Another gem from Hitchens:
I notice that, in covering the continuing violence and sabotage in Iraq, the New York Times has begun to use the descriptive term “the Iraqi resistance” to characterize those responsible. This makes me queasy for two reasons. First, it is too broad. Many of those fighting are either part of the former secret police of the regime or imported from jihad groups outside the country. The term “resistance” suggests, for most people, in addition to its honorable historic associations, the idea of a civilian insurgency. Second, it is too narrow. There have been many Iraqis and Kurds over the past decades who have, at great risk to themselves, fought against Saddam’s dictatorship. Do they not deserve the “resistance” title at least as much? Or do they have to fight against coalition forces in order to earn that distinction? The Times is more precise when it comes to the al-Qaida and Taliban elements in Afghanistan. Now might not be the ideal moment to give credit in advance to Saddamist “irregulars”–the most euphemistic or neutral term that seems permissible.
On CNBC, Hitchen’s also mentioned that newspapers like the Times have identified to the American forces who are busy routing out Saddam’s thugs as “occupiers.” What are these journalistic thugs thinking?