Iraq took a lethal step closer to disintegration and civil war yesterday after a devastating attack on one of the country’s holiest sites. The destruction of the golden-domed Shia shrine in Samarra sparked a round of bloody sectarian retaliation in which up to 60 Sunni mosques were attacked and scores of people were killed or injured.
The bomb attack has enraged the majority Shia population, who regard the shrine in the same way that Roman Catholics view St Peter’s in Rome.
In a number of respects civil war in Iraq has already begun. Many of the thousand bodies a month arriving in the morgues in Baghdad are of people killed for sectarian reasons. It is no longer safe for members of the three main communities  the Sunni and Shia Arabs and the Kurds  to visit each other’s parts of the country.
“January 2003 the President invited three members of the Iraqi opposition to join him to watch the Super Bowl. In the course of the conversation the Iraqis realized that the President was not aware that there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. He looked at them and said, ‘You mean…they’re not, you know, there, there’s this difference. What is it about?'”
– former U.S. dilpomat Peter Galbraith
Media Narratives
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, John McCain is a phony. Of course, getting the public to see through McCain’s carefully-constructed persona is difficult when the media is so complicit in enforcing the view that he’s a no-nonsense, straight-talking tough guy who’s willing to reach across the aisle to do the right thing. Or as the “journalists” at CNN like to put it….
“McCain’s maverick streak doesn’t sit well with many colleagues.”
“The story of his life is a profile in courage, both political and personal. Before John McCain was a maverick senator, he was a Vietnam prisoner of war for six years in Hanoi.”
” Senator McCain known as a maverick, known as someone to challenge his party…he is now going back to the United States Senate, where he won the maverick label, the maverick reputation because his own party’s leadership back in the Senate is very much opposed to the very things John McCain stands for.
Kate Snow :
“Senator McCain known as a maverick here on Capitol Hill.”“Tonight, personal revelations from a congressional maverick and an American hero. Senator McCain”
Candy Crowley :
“John McCain, the scrappy maverick who has defied his party and the odds”Joe Johns :
“John McCain, the maverick conservative who has no problem crossing his party and his president when he thinks he’s right. ”“John McCain, the Senator from Arizona, is a maverick, but a maverick with a following.”
“John McCain is not a moderate, he’s a maverick.”
Candy Crowley :“John McCain, a conservative, but a maverick conservative”
“[O]n issues like homeland security you may see people like John McCain, the maverick senator from Arizona, be kind of a big champion”
“He, of course, a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq, also known for being a maverick within his own party. ”
“Interesting, now, how significant he will become, since he is a moderate and a maverick Republican.”
“Now, a familiar face that you’re also going to see on the trail is senator — this is Senator John McCain. He, of course, the maverick Republican trying to generate a lot of support there.”
“Then there is the X factor, the maverick Republican John McCain determined to change the rules on political money as soon as next Monday in defiance of his own leaders.”
“A well-known getting the most votes within the Kerry campaign is Republican Senator John McCain. The Arizona maverick would generate tremendous excitement and help attract Republican and independent voters”
“McCain is not campaigning there. For the maverick senator, the real challenge…”
“John McCain managed to have it both ways — a principled maverick who remained Bush-friendly and kept lines open to conservatives.”
“In Washington, fellow Senate maverick John McCain angrily warned the Republican Party to, in his words, ‘grow up and learn to disagree without resorting to personal threats.'”
“Eyebrows have been raised by a planned weekend meeting at the Arizona ranch of maverick Republican Senator John McCain.”
“It’s one of the main reasons why they picked Senator McCain to be a part of it, because you know he’s a critic, he’s a maverick, he’ll say what he wants to say.”
“Now, McCain, John McCain of Arizona, a key Republican here on Capitol
Hill, obviously a maverick Republican as well…”“Senator John McCain is blasting what he calls crony capitalism. Up next: excerpts from McCain’s latest campaign against the system. Is he trying to sound like Teddy Roosevelt? Another political maverick is back in the spotlight…”
…and my favorite :
“Did the press pump up the story that the Arizona senator might — might — leave the GOP? Were journalists blatantly used by McCain advisers or can they simply not resist writing about their favorite maverick senator?”
Even when they’re questioning McCain, they can’t help but point out how tough he is. Of course, if McCain was an actual “maverick” he wouldn’t have waited until after an election year to talk tough on torture. I guess in media-land, “maverick” is defined as the first Republican to jump on a Democratic bandwagon. Nevermind what liberals say, the media likes to save their praise until McCain’s pollsters tells him to “reach across the aisle”. Blech.
Misplaced Apologies
It’s nice to see that Harry Whittington knows who the real victims are here (via DKos)
Whittington was hit in the face, neck and chest with birdshot Saturday during the hunting trip. After a shotgun pellet traveled to his heart, he had suffered a mild heart attack Tuesday while being treated at Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi-Memorial.
. . .
