Michelle has made many veiled statements concerning her disapproval of legal abortion. (Note that her less-than-explicit opinion on the issue suggests that she has had an abortion at some point in her life. Likely at the behest of Jesse.) Because she is an anti-choicer, she supports the bombing of abortion clinics, right?

Unfortunately, the AP won’t call a recent threat and attempted bombing of Mississippi’s only abortion clinic a terrorist act. But that’s only because they’re on the side of the terrorists. Right?

Here’s Michelle from this morning (sans links):

Which side are they on? The New York Times settles the question definitively with a hysterical, unreality-based lead editorial today recycling the BDS attacks on the War on Terror — but even more so with this disgusting pictorial tribute to Iraqi terrorists killing American soldiers, spotted by the vigilant Charles Johnson at LGF.

A fair-minded rewrite:

The New York Times is on the side of the terrorists, because the paper published an editorial critical of American foreign policy that I won’t bother arguing against; and to a greater extent, because a picture of a Mahdi army sniper aiming on U.S. troops was taken by a Portuguese photographer under the employ of the Times back before that militia was on our side.

I still get a little put back when I read something that labels anyone who wants the American military out of their country as a “terrorist”. That every insurgent in Iraq wants to kill every American. I’ve long felt that the only thing that would move me to walk down to the recruitment office would be threat of invasion. Did I type “invasion”? I meant “liberation”.

Update (7/17, early evening): The Liberal Avenger echoes my sentiments here by arguing that Malkin’s loyalty to American freedoms is in danger of becoming collateral damage in her attacks against legitimate photojournalism.