Good Ol' CNN

So in coverage of the current clash between Moqtada al-Sadr's shiite militia against the US and Iraqi troops, CNN is referring to the militia members as "outlaws". Not outlaws, mind you, but "outlaws". Members of an illegal militia dedicated to the overthrow of the legal government of Iraq are "outlaws". Meanwhile, mostly-foreign al-Qaeda-in-Iraq members are boldly proclaimed as insurgents, rebels, guerillas, fighters, or any host of names other than "terrorist". With or without the scare quotes.

Disgusting. Predictable, but disgusting.

Update: Here's a screen capture of it for when this inevitably goes down the memory-hole:

Hottest. Actress. Ever.

Now, I've gone on record as saying that Angelina Jolie is not particularly my "cup of tea". There's no denying that she's got all the bits n' pieces in all the right places, of course, but the big-lipped (and big-foreheaded) thing has never been what turned my crank. That, on top of the fact that she has always been just plain weird, and weird definitely doesn't do it for me.

But with news that she visited Iraq, actually kept here eyes and mind genuinely open, and has recognized both the success of the surge AND the benefit of a longer-term US troop presence, she is now officially at the top of my list of my Hottest Women in Showbiz. Reportedly, Ms. Jolie is a fan of Ayn Rand. I can't say I'm much of one, but it looks like Objectivism is at least making an impact on her. One can only wonder if she will endorse John McCain.

Now I can only hope that Kate Beckinsale makes a similar statement so she can go back to being my number one.

Worth A Thousand Words

Michael Yon, who deserves the title "MVP" in the realm of photojournalism if anyone ever did, snapped the above picture of Muslims and Christians working together to replace the recently-removed-from-storage cross on top of St. John's Church in Baghdad. Glenn Reynolds opines, rightly so, that if this were a just world, Yon would be a shoo-in for the Pulitzer. There are certainly the nascent rumblings of a blogospheric movement afoot, to provide the word-of-mouth recognition to the legacy media so that this picture, and Yon's work in general, gains such distinctions and accolades.

Here, however, is what I predict: if sufficient noise is raised, expect the following response from the powers-that-be: "While Mr. Yon's work is excellent, we of the Pulitzer Committee feel that the Iraq issue has passed from the limelight as a relevant, salient issue for today's ever-changing geopolitical climate. So instead, we decided to award Al Gore for his self-portrait photograph of himself courageously holding aloft his own Nobel Peace Prize." Because, you know, if we're winning, it's not news.

General Betray Whom?

Much has been written in the last couple of weeks about the MoveOn.org ad placed in the New York Times on the day of General Petraeus' testimony before Congress regarding the progress of the surge in Iraq, with the puerile, sophomoric headline "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?". From the stupidity of the ad itself, to questions about bias in breaks given to MoveOn by the NYT, a lot of ground has been covered. I'm lazy, so I'm not going to link to ANYTHING. Google it yourself. But I do want to focus on the title itself, in particular the last two words: "Betray Us."

First, "Betray." To betray someone, in whatever context, one must first have that individual or group's confidence. I.e., betrayal cannot occur unless the belief of the betrayed entity is that betrayal is unexpected. If betrayal is expected, it's not betrayal, it's simply outright hostility. To say that MoveOn.org, its members, its sympathizers, and its "fellow travelers" EVER felt that Gen. Petraeus was "on their side" would be a ridiculous statement of mammoth proportions. Far from it, the effort to assassinate the character of Gen. Petraeus was (and still is) an ongoing effort by virtually all the anti-war Left (and pseudo-libertarian Paulnut Troofers, at that). If that's not the action toward a perceived enemy, I don't know what is. Thus, no betrayal could have occurred, regardless of what the General actually said that day.

Second, "Us". Who exactly is this? "Us" surely cannot be a reference solely to "the members, sympathizers, and 'fellow travelers' of MoveOn.org", as witnessed in the above paragraph: to restate for clarity, General Petraeus was never associated with such people, and therefore could not betray them. Ok, let's set our sights wide: maybe "Us" is "The American People." Given the tendency toward populist rhetoric of leftist peaceniks, that seems reasonable. But how can an extreme fringe, albeit well-funded, group like MoveOn.org claim, in any way, to speak for the American people? While now less popular, a majority of Americans voted for their bête noire, George W. Bush, and the support for the war, while having waned considerably, is somewhat on the upswing now that the surge has been shown to work against the insurgency. Once again, the vocal minority seems to confuse (or conflate) itself with the (relatively) quiet majority.

So there you have it. The MoveOn.org crowd's "Betray Us" ad: not just stupid and wrong, but completely meaningless to boot. I suppose they've spent too much time thinking about postmodernism and deconstruction to actually say anything meaningful.