Whittington, his voice raspy but strong, said the past weekend encompassed ”a cloud of misfortune and sadness.””My family and I are deeply sorry for everything Vice President Cheney and his family have had to deal with,” he said.
Apologizing to the man who almost killed you? Sounds like somebody’s been taking advice from Harry Reid.
The Minds of Madmen
After the President’s conveniently-timed revelation about a foiled attack on Los Angeles, I contacted a few friends in the intelligence community and was able to get my hands on this IM conversation between Al Qaeda’s number two guy and Bin Laden’s second-in-command (on that org chart, everyone’s a VP).
OsamaMama : u there?
72Virgins : yeah, sup?
OsamaMama : martyr 4 life, bitch!
72Virgins : lol
72Virgins :
OsamaMama : turn on fox
72Virgins : k
OsamaMama : shes hot
72Virgins : who? the angry blonde?
OsamaMama : yup
72Virgins : dude, she looks like barney fife with a wig
OsamaMama : whatever. anns my gril
OsamaMama : girl
OsamaMama : i cant tpe today
OsamaMama : type today
OsamaMama : ARRGGGGGHHHH!!!!
72Virgins : nice.
OsamaMama : where you wanna hit the infidels?
72Virgins : i dunno. sears tower
OsamaMama : las vegas
72Virgins : space needle
OsamaMama : disenyland
72Virgins : disneyworld
OsamaMama : i just said that
72Virgins : no, you said land, I said world
OsamaMama : aren’t they the same?
72Virgins : no, dumbass
72Virgins : the white house
OsamaMama : the washington monument
72Virgins : brb
72Virgins : im back
72Virgins : the tallest building in texas
OsamaMama : the tallest building in los angeles
72Virgins : i got skills
OsamaMama : what?
72Virgins : nunchuck skills
72Virgins : bowhunting skills
OsamaMama : it’s a liger
72Virgins : flippin sweet
Seriously though, it’s hard to know what to think about all of these vague threats when the President is so blatant about politicizing them and mum on the details. Where these guys stopped at the airport or was this “plan” just something jotted down on a bar napkin? If revealing the existence of a spying program undermines our ability to fight terrorism, what are we to make of the President’s self-congratulations being on the cover of every newspaper? If it was so important to keep this incident a secret then, what were the changes that made it perfectly acceptable to blab about it now?
Playing the “Osama Card”
Y’know that post I did yesterday that included Andrew Sullivan’s infamous “fifth column” quote? Well, reader James forwarded the link to Andy, who had this to say :
u deny that there are some on the far left who would prefer osama to bush?
i’ve seen a couple of articles lately confessing exactly that.
andrew
Sullivan’s ridiculous strawman and lack of capitalization would be funny if he weren’t actually serious. Who are these traitors on the “far left”? Are they a well-organized group actively working to undermine the U.S. government or are they a couple of obscure, pissed-off bloggers who are venting a little steam? I’ve seen some pretty despicable things written by angry liberals and conservatives, but there’s a big difference between ranting against your government and collaborating with the enemy. Let’s go back to Sullivan’s original quote :
“The middle part of the country – the great red zone that voted for Bush – is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead – and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column.â€
The irresponsible thing about his statement isn’t that he’s warning about fifth column movements, but that he’s implying that pretty much everyone who disagrees with the President is a traitor. You’re painting with pretty broad brush-strokes there, Andy. By citing “the great red zone that voted for Bush” in your first sentence, you’re essentially setting up a false dichotomy that implicates everyone else in this undefined “decadent Left”. If you weren’t trying to draw a parallel, then the quote you’re defending is poorly written and should be explained beyond hiding behind your intentionally vague wording.
But if you really do think the majority of us blue-state, coastal lefties “may” constitute a “fifth column”, then would it be equally valid to make a statement like this?
“In the densely-populated urban areas which are likely targets for future attacks – and heavily favored Democrats in the last election – are serious about capturing Osama Bin Laden. The religious extremists in the south and Midwest have other plans – for they might be more interested in firebombing abortion clinics.”
Would it be okay to contrast John Kerry voters and white supremacists? Or divide the country into secular humanists and hate-filled bastards like Rev. Fred Phelps? Singling out extremists to score points against your political opposition isn’t just unfair, it’s lazy reporting.
Besides that, the whole point of my post wasn’t to bash Andy for a stupid-ass comment he made four and a half years ago, but to spur a discussion (in a roundabout way) about what constitutes a “fifth column” movement, who gets to make those decisions, and what actions should be taken against them. Andy’s gone on record as saying that the “far left” (a relative term if ever these was one) should be under suspicion, Sen. Graham believes it’s acceptable to spy on those of us suspected of being in the “fifth column” without a warrant, and the President rode to victory by repeatedly suggesting that John Kerry and his allies “embolden our enemies” , so where do you draw the line between legitimate dissent and “fifth column” activity?