spinbadz own

From behind the iron skirt of Grayladystan, a squadron of brats have now been screeching for years.

Ever since the despised "Texan" ascended to the White House in place of a tarnished golden child (rarely mocked as an "Arkansan"), Maureen Dowd and Bob Herbert and Frank Rich and the gang have taken:

- Turns in stroking each other's leftist pain;
- Glee in watching their anti-Bush jihad echoed in mosques of the like-minded; and
- Umbrage at suggestions that they themselves are both prized assets and foolish pawns to self-exploders and America-haters the world and Qaeda over.

And they won't let up. See the latest ho-hum instalments in the never-ending Bush-bash.

Frank Rich quotes his President as long ago expressing fear that the Iraq campaign might turn out to be "fought politically" (instead of militarily), but doesn't associate that reference to, say, the maxims of Sun Tsu, or to the strategy of the Vietcong in their war with the United States.

Not for him the deduction that that "Texan" may have had in mind an enemy that murders Americans and their protectees day after day for the express purpose of gleaning depressing headlines and consequent howls for American withdrawal, knowing that a battlefield victory is out of the question.

Instead we hear Mr Rich howling ad nauseum for American withdrawal painted as defeat. We watch him metaphorically dancing with joy over recent news polls showing low support for the Iraq campaign.

That is, Rich crassly acquiesces with enemy tactics.

The war has only been fought politically, he says, to the extent that Mr Bush has dropped the ball politically. The war is already over, in fact, and we lost. So Frank tells us, and Mo tells us, and Bob tells us and, above all: the newspaper polls told us.

It only remains, they say, for the ("Texan") "boy in the bubble" to be made aware of the fact.

The lag in the President's knowledge is apparently because the idiot-cum-Bushhitler is too busy playing holiday golf or riding bicycles while American troops are dying.

Behold the Republican president as seen through smug hallucinating eyes in the Willywonka chocolateworld that is modern Grayladystan.

These are the same people who loudly and endlessly opposed Bush's election, then his tax deductions, his Kyoto perception, his interventions, his road map, his re-election and all that was and is germane to his foreign policy and very governance.

Who poked fun at his intellect, and knives at his motives, his backers, his every move. All the while failing to raise anything like the same level of hyperbolic malice against random baby- and mother-slaying, atavistic religious tyranny, neanderthal female subjugation, and rank bigotry and chauvinism (except to the extent that it is Bush's fault that such threats hover over Iraq).

They are of the same genus that American enemies just happen to - contemptuously - tolerate as "crusader" fellow travelers, who (like Reuters) are loathe to breathe the word "terrorist" for fear of getting punched, or who (like CNN) won't criticise tyrants so as to ensure "access".

They are barb-tongued chicken-hawks when it comes to soft democratic targets like American troop morale and that ("Texan") "boy-king" W. Bush and, and silent chickens in the face of the fear-merchandising Salaf.

Today's cherry-picked Grayladystan talking points include the Bush bicycle holiday - never mind the Congressional summer recess, never mind the outrageously obvious attempt to muddy the authority of a commander-in-chief of active, at-risk soldiers.

Then there is the left-lionized everlasting blogstopper Cindy Sheehan, she a mere "grieving mom of a dead soldier" who Bush is "refusing to see" (and who only happens to have Moveon.org and Micky Moore in her conspiracy theory-rich, "Bush-is-the-terrorist" corner).

Mrs Sheehan's late son, intimates Bob Dowd - or was it Frank Herbert or Mo Rich? - was one of many American "sitting ducks" left high and dry by Pentagon incompetence - and class discrimination - in this unwinnable war for imperialism.

As usual, every key aspect of the war and Bush's policies - which "inflame ... ever more Muslim hearts" - are venomously attacked by the graylady chicken-hawks and portrayed as things they simply are not. Osama, whose good ol' boys "come right back every time U.S. troops beat them up", couldn't hope for better propaganda results if he controlled the New York Times outright.

Propaganda and symbolism being the heart and soul of terror campaigners who offer zero other than literalist Sharia and hateful envy on the ground.

Millions and millions of Iraqis are evidently revelling in newfound democratic freedoms - not only the enormous election turn-out, but untrammeled, skyrocketing growth in newspapers and the Internet, telephone lines and mobile phones, automobiles and education access. Meanwhile oil is pumping out of Iraq at near maximum levels, and 175,000 Iraqis have joined their new government's security forces.

If such things don't signal a big thumbs-up from many in the Iraqi populace for the trappings of American-style freedom, what does?

If American soldiers haven't covered themselves in heroic glory by dying daily to deliver such progress in the face of merciless ambushers, how is the present situation explained?

Moreover, if:

- Bush is and has for the longest time been absolutely itching to leave Iraq to the devices of its own people; and if
- Many of the street murderers are non-Iraqis supplied by Iran and Qaeda;

What dreamworld does the implication that Bush is some oil-mad imperialist fighting against a righteous and popular Iraqi movement fall out of?

And if Bush is as evil as all that, why shouldn't Iran get itself a bunch of nukes to protect itself against him? Why should Bushhitler have the bomb and not Iran?

Such discussion doesn't fit comfortably within a relentless, anger-stoking left-narrative that shrieks about "Abu Ghraib", "Guantanamo" and "Koran harm". But these same symbols are trumped up through much of the Muslim world, and cited to motivate and justify "holy" murder.

Not that anyone in their right minds imagines terrorism to be a Bush-bubble phenomenon.

Most accept, despite a paucity of media disussion, the fact of Clinton bungling and exacerbation of terrorist issues, and agree with Europe's tightening the anti-terrorist belt in the wake of the London bombings.

The likes of these bombings are not expected to cease upon the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

Just as Salafist insanity is expected to merely evolve to a different stage following the "triumph" of Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and just as Spain continued to be terror-caned after their "defeated" soldiers withdrew from Iraq, and just as 9/11 "revenge for Lebanon" took place 20 years after said event.

But our dangerous NYT all-stars continue to lecture us day in and day out that the root of all evil is Bush invasion of Iraq, and that face-slapping withdrawal of troops from that place is the answer to everybody's problems.

One couldn't even begin to guess what fraudulence or stupidity drives such thinking.

Perhaps they delude themselves with the arrogant silly-gist perception that everything and all events are in American control; therefore the only sensible objective is to achieve - at whatever cost - righteous amd enlightened (northern-based) Democrat (but not necessarily democratic) control of the United States - and consequently the world and all its events.

If that means maligning the country's President, damaging the country's world standing, and enhancing the prospects of death for young soldiers, so be it.

Alternatively perhaps these partisan motormouths are committed to either hi-jack the media so as to make Republican rule nigh impossible, or to manoeuvre US subjugation to a socialistic internationalist / United Nations set-up and/or inferior red staters to blue state domination, or to simply stoke the fires of conflict so as to manufacture headlines, or ...

Who knows? Whatever motivates these people seems more than a little suspicious and unhealthy. They are clearly not overly concerned with the delivery of objectivity and truth.

Thank goodness, I say, for Fox News, Drudge, Real Clear Politics, the blogosphere - and the precedent set by Mel Gibson ("I want to kill Frank Rich") in hounding a loud-mouthed coward back into his shell.