I have been writing for months about how the symbiosis between the Surrendercrats and SurrenderMedia here in the US and the terrorist forces in Iraq have created a sickening co-dependent relartionship, where the terrorists bomb innocent people, the SurrenderMedia plays up all the blood and gore (and none of the progress in the direction of success), and then the liberals wring their hands and cry for surrender. It is a very Pavlovian co-existence, where more bombs beget more news stories, which beget more handwringing by Democrats.

The entire pathetic merry-go-round that was spinning up to convince America we couldn’t do what we just finished doing – which is cut the violence by70-80%. That drop in Iraqi blood shed means 70-80% of the negatively biased news stories are also drying up, which means the Dems can’t hand wring as much.

All this because al-Qaeda used Iraqis as their victims for the atrocities they needed to get on the news all the time. And the Iraqis revolted on al-Qaeda and now hunt them down. al-Qaeda is not only not welcome in Iraq, it is dangerous for them to be discovered there.

But some fools in the US think if there could just be more bloodshed, America could still lose this thing. So MSNBC has provided al-Qaeda a hint, that things could only get better in terms of war support here in the US unless – of course – they start killing again.

A well-placed bomb in Baghdad’s Green Zone could change everything but, for the time being, the war in Iraq has ceased to be the US’s hot political issue.

This is a blatant signal to terrorists that the US will not be looking to retreat unless Iraqi blood starts to flow thick in the Baghdad streets (thus the need for “a well-placed bomb”). What kind of idiot sets the conditions for success on the number of bombs that go off for the news cameras? The fact is it was al-Qaeda’s penchant for mindless atrocities that not only fed the news media’s appetite, but turned the Iraqis against al-Qaeda. More bombs are not going to change that dynamic.

This is the danger of obsessive tunnel vision. Making the statement more bombs would change the dynamic a conclusion one can only make if one things a PR campaign will change the tsunami of anti al-Qaeda fever sweeping Iraq. Of course it won’t, but whoever wrote this lives in a cuccoon of ingorance. It is just beyond the pale anyone would suggest to al-Qaeda, directly or indirectly, that bombing innocent Iraqis will change the dynamics of the debate on the war here in the US. That is like saying another 9-11 would help wake America up. Both concepts are ludicrous daydreams about how upheavel could make people now on the wrong side of all this now right.

People, I’ll give you a hint. If harm has to come to someone else to prove you are right, then maybe you should be wrong.