After 9/11, it was fashionable in elite liberal circles to lecture ordinary Americans thusly: Ask yourself: why do they hate you?

The answer I'd arrived at, at that time, somewhat depended on who "they" were. For example, I'm under the impression that Europeans thought we were much too conservative and socially repressed, while Muslims thought we were sinfully decadent. I didn't then observe a common thread.

But over time, watching how the US media is attempting to manipulate the population, and also watching European and Arab media like Al Jazeera do likewise abroad (to an even more shameful, fictional degree), I've come to suspect that a big part of the answer to: "Why do they hate you?" has to do the information "they" are being given by their media.

When media are obviously state-controlled, many people are wise enough to understand they are getting a cooked, false, misleading product. But when media appears independent, is really created by a loose, voluntary coalition of "journalists" who are also far-leftists and/or Muslim extremists, and are a bit more clever in their distortions, it can be quite persuasive. And even more so when you hear someone from another country speaking authoritatively, it would seem, about their homeland.

Consider, for example, this piece (via GetReligion) by Linda Heard in the Saudi-controlled Arab News. (You might want to read it in full for yourself before I launch into this dissection...)

America Has Never Been as Polarized as It Is Now
Linda S. Heard, Arab News

CAIRO, 28 September 2004 — America is split down the middle when it comes to the re-election of George W. Bush. Passions on either side of the divide are running high with those who believe they are the true American patriots fiercely defending their beloved leader.

Those are the “them and us” guys and gals with “them” being those envious terrorist enemies of America who hate freedom, and “us” translating into the flag-waving, gas-guzzling, gun-toting, French-bashing believers in the natural supremacy of the US with all that entails for the rest of the planet.

Liberals are often fond of asking ordinary US citizens: "Why do they hate you?" and then posing, as the ultimate answer for the listening flock to accept, the one obvious to them: "Because we're not currently in power." Of course, this is phrased a bit more circumspectly: "Because _____ is currently in power," where the blank is filled in the with name of a non-leftist incumbent.

But liberals don't, as a whole, frequently mention the crucial role many of their rank actively play, as Michael Moore does, and Linda does here, in forming that negative opinion abroad. In this case, Linda is clearly rheotrically dividing American in half -- into two completely separate species, it would appear -- and localizing her version of "evil" neatly and entirely in Bush's supporters, Americans she depicts repeatedly as cartoonishly malevolent and stupid.

Again, Linda's desire is clearly partisan ambition -- make people realize how awful that opponent of hers, Bush, and his supporters are. But she doesn't seem to understand (or, perhaps less charitably, doesn't seem to care) that in doing so, she is hurting her country as a whole. And that she is, herself, surely being used as a tool by men who would have rather different ideas about the kind of clothing she should be wearing and whether she should be appearing in public without an appropriate male guardian.

She functions, if you will, as another "useful idiot".

Further, examine how internally conflicted her rhethoric is. Look again at this paragraph:

Those are the “them and us” guys and gals with “them” being those envious terrorist enemies of America who hate freedom, and “us” translating into the flag-waving, gas-guzzling, gun-toting, French-bashing believers in the natural supremacy of the US with all that entails for the rest of the planet.

Notice that she calls her would-be enemies the 'them and us' people, while she herself engages, openly, in one of the most outrageous games of them-and-us I've ever seen. And this before Saudis and Egytians!

(And don't think for a moment her words won't be appropriately translated and quoted, and her cited as an authority, used as grist for even more extreme and articles written to the man on the street in Arabic!)

And then, she has the nerve to write this:

Bush’s black-and-white rhetoric plays nicely to this group...

The more I examine the idea of "liberal projection" -- that extremist liberals accuse others of being exactly as they are -- the more credence I find it to have. Black and white rhetoric? Goodness! She should know a thing or two about it!

Now examine the motives she imputes to Bush's supporters, recalling that she is writing all of this to a Muslim audience:

Bush’s black-and-white rhetoric plays nicely to this group, which looks to its Texan commander-in-chief to keep America free from swarthy foreigners, Kumbaya-humming tree-huggers, death penalty opponents, the pro-choice brigade and anything with the label “Made in France”.

At its core are eschatological evangelicals, many of whom are waiting anxiously for the battle of Armageddon as a prelude to the Second Coming. In their eyes, their Creator-invoking president can do no wrong. For them it is almost blasphemy to delve deep into the years when Dubya sowed his wild oats or, heaven forbid, hold his early service record up to scrutiny. He’s their “born-again” main man.

To a Muslim reader, these charges will resonate deeply. They are no less than incendiary.

