Non Sequiturs

Sometimes I read statements that simply make no sense at all. That's happened several times in the last couple of days. The outstanding ones, just from James Taranto's Best of the Web, are these:

In yesterday's entry of the continuing "Zero-Tolerance Watch" series, a student was told he was not being suspended while he was being suspended.

Two days later, he said, Vice Principal Paul Deal told him that he was not being suspended or expelled, but that he might be a threat to the school or himself. J.K. [the student] said he was told to leave and not return until being cleared by a mental-health professional.

Today, there's an item titled "Violently Opposed to Violence". It seems there was a peace demonstration in the Palenstinian territories, but the demonstrators don't seem peaceful — some carry rifles, and others RPGs. As Taranto says:

We've often noted that many so-called pacifists seem to have a taste for tumult, but only in Palestinistan would a peace protester carry an RPG launcher. Or should we say only in Reuterville?

The lead item today is about the statements by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He says the war is lost, but we can still win it ... or something like that. "This war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," Reid said at a press conference. He "knows" what Condi Rice, Robert Gates, and General Petraeus — and maybe President Bush — believe, which happens to be at odds with everything any of them has ever said. One thing he didn't explain is, if we have lost the war, who won? (At least Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee has balls enough to say we should claim victory and leave.) Other Democrats wouldn't say they agreed with Reid's statement, but said the war cannot be won militarily. That is, they don't agree with him but they agree with him.

It's not a non sequitur, but a particularly egregious statement cited in the Politico article was from Sen. Tom Harkin. When asked what our troops are doing in Iraq, he said "I don't know what they're engaged in, what they are trying to do. Our military is being abused, abused by this administration. Abused." In an actual non sequitur, he also said his 2002 vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq should not have been construed as a green light to invade Iraq.

Meanwhile, in the same column (second item), says Vice President Dick Cheney "took the unusual step of seeking out reporters." He was up on Capitol Hill — you'd think the reporters would be seeking him out. Guess they didn't want to hear what Cheney had to say.

What is perhaps my favorite continuing Leftist non sequitur, though, shows up in today's column in its fourth item, "Stand Up and Be Labeled a Terrorist." The extremists like to pretend their (they claim all of our) rights are being infringed, and they can't express their opinions. That's right, they are without any fear expressing their opinions that they are not allowed to express their opinions. Taranto's comment is right on point:

What's odd about this is that the plaintiffs apparently have no fear of announcing in open court that they fear designation as terrorists. If they really feared it, you'd think they'd be lying low. This is similar to the plaintiffs in the wiretapping case last year, who made declarations to the effect that they had various ties to terrorists, and who claimed in the case that their civil liberties were under siege. If civil liberties were really under siege, people wouldn't be openly confessing their ties to enemies of the country.

The only question left is whether these people are completely detached from reality, or are simply clueless.