Get them a dictionary

Get them a dictionary

       Arianna Cohen, in a recent op-ed, scathingly derided the Washington Post for using the descriptor “austere cleric” to describe the late and unlamented Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in an article on the recent successful raid aimed at his termination. Both Ms. Cohen and SecState Mike Pompeo, seemingly ignorant of the meaning of the words used, went literarily berserk declaring that they words “murderer”, “Jihadi”, “terrorist” and others, similar in nature, were the proper terms, and of course implying that The Post and ergo Publisher Jeff Bezos were…pick one, “soft on terrorism”, ultra-liberals, “un-American, …you name it, they want their readers to believe it.

              There was so much (and so similar) wrong with both pundit’s allegations that I’ll simple address the gist. It is classic “Fake News” and typically, it is exemplary of the Trump tactic of shaming the innocent while engaging in the media distortion so common of this administration and so many of those in it who deal with the public.

               First: the words which made their heads explode: “austere cleric.”

"Austere": “Severe or strict in manner, attitude, or appearance.” Secondarily it is used to describe lifestyle, “(of living conditions or a way of life) having no comforts or luxuries; harsh or ascetic”

“Cleric:” Any individual with the equivalent of a PhD in any theology, as al-Baghdadi held, is properly described as a cleric. Period.

       There can be no informed rational disagreement with this descriptor, which, rather than a character evaluation as the Far-Right media seem to think it, precisely describes the late asshole’s persona to a tee. One is left to guess that Ms. Cohen and Secretary Pompeo simply have no idea what the word means. The other point of note here is that these words were used to describe al-Baghdadi as he was prior to the 2003 destabilization of Iraq, when no one knew his name.    

       The real sham here is that, both Pompeo and Cohen (and a slew of lesser Far Right illiterates), seizing on words they should have , but apparently don’t understand, seem to have stopped reading before they got to the  part were the Post writer said: “…notorious, vicious and — for a time — successful terrorist groups of modern times. Under his guidance, it would burst into the public consciousness as the Islamic State, an organization that would seize control of entire cities in Iraq and Syria and become a byword for shocking brutality.” …. “a messianic figure drawn to the harshest interpretations of Islamic texts and seized with the conviction that all dissenters should be put to death.” ….or, “embraced a kind of extreme brutality that would become the group’s trademark. and finally, “Mr. Baghdadi reveled in ghoulish displays of violence, often as the subject of elaborately produced videos. His followers carried out mass crucifixions, turned female captives into sex slaves and gleefully executed prisoners by stoning, hacking or burning them alive — always with Mr. Baghdadi’s implicit blessing.” 

If reading that allows one to believe that The Post was “whitewashing” this man, then I’d hate to see a critical article!