Bush's appeal in the US, in my experience, are among those disaffected by Democratic policies, those who see this current crop of Democratic leaders as deeply lacking in honesty or integrity, and those who are concerned about security. (Contrary to Linda's dishonest assertions, concern about immigration, legal or not, is certainly not a reason anyone should ever cast a vote in favor of W who has repeatedly indicated he wants to reward all those who have entered the country illegally with citizenship.)

Instead, to this Muslim reader, Linda depicts Bush's supporters are being racist, religious nut-jobs who would, she shrewdly implies, be all to happy to use Israel to touch off the next world war to precipitate a religious apocalypse. Remember again, she is saying this against a background where Muslims are being told that Israel is backed primarily by American Evangelicals who want to start a war with Muslims in order to bring about the return of their Messiah.

This theme is so important to her that she revisits it repeatedly in her article:

The gurus of this group are not intellectuals but ideologues. Their standard bearers encompass the hawkish, pro-Israel founder members of the “Project for a New American Century”, many of which are prominent members of the administration. Or, Islamophobic preachers, such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham and Jerry Vines, along with influential right-wing finger-waggers like Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, who compared a university’s student introduction to a book entitled “Approaching the Qur’an: The Early Revelations” with the teaching of Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” during World War II.

Ever even hear of Jerry Vines? Me neither. And I've never heard Franklin Graham speak politically. Nor have I heard a peep out of Falwell in ages (that's probably good, in my opinion). And O'Reilly, no religious extremist, only gets a mention in this crowd because he once, she implies, said something which appears disparaging of the Qu'ran (if you read closely, you'll see he was referring to a textbook, not the Qur'an) -- and again, remember her audience and intent, in this context, those are quite literally fighting words.

But that's how Bush supporters are. They're stupid, ignorant, sheep, controlled by the Christian version of Islamic mullahs and anti-Muslims. They are religious fanatics and racists and they hate you, she is clearly telling her Muslim readers.

(All because we don't support her and her ideas.)

Oh, make no mistake about what she's doing here, ladies and gentlemen. You wonder where that anti-American sentiment comes from? I submit to you, respectfully, that articles like this, and the native language spin-offs which will inevitably ape its tone and line of argument, have a lot to do with it.

Not only are Bush's supporters dangerous religious extremists, but they're closed-minded and stupid, too:

Not for them an analysis of the jobless figures, the deliberate alienation of America’s traditional allies, and the rampant anti-Americanism on city streets from Manila to Mexico since Bush grabbed office from under the nose of the obscenely willing to capitulate Al Gore. People like Michael Moore only too willing to point that out in his documentaries and books are worse than the devil incarnate in their “see no evil around their president” alternative universe....

Ah yes. They're not intellectuals. Unlike ... uh... Michael Moore?

Listen as she attempts to infuse the listening mob with the rage and anger which burns within her own heart....

The gurus of this group are not intellectuals but ideologues....

Not for them the joys of the Internet with its graphic photographs of Iraqi babies deformed as a result of American depleted uranium tank shells, minus limbs due to unexploded US cluster bombs, or the bloody carnage wrought by Israeli missiles lobbed at heavily populated refugee camps.

(Note: American conservatives are so backwards and technologically illterate, they have nearly no access to nor presence on the Internet, Linda assures her foreign audience.)

Images of Stars-and-Stripes draped coffins returning from Iraq have been kept from them, as have scenes of American “precision” strikes on “terrorists” in Fallujah when toddlers are dragged out of the rubble. Instead, they are treated to Iraq’s Interim Prime Minister in front of Congress reading out a speech devised either by Karl Rove or inspired by Norman Vincent Peale’s “The Power of Positive Thinking”....

I'm sure the Norman Vincent Peale reference will go a long way with her Muslim readers. Reveals her complete cultural cluelessness, a charge she'd be more than happy to allege, I'm sure, about know-nothing conservatives like myself.

In Iraq, there are several factions battling for supremacy. There are Sunni and Shi'ite extremists, there are former Baathists, there are Taliban-style Wahabi extremists, and then there are the ordinary Iraqis who don't buy into any of these. We hope and pray Allawai is the man who will serve this last group, whom we as citizens of the US want to support.

But no, she depicts Allawi to her audience as mere Bush puppet:

Allawi deserved a sesame seed cracker, as he extolled the virtues of the new Iraq in his fantasy script.

Believe me, this is just what extremists want to hear from a home-grown American "expert" in the mideast. If Allawi is not legitimate, then it gives moral justification to terrorist actions and coup attempts by any of four other extremist factions.

