Andrew Breitbart: Dishonest and Dim

Now that I think about it, I might owe the Herald-Mail an apology. The last two weeks on The Snark-Gap Transmission, I've referred to my hometown sentinel, Hagerstown's own Old Gray Lady with late-stage dementia, as the worst newspaper in the world. I'm still bewildered how the Herald-Mail has been able to survive the ongoing massacre of print newspapers to this point, when better papers with larger circulations, like the late Seattle Post-Intelligencer for example, have been forced to stop publication and shift to online-only models. But "worst newspaper in the world" sounds a bit strong today. I was reminded not long ago that the Herald-Mail isn't even the worst newspaper in this region of the United States, let alone the whole damn world.

Reminded by what? you ask. Bless your heart. I was gonna tell you anyway, but thanks for asking.

Reminded by this op-ed written by Andrew Breitbart, published by the Washington Times, the real worst newspaper in the world. Seriously, doesn't it strike you as slightly hypocritical how pundits of the conservative persuasion lost their minds this past election cycle over every questionable association Barack Obama has ever had, from serving on boards with Bill Ayers to attending church with that nutty Jeremiah Wright, but they don't seem to mind that their most popular right-leaning newspaper is owned by fucking Sun Myung Moon?

It's a hypocrisy that's gone over Andrew Breitbart's head, it seems. Then again, if I were as dim a bulb as Andrew, I'd probably be happy to be published anywhere that would have me. The clinical term for it is "desperation," and it's a main factor (along with the states "paranoid" and "delusional") in the ability of WorldNetDaily to attract columnists.

Like his fellow conservative media clowns, Andrew has been spending the months since the election honing his sore loser act. At least, unlike Hannity, Limbaugh and Levin, he admits that he is "freaking out." But that momentary candidness aside, Breitbart's line sounds sour, resentful, and very familiar. Check it out:

I still can't believe that the president of the United States traveled across the country - without his teleprompter crutch - and made fun of the Special Olympics on national television.

Touché. I still can't believe that the previous President of the United States responded to a horrific terrorist attack in New York by invading a country that had nothing to do with it, and spent the remainder of his administration shamelessly exploiting the grief and fear it engendered to achieve a myriad of partisan political objectives - and that was years ago.

But lest you think that's the dumbest thing Breitbart has to say in today's Washington Times:

And did President Obama really produce a YouTube video to appease President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs of Iran?

Yes, he did.

No, he didn't.

Four days ago, President Obama appeared in a video to wish people all over the world, particularly the Iranians, a happy Nowruz. Coinciding with the vernal equinox, Nowruz is the traditional Persian new year. It isn't an Islamic holiday. The mullahs who rule Iran have only recently recognized it, grudgingly, when it finally dawned on them that Nowruz was too important to Persian culture to expect people to give it up. The religious fanatics who control the Iranian government see Nowruz as a pagan holiday. Regardless of the result of Obama's message (it wasn't exactly a ringing success), it was clearly intended to reach out to the people of Iran, not the theocracy that oppresses them.

Here's a little of what Barack actually said in his Nowruz message:

The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right - but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.

This is an attempt to engage an enemy in a positive, constructive way, not appeasement. It's also not a new idea. David Frum, my new favorite Republican, wrote on Friday,

Seven years ago, I tried to sell the idea of President Bush doing a Nowruz speech. . . . Nowruz greetings could have been used to forge a deeper American connection to those Iranians who reject the obscurantism, corruption and cruelty of mullah rule - and to show American awareness of the great Iranian culture that reaches back 2500 years and extends halfway across Central Asia.

The idea went nowhere of course.

Frum isn't thrilled over Barack's Nowruz message, lamenting that now "it's being used as part of an attempt to engage the very regime that once punished the holiday's celebration," but I don't think there's anything wrong with talking to Iran. Actually, I think it's exactly what President Obama and his state department should be doing. I doubt we'll ever be friends with Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, but maybe someday we can be friends with Iran. Obama's Nowruz best-wishes may not have done a lot of good, but pretending Iran doesn't exist while the zealots that rule it busy themselves developing nuclear weapons with which to threaten their region of the world does absolutely nothing.

Andrew Breitbart and others would burn the bridge Obama is beginning guardedly to build. Good luck with that, Andrew. Would it vindicate your bleak ideology to see an alienated, disengaged Iran turn Tel Aviv into a fucking smoking hole in the ground? I'll look forward to your Washington Times op-ed after that one.

(I shouldn't make fun of him too much, actually - his website gets way more hits than mine.)