I must admit I've been concerned that Andrew Breitbart's new and unfortunately-named website Big Peace was lacking the sort of credibility that would make it a player on the wing-nut warmongers scene. But those concerns were allayed when I saw that Big Peace counts among its contributors noted non-lunatic and definitely sane person Daniel Pipes, who offered this observation in his inaugural post:
Jaw-dropping court testimony by Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square bomber, singlehandedly undermines Obama administration efforts to ignore the dangers of Islamism and jihad.
I see... The court testimony from the would-be terrorist who was arrested, interrogated, and convicted by the Obama Justice Department undermines the Obama administration's "efforts to ignore the dangers of jihad."
This is an ideal situation for Pipes -- so long as the Obama administration keeps arresting, interrogating, and convicting terrorists, he'll have all the evidence he needs that the Obama administration is ignoring the dangers of terrorism.
Today, Andrew Breitbart launched Big Peace, the national security analog to his other smear and conspiracy sites. He announced its kick-off with the following ludicrous statement:
The site is pro-freedom, pro-liberty, and pro-American but will not be an outlet for false information or propaganda. The unique mix of Schweizer, Gaffney, and Blackfive and our collective reputations will provide a check and balance.
That's right. Breitbart, delusional nut that he is, thinks that his and Frank Gaffney's "reputations" will help "provide a check and balance" that will keep the site from publishing "false information or propaganda."
You may remember Gaffney from his crackpot claim earlier this year -- published on Breitbart's Big Government, no less! -- that the Missile Defense Agency's "new" logo "appears ominously to reflect a morphing of the Islamic crescent and star with the Obama campaign logo," which Gaffney identified as a "nefarious" "symbolic action" that he suggested represented an "act of submission to Shariah." Of course, Gaffney blamed Obama for his fanciful take on the logo, claiming it demonstrates how the administration "is all about accommodating that 'Islamic Republic' [Iran] and its ever-more aggressive stance."
I'm sure you can see where this is going. A few days later, Gaffney embarrassingly returned to Big Government to admit that "it isn't true that the MDA's logo is exactly new or, apparently, that it reflects an Obama-directed redesign." It turns out that "[t]he contract for a complete rebranding for MDA was let in 2007, during the Bush administration, although much of the work appears to have been done in 2008 in follow-on contracts during the presidential campaign in which the Obama logo was much in evidence." In offering this explanation, Gaffney apologized for any "confusion" caused by his insane conspiracy-mongering, though not for engaging in it.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg.