The Left's Permanent War on the War on Terrorism

That's not my title, actually, it's Ace's: "The Left's Permanent War on the War on Terrorism."

I can claim a little originality here, since my Spencer Ackerman post from the other day is pretty much the font for Ace's philosophizing, and William Jacobsen's work as well. (See, "Leftists Spin Attempted Northwest Airlines Attack as Evidence of Fake Al-Qaeda Threat.") Ackerman checks my blog once in a while, but for little good, it turns out. He's been making the rounds apparently, at the usual leftist haunts. He was interviewed at communist Amy Goodman's Democracy Now!, and here he is on Bloggingheads with Eli Lake:

Ackerman looks about 22 years-old in the video (he's about 29, actually), so being wet behind the ears might explain some of his idiocy. He's been forwarding some cockamamie theory that the Abdulmutallab security breach "demonstrates a policy failure more than an intelligence failure."

And you know, that gets the causal relationship almost perfectly backwards. Listen to this interview with former Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff. It's an intelligence failure of the first order, and the buck stops with President Obama, who needs to "light a fire under all of these agencies":

And note this is leftist CNN interviewing a former GOP cabinet members, so we can put questions of journalistic bias to the side.

The fact is, Spencer Ackerman and his allies, like radical Matthew Yglesias, are dangerous people. As I've noted many times, they're literally allied with jihad in a socialist/Islamist death embrace. Ace of Spades HQ has more, discussing what these fifth columists are all about:

The left has four political goals:

1) To reverse the public perception that they are a bunch of sissy-pants (not Sassypants, which is altogether different).

2) To de-emphasize terrorism as a media issue, because terror concerns play well for conservatives. (See Goal 1 and the sissy-pants problem.)

3) To sell the public, politically, on a hateful policy of treating terrorists nicely, because, like, Dostoyevsky said something like "you can judge a nation by the way it treats psychotic murder-cultists intent on killing as many innocent civilians as possible for no other reason except to masturbate in human blood."

4) To actually reduce terrorism, because doing so achieves Goal 1 and Goal 2, and also would be a great selling point for Goal 3. (See?! It makes no sense but it works!)

Before getting any further, let us note the incandescently obvious that Goals 1-3 are Major Goals and Goal 4 is a sort of "Nice but Not Necessary" sort of thing. If they can accomplish Goals 1-3, in terms of politics, they're all set. If they can sell the public on the idea that a little bit of mass-murder never killed anyone (except for the people it actually killed, of course), they can pretty ignore Goal 4.

Goal 4 is an entirely secondary proposition which merely assists in Goals 1-3. If you nail Goals 1-3, you really don't need Goal 4. And you can pretty much tell they know that by their emphasis on the first three, and blowing off altogether the fourth. ("The system worked," you've no doubt heard.)

Now, on to the slightly less obvious stuff. Slightly.

To achieve Goals 1-3, they have settled on a basic, stupid, unserious, unpersuasive, jackass political message: Only little pussy-fairies are afraid of terrorists and terrorism; real tough strong he-men types, like us on the left, laugh at it as a big joke. Don't you want to join the super-tough guys who laugh in the face of mass-murder? (As long as it's mass-murder killing other people, of course.) So join us, and laugh at terror, be one of the Real Tough Guys with the Cocks of Burnished Blued Steel, and just put your silly-ass concerns about terrorism away. Let's focus on what really matters -- universal health care and the fundamental restructuring of the economy into something more socialistic -- and let us not be distracted by the childish antics of some Muslim head-cases who are, after all, just "acting up" in a particularly aggressive fashion.

Oh, and of course: Let us also be so bad-ass and Rambo-licious as to shower terrorists with kindness and good treatment, because, you know, if you're really a super nail-spitting fire-breathing Hard Case like us, you never let a bit of righteous fury interfere with your civility and dedication to social justice.

Endlessly repeated, endlessly repeated. It's all so stupid. But apparently some blogger -- or someone -- struck up on this idea in around 2006 (around then -- that's when I seem to remember it popping up) and the idea caught on like wildfire.

They really think that with a little "re-branding" they can solve their perennial Terrorist Gap problem.

There's more at the link.

I'd only add that one has to look at the larger ideological context. Folks like Ackerman and Matthew Yglesias are communists. They want to turn the U.S. into a post-Judeo-Christian society with a command economy. All the world's problems will automatically come to an end when the U.S. imperialist expropriator is brought down to the full "unexceptional" condition the Obama administration has offered as "change." Thank goodness for the tea party patriots, and common sense Americans, who continue to resist this abominable leftist agenda. See, Rasmussen, for example, "58% Favor Waterboarding of Plane Terrorist To Get Information." (Via Memeorandum.)