And a Happy Monday to all. Harry Reid has said all is lost, so it is time to take it down a notch, get in the wrong frame of mind for the work week, be prepared to do your least and worst, or at least your bare minimum.
Here we go. Now the MSM is going moonbat
NEW YORK As E&P has noted in the past week, the U.S. military has increasingly referred to insurgents in Iraq as "al-Qaeda fighters" or "Qaeda militants." When and why this is happening is not certain, although linking the insurgents to those who attacked us on 9/11 would appear to have certain benefits in the court of public opinion.
In the past, however, both military and outside observers have long stated that so-called "foreign fighters" or members of the group Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia have made up only a tiny fraction of those who are actively battling the U.S. occupation.
This is the kind of thing that you would more likely read at the Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, or the Huffington Post. Of course, the HP has actually crossed over into "journalists," as they have a contract with the AP, and their material is directly linked, particularly their opinion pieces, at Yahoo News.
Now, I wonder where this bit of moonbattery is coming from? It could be, it might, it is! Glenn Greenwald.
That the Bush administration, and specifically its military commanders, decided to begin using the term "Al Qaeda" to designate "anyone and everyeone we fight against or kill in Iraq" is obvious. All of a sudden, every time one of the top military commanders describes our latest operations or quantifies how many we killed, the enemy is referred to, almost exclusively now, as "Al Qaeda."
But what is even more notable is that the establishment press has followed right along, just as enthusiastically. I don’t think the New York Times has published a story about Iraq in the last two weeks without stating that we are killing "Al Qaeda fighters," capturing "Al Qaeda leaders," and every new operation is against "Al Qaeda."
Let the conspiracy theories begin! Because, you know, W has an amazing amount of influence over the top brass at the New York Times.
It couldn’t possibly because the military commanders in Iraq are actually, you know, seeing that actual and self styled al Qaeda members are being killed en masse in Iraq, a battlefield of our choosing? One where Islamic terrorists can easily get to, so we can kill or capture them? One which is a lot easier for our forces to operate in, rather then the mountains of Afghanistan? One where we can get our troops into easily, and operate off carriers and other bases in the region, without the need for overflight permission?
But, you know, the Left will do anything to destroy our ability to win in Iraq and in the war on terror as long as a Republican is in office. James Joyner at Outside the Beltway has an interesting article along those lines, as does Confederate Yankee.
I suppose it is easier for Democrats to believe in a conspiracy then admit the reality of their dark appeasement thoughts. Like the US military, which has specifically been targeting foreign fighters, killing 90 fighters linked to al Qaeda. Has to be fake, right? BushCo pushing their Illuminati agenda. Of course, if you go back through the Defend America archives, you will find references to al Qaeda going back a long time.
PS: I knew I should have gone with the "Appeasement" poster for today, rather then the "Madness" one. Glenn is over at the HuffPuff discussing "discussions" with Iran in typical disturbing liberal/progressive/surrender monkey fashion.
The simplistic and moralistic Bush mind-set — by which even the most vexing problems and complex conflicts are reduced to a contest of "strength" in the face of Evil — can perhaps be seen most clearly in the president’s treatment of Iran. Throughout 2006, the president’s Iran policy became mindlessly antagonistic, and was reduced eventually to the point where it was shaped by a handful of absolutist and moralistic premises which bordered on the cartoonish. Bush’s perspective amounts to this:
Yes, because we should treat tin pot dictators, hell bent on world wide Islamic rule, the destruction of Israel and Western culture, as well as aquisition of nuclear weapons, with kid gloves. This is why those on the left are seen as weak on national security.
As also typical, we need to debate this and debate that, put it in some focus groups, find out which meme plays well to the enlightened audiences in San Francisco, see how many shades of grey we can paint the issue with. Complex it up. I will never understand the liberal mindset in making a simple problem amazingly complex. I suspect it has something to do with making sure that people, even those on their own side, do not know how namby pamby they really are these days. I doubt Harry Truman, or FDR prior to his passing, considered the use of the A bomb in such varying shades of grey. Appeasment seems to be built into the mindset of todays liberals. Apparently, strength in the face of evil is a bad thing.
Send a trackback to this post, but don’t forget to link it. Otherwise the aliens might come get ya.