Mmmmm ... Spaghetti

Well I feel all better about the invastion and occupation of Iraq this morning.  Do you?   With all the official confirmation of BushCo's abysmal lack of post-war planning and the fact that he lied to us and the United States Congress about the dire reasons we needed to loot the treasury and send our soldiers to kill and die, I had forgotten that BushCo's War in Iraq is really about the love and the fear and the hate.   We love freedom.  We fear terrorism.  We hate the terrorists.  Or, as the wildly perceptive Billmon points out today: We hate some terrorists:

If you go back and look at the old party lines (versions 1.0 and 2.0) you can quickly see that something new has been added. Heretofore, the "anti-Iraqi forces" have consisted of:

1.) Foreign Terrorists (aka "assassins")
2.) Regime Remnants (aka "dead enders")
3.) Criminal Elements (aka "thugs")

But now we have a fourth category, one with a nice neutral name that doesn't allude to hacking people's heads off or gassing your own people or hating our freedoms:

4.) Iraqi Insurgents (aka "negotiating partners.")

From there on out, the speech carefully and repeatedly distinguished between the terrorists and the insurgents, who are now -- in the fantasy world of the White House propaganda shop at least -- two unique and different populations, where before they were one and indivisible:

Iraqi forces have fought bravely – helping to capture terrorists and insurgents in Najaf, Samarra, Fallujah, and Mosul. (emphasis added)

To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents (emphasis added).

Today Iraqi Security Forces are at different levels of readiness. Some are capable of taking on the terrorists and insurgents by themselves. (emphasis added.)

We are building up Iraqi Security Forces as quickly as possible, so they can assume the lead in defeating the terrorists and insurgents. (emphasis added)

And so on. It would seem the error in the historical record has been rectified (although the gang still hasn't gotten that memory hole thing completely down yet.) But the policy -- "no nation can negotiate with terrorists" -- hasn't changed one bit. It remains as a monument to our leader's moral clarity and unflagging resolution.

I wish I had his brain.  But I don't and so will be struggling along with the one I have over at the American Street today.   Are the Dems in Congress missing another opportunity to make a grand gesture?  Do they even care?   

I'll update notices of my other ravings here as warranted.

Comments

[Mark]

Damn, Billmon's good. I was wondering how they were going to get around that whole "negotiating with terrorists" thing.

[eRobin]

And everyone is missing it. He really does have an ear for propaganda.

[minneapolis rose]

So,now will people on the left,liberals,and that D word be called leftist insurgents or liberal terrorists or how about Democratic Insurgents.
Just how do ya'll think Mr Bush and co. will get around this conflict of they're interests
powerful shia in Iraq = good
powerful shia in Iran = bad

[eRobin]

powerful shia in Iraq = good
powerful shia in Iran = bad

LOL. I'm sure the networks are already cooking up graphics along those lines.

[paperwight]

Also:

powerful sunni in Saudi Arabia = good
powerful sunni in Iraq = bad

OK, that's kinda fun.

Muslims fighting Russians in Afghanistan = good
Muslims fighting Russians in Chechnya = bad