Michelle Malkin, on the Side of the Terrorists
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.
Ryan , you should get a medal for reading Malkin everyday. Just reading her quote there made me a bit ill.
Comment by sgo — July 16, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
On an average day, it takes about three and a half minutes to read the collective output of Michelle, Jesse, A la Pundit, and Bryan Preston. Believe me: It’s not much of a sacrifice.
What does suck is having to write about it, which requires taking their boring content and doing something creative with it. If I entertain anyone at any point, considering what little I have to work with, then I know this site has been a success.
Comment by Ryan — July 16, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
It is a success.
Comment by eb — July 16, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
I really don’t understand wingnuts… it doesn’t take much to get their panties in a wad. First that fluff story with Cheney’s and Rummy’s summer homes (how many out there have more than one home??)… and now pictures? What, if there were no pictures then magically the insurgency would disapear? OH NO, HE’S GOT A POLAROID… RUN!
Comment by Mark — July 16, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
Regarding Ms. Malkin’s views on abortion. Have you seen the “Malkin Media Diversity Test”?
http://www.michellemalkin.com/archives/000343.htm
(Sorry, I don’t think I can format the link)
For reference, a score of 100 means perfect agreement with Ms. Malkin.
Now, note which issue is not on the test. She has condoms, and gay marriage there, but not abortion.
Comment by Cautious Man — July 17, 2006 @ 12:20 pm