WaPo love with Obama continues

His ‘blackness,’ according to the WaPo, is causing Al Qaeda problems:

Soon after the November election, al-Qaeda’s No. 2 leader took stock of America’s new president-elect and dismissed him with an insulting epithet. “A house Negro,” Ayman al-Zawahiri said.

That was just a warm-up. In the weeks since, the terrorist group has unleashed a stream of verbal tirades against Barack Obama, each more venomous than the last. Obama has been called a “hypocrite,” a “killer” of innocents, an “enemy of Muslims.” He was even blamed for the Israeli military assault on Gaza, which began and ended before he took office.

“He kills your brothers and sisters in Gaza mercilessly and without affection,” an al-Qaeda spokesman declared in a grainy Internet video this month.

The torrent of hateful words is part of what terrorism experts now believe is a deliberate, even desperate, propaganda campaign against a president who appears to have gotten under al-Qaeda’s skin. The departure of George W. Bush deprived al-Qaeda of a polarizing American leader who reliably drove recruits and donations to the terrorist group.

With Obama, al-Qaeda faces an entirely new challenge, experts say: a U.S. president who campaigned to end the Iraq war and to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and who polls show is well liked throughout the Muslim world.

Whether the pro-Obama sentiment will last remains to be seen. […]

One thing’s for certain: with their pro-Obama history, we won’t have to worry whether or not the WaPo’s pro-Obama sentiment will last.

Dan Collins responds:

This article is so omnistupid that I don’t even know where to begin. Suffice it to say, the analysts quoted in this piece of journalistic pimping to coprophages are so enamored of The One that they think that his hopichanginess in and of itself presents a challenge to the power of al-Qaeda to incite hatred against Amerikkka. The article ends with the traditional lowering of expectations disclaimer.

One thing is crystal clear, though: no matter what Obama does, he won’t be responsible for creating more terrorists than he’s killing, the way Booooooosh was. Meanwhile, he has disconstered them by virtue of his sheer quidditas.

Amazing, the power of just being The One …

Update – 6:42 PM: McQ makes a great point:

Despite the [Matthew] Yglesias strawman, the reason that al Qaeda has been reduced to shouting insults is they have had their asses kicked for 7 years and have absolutely notihng to show for it. It’s not because of a week of Obama that they’re reduced to that – its because of that so-called “perfect foil” George Bush and the 24/7 war he waged against them that they’re reduced to sitting in caves and shouting their insults.

Yeah, but don’t tell that to the blowhards at the WaPo.

Sissy Willis says:

January 25, 2009 at 4:03 pm

Great post, but more importantly, may I take this opportunity to tell you how much I totally ADORE your hot new look!

January 25, 2009 at 4:04 pm

Wrong emoticon. Here’s what I meant:

NC Cop says:

January 25, 2009 at 5:24 pm

Wasn’t that a great article? I noted how the writer said that they are faced with a president who wants to pull out of Iraq and close Guantanamo. Excuse me? I thought that’s what the terrorists wanted?

Don’t you love it when you’re president’s agenda meshes so well with terrorists?

Not to worry, though, because according to the writer Al Qaeda will just give up and go back to being farmers, auto mechanics, etc. Gosh, I feel better already.

SpideyTerry says:

January 26, 2009 at 2:30 am

With Obama, al-Qaeda faces an entirely new challenge, experts say: a U.S. president who campaigned to end the Iraq war and to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

Yes, because never in the history of humanity have people ever been able to rally anyone to their cause by accusing the leader of the primary opposition of being weak. Ain’t that right, Bubba?

Leslie says:

January 26, 2009 at 10:18 am

I don’t understand the hysteria here. Is this not a valid point?:

The torrent of hateful words is part of what terrorism experts now believe is a deliberate, even desperate, propaganda campaign against a president who appears to have gotten under al-Qaeda’s skin. The departure of George W. Bush deprived al-Qaeda of a polarizing American leader who reliably drove recruits and donations to the terrorist group.

Dan Collins should stay away from coffee.

Great White Rat says:

January 26, 2009 at 11:34 am

Leslie, no, that’s not a valid point, particularly this part:

The departure of George W. Bush deprived al-Qaeda of a polarizing American leader who reliably drove recruits and donations to the terrorist group.

That’s nothing but a far-left talking point. The truth is quite the opposite. Especially since the surge in Iraq, AQ has been on the ropes for money and especially recruits. If there’s one thing the Arab street understands very well, it is strength. Hammering our enemies does not help their recruitment drives, it decimates them.

Except for in the US, among the hard left, that is. But it’s not difficult to make the case that the left would be reliably anti-American anyway, as long as Bush was in office, regardless of what he did.