In portraying Americans as stupid and gullible, she mentions Baghdad Burning as her source of information on what's really going on in Iraq. Yet it seems readily apparent to me that "Baghdad Burning" -- also called "Riverbend Blog"-- is clearly a propaganda channel itself: It's supposedly written by an "Iraqi girl" who has, amazingly, perfect english, never misses an important political speech on TV, despite alleged power interrruptions apparently also has uninterrupted satellite TV coverage, has encyclopedia knowledge of the demographics of even the smallest burghs in Iraq, and never talks about her girlfriends. (As if the name "Baghdad Burning" itself wasn't enough of a tip-off.)

And, strangely, even though "Riverbend" doubts just about everyone else, she doesn't for a moment actually seem to suspect guys like al Zarqawi are behind the bombings for which he claims credit. Such an idea is, she seems to imply, too convenient, and then casts suspicion on Americans.

Here is what Linda Heard accepts, on face value, as the writings of a Iraqi schoolgirl:

I, personally, never had faith in the American selected proxy government currently pretending to be in power- but for some reason, I keep thinking that any day now- any moment- one of the Puppets, Allawi for example, will make an appearance on television and condemn all the killing. One of them will get in front of a camera and announce his resignation or at the very least, his utter disgust, at the bombing, the burning and the killing of hundreds of Iraqis and call for an end to it… it’s a foolish hope, I know.

So where is the interim constitution when you need it? The sanctity of private residences is still being violated... people are still being unlawfully arrested... cities are being bombed. Then again, there really is nothing in the constitution that says the American millitary *can't* actually bomb and burn.

Sistani has conveniently been flown to London. His ‘illness’ couldn’t come at a better moment if Powell et al. had personally selected it. While everyone has been waiting for him to denounce the bombing and killing of fellow-Shi’a in Najaf and elsewhere, he has come down with some bug or other and had to be shipped off to London for check-ups. That way, he can remain silent about the situation. Shi’a everywhere are disappointed at this silence. They are waiting for some sort of a fatwa or denouncement- it will not come while Sistani is being coddled by English nurses.

One of the news channels showed him hobbling off of a private airplane, surrounded by his usual flock of groupies and supporters. I couldn’t quite tell, but I could have sworn Bahr Ul Iloom was with him. E. said that one of the groupies was actually Chalabi but it was difficult to tell because the cameraman was, apparently, standing quite far away.

"American selected proxy government"? "Sanctity of private residences?" "et al"? "Deja vu?" Knowing "bug" as a slang term for "disease"? This is the english lexicon of a young Iraqi girl writing in an allegedly foreign tongue? Again notice her complete media coverage: "One of the news channels..." and her brother able to spot minor figures in the crowd, figures who, if present, would confirm dark theories about an allegedly feigned illness.

(Compare this to something like Iraq the Model, which features different stories in different tongues, with lots of common Iraqi grammatical errors and less than perfect knowledge and conviction at each point.)

And here is a message from this "Iraq girl" to Ahmad Chalabi, replete with an allusion to abduction:

In conclusion, some words of advice to Chalabi- you are a mercenary to be bought and sold... it's time to put you up on the market again and hope for bidders. Get the car ready, make the trunk as comfortable as possible and head for the borders.

Linda accepts that as the writings of a young girl? If we're looking for examples of American gullibility, I submit we need look no further.

Finally, dig, if you will, Linda's parting shot:

So powerful is the veil of secrecy and delusion, woven by the current administration, and so emotionally toxic is Bush compared with Kerry’s blandness that another four years of the same... or worse... may sadly be on the cards.

"Veil of secrecy and delusion"? "Emotionally toxic?" She tells her Muslim readers that fully half of Americans are racists and religious fanatics who want to rule over them, hate them because of their skin color and religion, and eagerly want to start a war with them, using Israel, to bring back their messiah -- and she has the temerity to charge her opponents with "delusion" and "emotional toxicity"?

And again, remember, she is doing this for a newspaper backed by Wahabiist Saudis, a totalitarian state run by members of the same sect behind groups like the Taliban and al Qaeda.

The next time a liberal asks you why people abroad hate us, remember that there are plenty of liberals like Linda Heard, Edward Said, Michael Moore and others who have worked to depict their country, as long as it is not headed by one of their liberal peers, in the worst light possible, employing the kind of hate-inducing cartoon-comic caricatures they simultaneously impute to their domestic political opponents.

It is almost as if they understood that, by working to create hatred against the US abroad, they could then use that as a domestic argument at home to as to why we should give them yet more political power.

Almost as if.