Well maybe, if there’s still time after we finish stringing up all the elites. There are just so many hours in the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Algiers

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058946/

IMDb
Wikipedia

Irrelevant? You’re blind. Marxism of the Gramscian variety dominates Western Civilization. Europe, the UK and Canada are governed by its principles. And the Democrats are evenly split between Gramscians and real Americans. Gramscians dominate our opinion forming institutions – media organizations, universities and Hollywood. They’re conciously destroying Western Civilization and tearing America apart.

Marxists are a far greater threat to America and Western Civilization than Al Qaeda could ever dream. Without the Marxist fifth column, Al Qaeda would be nothing but a bunch of primitive savages, easily dealth with. Marxists are Al Qaeda’s force multipliers.

It is the Marxist editors at the NY Times are suppressing information about Islamic terrorists. They do it because they share a common enemy.

I’ve never understood your fixation on so-called “Marxists”, HA, and your conflation of anti-Americanism with Marxism.

After all, if “pro-American” means sovereignty-shredding world trade agreements, big government nation-building/social engineering prokects in places Iraq, and military action to defend an ally against a regime that threatens to wipe it out, you can find a bunch of “Marxists” willing to go along with these things. For example, Norm Geras, Christopher Hitchens, surviving “Scoop Jackson” Dems at SDUSA and the AFL-CIO, Thomas Friedman, etc. Also for example, me, until many months after March 2003.

Meanwhile, the real hard-core red, white and blue anti-Marxists — the libertarians and the paleo right — tends to have the same foreign policy agenda that you despise when it comes from the isolationist left.

All this is to say: Marxism is completely irrelevant in 2006.

I’ve noticed a pattern lately of leftist commentators asserting that America “needs to have an enemy.” That’s BS of course. America has enemies whether we want them or not.

But what I think is more accurate is the left’s desperate need for America NOT to have enemies. Because if America does have enemies, then the left would have to choose. They would either be compelled to rise to America’s defense, or they would reveal themselves as anti-American Marxists.

They cannot defend America because it is anathema to everthing they believe in. And they cannot reveal their beliefs without mortally wounding their agenda. So they deny, deny, deny, that America has enemies. Desperately.

If Sulzberger hadn’t inherited his job he probably wouldn’t have gotten as far in journalism as Jimmy Olsen. Most of the major newspapers, in fact, are in the hands of family dynasties. The founders were self-made men and some of the papers used to be quite right-wing (e. g. LA Times and Chicago Tribune). But now they are into three or four generations of scions who have never had to work a real job in their life, which goes a long way towards explaining the self-flagellating liberalism.

Thanks for the thoughtful posts, I appreciate the quality. I believe that together you address almost all the intertwined elements of the Leftists dementia and loathing for their own culture:

A pervasive distrust and suspicion of the American people tantamount to prejudice that the mob (i.e. not liberal elites) MUST be controlled to avoid chaos which is defined as them NOT in control;

A victim status to all US enemies because any action by the US in its own interests is evil and the US is more powerful than its enemies;

An inability to see, whether willful or not, the evil in our enemies or Leftist complicity in millions of destroyed or wasted lives.

However, in addition, these elements allow the Left to indulge in unrestrained Bush Derangement Syndrome. That is, these elements excuse in their own minds the otherwise despicable position (even to them) that no matter the harm to the United States, say, do, print, ANYTHING under ALL circumstances – even Section 798 violations – that undermine the Bush administration and its policies.

If the attackers were identified clearly, in the lede, as Al Qaeda inspired or aligned terrorists, it might make people think Maybe the war is real and there is an enemy determined to kill us. Maybe it was right to take the fight to them on their own ground. Maybe even NSA foreign surveillance is justified and necessary and NYT is criminally liable! Given these possibilities, how else could the execrable NYT write the story.

I guess Americans (and the MSM) think that IED’s are just tossed out of cars like empty beer bottles. IED’s require some digging, some set-up, and the cooperation (willing or not) of those in the neighborhood to not reveal the presence of the weapon or it’s observers. This brings the complicity of those whose front yard is used for the purpose of planting a rigged explosive into question. If I lived in Iraq, and was as familiar with the intimidation tactics of the death squads as I am from the comfort of my safe home in the US, I would certainly keep my mouth shut and take my chances with the tender mercies of the US forces.

No one seems to remember the Algerian ‘War of Independence’ from France in the 1960′s where these style tactics were exploited to maximum effect. There was an excellent movie made about this conflict (it was left wing, but would be viewed differently today) but I’ll bet it is very hard to come by. It was standard fare on campus in the late sixties as an anti Viet-Nam film.