Two news phenomena in need of interpretation.

First, ripped from Atrios for purposes of dramatic juxtaposition:

Ah, we remember it well. The EFPs which COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN MADE IN IRAN. Much like the anthrax which COULD HAVE ONLY BEEN MADE IN IRAQ

Front page NYT story, 2/20/07:

"The most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran."

Except, you know, not. [In today's Washington Post, briefly]:

"Bleichwehl said troops, facing scattered resistance, discovered a factory [in Iraq] that produced 'explosively formed penetrators' (EFPs), a particularly deadly type of explosive that can destroy a main battle tank and several weapons caches."

Burrrp burrp! Does not compute! Does not compute! Washington Post version of the story, as captured by Google News "1 hour ago."

That paragraph is now missing from that WaPo version of the story. But you do have this:

"The U.S. military said two U.S. soldiers died in separate roadside bombings in the east and west of Baghdad on Friday.... One of the bombs was an explosively formed projectile, a particularly deadly type of device which Washington accuses Iran of supplying Iraqi militants."

---------

From today's New York Times article, entitled "Giuliani says nation at war requires him":

...“What they say in Washington is not going to affect the fact that there are terrorists around the world that are planning to come here and kill us,” he said in Iowa, in the most spirited part of his newly honed stump speech.

Pointing his finger and bouncing up and down on his toes, he declared, “It is something I understand better than anyone else running for president.”

...It was the Iraq war and efforts against terrorism on which he was most impassioned.

Until this week, Mr. Giuliani’s views on Iraq were not well known. But on this trip he made clear, though never mentioning President Bush by name, that he firmly supported the administration’s current strategy, including Mr. Bush’s decision to send more than 20,000 additional combat troops there.

In an interview, Mr. Giuliani did say there had been mistakes in the execution of the war, including what he described as failure to send enough troops initially and the decision to dismantle the Iraqi Army that had served Saddam Hussein. He also said there had not been the effective communication and leadership needed to convince Americans that the war was crucial to their security.

But the criticism ended there. At a house party in New Hampshire on Monday, he said the United States would most likely be fighting in Iraq for a long time, “unless there is some kind of miracle.” He attacked the “dangerous and irresponsible” Democratic effort for a withdrawal timetable.

And speaking at a high school in St. Petersburg, Fla., he maintained that the struggle would be over only “when they stop planning to come here and kill us.”

The crowd loved it. “Go get ’em, Rudy!” one man shouted....

What are his qualifications for dealing with foreign policy matters? He cited his experience as mayor of an international city, and recalled that he had once kicked Yasir Arafat out of a United Nations celebration at Lincoln Center on the ground that he was a terrorist....

As for Iran, Mr. Giuliani said that “in the long term,” it might be “more dangerous than Iraq.”

He then casually lumped Iran with Al Qaeda. “Their movement has already displayed more aggressive tendencies by coming here and killing us,” he said.

Mr. Giuliani was asked in an interview to clarify that, inasmuch as Iran had no connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. Further, most of its people are Shiites, whereas Al Qaeda is an organization of Sunnis.

“They have a similar objective,” he replied, “in their anger at the modern world.”

In other words, he said, they hate America.

What conclusions should we draw from these two articles?

I submit: Rudy will run as the pro-murder candidate. The media will praise and celebrate his candidacy, and make themselves his murderous accomplices. A significant portion of the "values" voters will not vote for Rudy. But a significant portion of them, for whom "values" just means hating the right people, will happily leave the gays alone in exchange for the promise of more dead Arabs, and for the possibility of more televised terrorist attacks sanctifying "American soil." These promises will also attract a number of independent voters who will warm to Rudy's status as a "maverick," non-partisan murderer for all Americans. Hillary will try to match Rudy's bloodlust and, being residually human, she will not come across as believable. The media will make fun of her humanity. Rudy will win and begin murdering at an accelerated rate.