Kryptonite to Liberals

Over at The Corner, Jonah Goldberg posted an email from one of his readers, describing the uproar over the reader's email/newsgroup "signature" file, culled from Mr. Goldberg's own writing. This individual, who apparently has used many politically-themed signatures in his emails and newsgroup postings, has never before provoked such animosity as he has with this new quote. He (the reader) goes so far as to wonder if the statement produces such great cognitive dissonance among liberals that it results in them becoming angry and incoherent at the slightest exposure, thus yielding the comparison to kryptonite. If it does, indeed, have such great power, then I must do my best to expose liberals to it as well, in the (very) off chance that some liberal happens to wander upon this blog. The quote in question, for those of you who have not clicked through the above links already?

"Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home."

Touche, Mr. Goldberg.

The Difference Is...

More sad news out of Iraq: a combined British/Iraqi raid on a police intelligence headquarters revealed evidence of mass torture of prisoners (presumably a mix of enemy combatants and civilians) and resulted in the arrest of a death-squad leader. Of course, I'm sure the left-wing blogs will have a field day with this, pointing out the "quagmire" that is Iraq, and how things were actually better off under Saddam (and in their minds, better off back then than the United States is itself today).

Let us leave aside the foolish notion that things were somehow any different under Saddam: we know there were death squads and torture facilities, so it's just silly to think that. But here's the difference, a point I think completely missed by the Nutroots: under the new regime, they were caught and will be punished. Under Saddam, they would have received a paycheck. Sad news indeed, but still, a sign of progress when bad behavior by government agents does not go unpunished.

Sign Up!

Take the NRSC Pledge! More details at Hugh Hewitt's blog. Nutshell: No money for Republicans if they continue to thwart efforts for VICTORY in Iraq.

I (heart) VDH

Can I have a man-crush on a guy sheerly based on his political commentary? I don't know, but Victor Davis Hanson's latest discussion of the situation in Iraq has once again rocked my socks off. The most compelling part, to me:

It is now a cliché that there “is no military solution” in Iraq. But, in fact, the political solution—three successful elections and a constitutional government in place—has outpaced the military effort.

Read the whole thing.

Gosh dang that Victor Davis Hanson for always being so frickin' brilliant. Highlights include:

Europe’s policy about Iran’s nuclear program can best be summed up as “Hurry up, sane and Western Israel, and take out this awful thing — so we can damn you Zionist aggressors for doing so in our morning papers.”

And:

For the last three years we have seen a carbuncle swell as the old Vietnam War opposition rematerialized, with Michael Moore, the Hollywood elite, and Cindy Sheehan scaring the daylights out of the Democratic establishment that either pandered to or triangulated around their crazy rhetoric. The size of the Islamicist/Baathist insurrection caught the United States for a time off guard, as was true also of the sudden vehement slurs from our erstwhile allies in Europe, Canada, and Asia. Few anticipated that the turmoil in Iraq would force the Syrians out of Lebanon, the Libyans to give up their WMDs, and the Egyptians to hold elections — and that all the killing, acrimony, and furor over these developments would begin to engulf the Middle East and threaten the old order.

I'm not shy about saying that I think VDH is the most brilliant political and military writer alive today. Maybe he's a bit optimistic, but you can't fault his analysis. This may be my first link to him, but I should probably consider just having a side-bar that always links his latest column or essay.

Stimulating conversation!

Not my own work, found it over in a comments thread at LGF, and it's attributed to a user calling themselves "Templar":

Her: "We're only over there for the oil."

Me: "So why didn't we just drop the embargo?"

Her: "I don't know."

Me: "You know, we could start buying Iranian oil, if we really wanted lower the price of oil. Did you know that we haven't bought oil from Iran since 1979?"

Her: "No I didn't. But there weren't any WMDs."

Me: "So I guess when President Clinton lobbed a bunch of cruise missles into Iraq in 1998 as part of Operation Desert Fox Saddam didn't have any WMDs then either."

Her: "Clinton did what?"

Me: "Oh and don't the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which Clinton signed and most of the Democrats voted for. It made regime change in Baghdad the stated policy of the US government."

Her: "That doesn't matter. We shouldn't be there."

Me: "Have you actually read the Senate's Authorization of Force Resolution? There were other reasons listed besides WMD. Like the fact that when Saddam fired on US aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones he violated the 1991 ceasefire."

Her: "No I haven't read it."

Me: "So, I guess then you would have left the rape rooms and plastic shredders open for operation. I mean, he ONLY killed 300,000 of his own people."

Her: "Saddam was a brutal dictator, but there are lots of dictators in the world."

Me: "And that makes removing this one somehow wrong?"

Her: "I don't know."

Heehee... good times, good times!