Follow the Queen

Pejman Yousefzadeh, RedState's three-card monte specialist pulls another stunning sleight-of-hand as he takes note of the Glasgow airport bombing:

I'd like to hear a little more talk about how the war on terror is supposedly a "bumper sticker slogan".

Mr. Yousefzadeh, of course, refers (and links) to John Edwards' recent comments that the "global war" on terror is a fraud:

"We need a post-Bush, post-9/11, post-Iraq military that is mission focused on protecting Americans from 21st century threats, not misused for discredited ideological purposes," Edwards said in remarks prepared for delivery. "By framing this as a war, we have walked right into the trap the terrorists have set--that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war on Islam."

If you look closely, you can see that Mr. Yousefzadeh has something up his sleeve: Edwards asserts that the Bush administration errs by framing the fight against terrorism as a "war." But Mr. Yousefzadeh deals from the bottom of the deck when he asks: "Can We Be Disabused Of Some Particularly Misguided Notions Now?" He slickly implies that Mr. Edwards, thinks there's no terrorism.

If it's correctly framed as a "war," Mr. Yousefzadeh, when do we send troops to Glasgow?

That Gnawing Feeling

The Redstate "directors" and their guard dog Mr. Lane have suddenly awakened to find that their rabid brand of conservativism, nativism, and militarism attracts some unsavory characters.

Wolf-trap ugly time, boys?

I Coulda Sworn There Were Some Goal Posts Right Over Here....

Redstate's regular weekend contributor, Pejman Yousefzadeh, is discouraged that the White House won't fight for the renomination of Gen. Peter Pace as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. OK, maybe "discouraged" understates it a bit. Mr. Yousefsadeh characterizes the decision as "Wrong. Totally, Completely, Terribly Wrong."

Mr. Yousefzadeh cites Breitbart.com linking to an AP wire story that quotes Defense Secretary Robert Gates' explanation:

"Gates said he had originally intended to seek another two-year term for Pace, but concluded that would have resulted in a divisive Senate confirmation focusing on the Iraq War."

Of course, examining the performance of an appointee before clearing him for another term would seem to be the very least one should expect from any gathering of beings possessed of a pulse and practicing respiration (and that includes most of the Senate). Gen. Pace has been a member of the joint chiefs for the entire duration of the Iraq war and the Chairman for a good portion of it. That a hearing on the prospect of extending the general's tenure would be "backwards looking" shouldn't be surprising. Savvy congress watchers expect it and maybe even applaud it.

Mr. Yousefzadeh acknowledges this, begrudgingly, and faults the White House for caving to Gen. Pace's critics without a fight. He discounts the possibility that even this White House might hold its appointees accountable for how well they do their jobs. It's no secret that progress in Iraq is running well behind schedule. To win another ride, Gen. Pace would have, quite rightly, some splainin to do.

The real shocker, however, is the shiny, new characterization of war critics Mr. Yousefzadeh unveils:

"By refusing to fight for Pace's confirmation due to the fear of "a backward looking and very contentious process," the Bush Administration has once again surrendered the rhetorical field to opponents of the reconstruction effort."

"Opponents of the reconstruction effort?"

No mistake. Mr. Yousefzadeh follows up with several riffs on this surprising theme:

"As things currently stand, the Administration is fighting to keep the reconstruction effort afloat against public opinion..."

"In order to succeed in the face of this opposition, the Administration must argue for its position and for the people who have worked loyally along with it on the reconstruction effort."

"...by all accounts [Gen. Pace] has done yeoman work in trying to get the reconstruction effort to succeed."

This new construction spins the "But we're painting the schools" argument off to a stunningly distant nadir. The "reconstruction" is no longer just the good news anti-war types choose to ignore. Now it's apparently the only game in town. Mr. Yousefzadeh elects to make the ongoing fighting disappear so he can fault war critics for actively opposing the painting of those modest schoolhouses. To make this improbable proposition work, Mr. Yousefzadeh would have us believe that war critics--the ones who inconveniently point out the ongoing failure of the occupying allies to provide consistent water and electricity--oppose rebuilding Iraq with the same fervor with which they opposed wrecking it in the first place.

Perhaps Mr. Yousefzadeh is at least partly right, but simply overstates. Maybe war critics are opposed to reconstruction efforts, especially the ones that take the lives of 100 or so of our young men and women each month.

UPDATE: Mr. Haystack joins in the fun, writing that the White House has failed to stand by the good Gen. Pace because liberals suck!