Richard Bennett

Roger L. Simon:

By the way, I know I have written this before, but I think the use of the term “insurgents” by the media inaccurate and propagandistic in its essence. As far as I know… and correct me if I’m wrong… there has not been one single of these people being anything but fascists, either of the Baathist or Islamist variety. Calling them “insurgents” then cloaks them in the romantic veneer of “freedom fighters.” We shall see whether the media continues with this obfuscation after the handover. (If there were neo-Nazis attacking the governments of Europe, would they call them “insurgents”? I think not.)

Indeed.

Jarvis was pretty excellent on CNN’s News Night, discussing some of the flaws and shortcomings of Michael Moore’s largely ficticious movies. Unlike a lot of people you see on TV these days, Jeff didn’t just offer up cheap sound bites, he attempted to explain in some detail the problem with Moore’s blaming the 9/11 attacks on George W. Bush instead of on bin Laden and Al Qaeda. It seems one would have to be pretty dim to accept Moore’s view of things, but he has his fans.

The BuzzMachine for Jeff’s wrapup and a link to the transcript.

Victor Davis Hanson calls the self-aggrandizement of the fashionably anti-American what it is:

A depressing array of transitory personalities parades before our screen, entering stage left to grab 15 minutes of notoriety for their scripted invective, only to exit on the right into oblivion. Who can remember all these one-tell-all-book, one-weekend-on-the-Sunday-news-programs personalities ? a Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, Howard Dean, Paul O’Neil, Joe Wilson, Richard Clark, or Richard ben Veniste? In between their appearances on Sunday morning television or 60 Minutes, a few D.C. functionaries are carted out for periodic shouting ? an unhinged Al Gore, a puffed-up Ted Kennedy, a faux-serious Bob Kerry, and occasionally a Senator Byrd or Hollings. And since the very day after 9/11 we’ve gotten the Vietnam-era retreads ? a Peter Arnett, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Robert Scheer, John Dean, or Seymour Hersh ? tottering out with the latest conspiracies about the old bogeymen and “higher-ups.”

How many people think that such venal fools as Michael Moore, who opposed the invasion of Afghanistan (that’s right, not just Iraq but even Afghanistan) are offering serious military strategy when they claim that hundreds of thousands of US troops could have captured Osama in Tora Bora and immediately put an end to Al Qaeda in one swift stroke? Certainly, the capture of Osama, when it comes, will be even more important than the capture of Saddam and the killing of Uday and Qusay. But it won’t put an end to Al Qaeda as we know it, because the terror network is intertwined with half a dozen governments in the Middle East and South Asia, not the least of which is Pakistan. But the methods that were appropriate for dealing with Saddam are not the same as those for dealing with Qaddafi, Assad, the Saudi Royals, or the Pakistani ISI. Unfortunately, this war has such a large scope that we have to fight on many fronts and with many tactics at once. What’s called for is multi-tasking, not a simple-minded obsession with one nation at a time.

But as difficult as it is, we’re winning:

Two-thirds of al Qaeda’s leadership are either dead or in jail. Their sanctuaries, sponsors, and kindred spirits in Afghanistan and Iraq are long gone. Detention is increasingly common for Islamicists in Europe and America. The Hamas intifada has failed. Its implosion serves as a warning for al Qaeda that Western democracies can still fight back. There is also a lesson for America that even in our postmodern world most people still admire principled success: No one is lamenting the recent targeted killings of Hamas bullies or the preemptive assassination of suicide bombers.

But we still have obstacles to overcome:

Europe, led by France and Germany, saw a chance for both profit and psychological satisfaction by opposing the United States. But recently it has realized the short-sightedness of such a policy, and belatedly grasped that al Qaeda terrorists despise Euros as much if not more than they do Americans. European ingratitude has just about ensured an end to American subsidized defense of the continent. All this does not mean the world’s other powers will aid us ? far from it ? only that they will continue opportunistically and in public to chide us while privately praying for our success.

Changing administrative horses in Washington in the midst of this conflict will only set us back, however, so an important element of America’s success in the War on Terror is the re-election of the President and the continuation of a team that’s proved an ability to learn by its mistakes.

From the New York Times, we read of impossible things — Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden, File Says:

Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990’s were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family, according to a newly disclosed document obtained by the Americans in Iraq.

American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden’s organization, before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization. He was based in Sudan from 1992 to 1996, when that country forced him to leave and he took refuge in Afghanistan.

The document states that Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that a request from Mr. bin Laden to begin joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia went unanswered. There is no further indication of collaboration.

Obviously, this article is evidence of the Times’ right-wing bias.