bomb builders "mass murderers?"

Quick quiz: can someone name anyone on "the left" -- anyone -- who has called for the assassination of American "bomb builders" recently? Or ever? You know you're toast when you start inventing lame strawmen to defend your own embarrassing outbursts.

Speaking of which:

But to be clear, I think it's perfectly fine to kill people who are working on atomic bombs for countries -- like Iran -- that have already said that they want to use those bombs against America and its allies, and I think that those who feel otherwise are idiots, and in absolutely no position to strike moral poses. We may wind up doing so via airstrikes, but it would be better to do it in a more selective manner.

In the end, Putz, whose credibility on foreign affairs is objectively poor, resorts to calling those who disagree with his wild theories "idiots" while insisting that (a) it's possible to destroy Iran's nuclear program with airstrikes (b) Iran has declared they want to nuke the United States (c) that it's fine to assassinate civilians of countries that we deem hostile to "America and its allies" because after all (d) it's better if we could just kill the few bad guys we want to kill.

Finally, there's this pathetic whining from the tough guy warblogger.

MORE STILL: Looking at Memeorandum, I notice that many of the lefty websites are unhappy with this post, though their outrage seems a bit forced, and somewhat disconnected from the actual substance of the post. I just wish they could get as exercised about people who want to kill Americans in wholesale lots as they do about my blogging. That wish seems unlikely to be fulfilled, though. But then, they're not the only ones whose thinking on this subject seems rather confused.

Very touching, isn't it? I just wish those mean lefties and the media cared about American lives as deeply as I do, and would join me in my strong, principled call for acts of war against other Arab countries.

Yeah, I don't see any "actual substance" in his post.