Just a Normal Al Qaeda Day

Al Qaeda terrorists are trying to set up a shadow government in Iraq, complete with its own courts, torture houses, and prisons. They are trying to call themselves "The Islamic State of Iraq" but Michael Yon reports the new name is just "lipstick on a pig" there. One reason is the version of Sharia law implemented by the Al Qaeda Muftis (judges) which includes severing the two "smoking fingers" of those caught smoking, beatings for refusing to grow beards, and beatings for such "obscene sexual suggestiveness" as carrying tomatoes and cucumbers in the same bag.

Like most bullies, Al Qaeda terrorists make a great show of being fearsome warriors but, also like most bullies, they are cowards. Al Qaeda terrorists hide behind women and children, and attack Coalition soldiers from behind their human shields. Al Qaeda terrorists are caught trying to escape while dressed as women. Al Qaeda terrorists take over a village they think they can hide in and attack American and Iraqi soldiers from, murder every man & woman & child & animal in the village, and rig the houses with explosives when they cut & run — leaving it to the Iraqi army to provide the burial rites of the religion the terrorists pretend to follow. Al Qaeda terrorists cut off the heads of children.

All in a normal day's activities for the Al Qaeda wolves, the pretenders in Muslim sheep's clothing. And, of course, these activities are completely ignored by the New York Times.

Scooter Libby Commutation

President George Bush on Monday commuted the sentence imposed by a federal judge on I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, removing the imprisonment but leaving the conviction intact with its fine and probation. The Left's response has been to attack Bush for the commutation, claiming it's an interference in the judicial process — ignoring the fact that executive clemency has always been an integral part of the process. Meanwhile, the Right has been angry that Bush didn't pardon Libby outright.

One thing every commentator I have seen has missed, however, is this: If Bush had pardoned Libby, the appeals process would have been aborted. By commuting the sentence, but leaving the conviction intact, Bush has enabled the appeal to go forward. Clearly he expects the conviction to be overturned by the appellate courts — perhaps in part because of several of the judge's rulings, but mostly because of the actions of a rogue prosecutor who knew at the beginning of his investigation (1) who the leaker was (Richard Armitage) and (2) that (probably) no crime had been committed; he ignored the actual leaker — the supposed object of his investigation — but continued anyway until he could find somebody he could convict of something. That's a result that may, as Bush and his advisors seem to feel, merit keeping the appeal alive.

The 2007 Immigration Bill

I have thought, multiple times over a period of months, to write about the immigration issue and this year's immigration bill. But the problem with that, especially with any thought of writing about the immigration bill, is that it's not clear what's actually in the bill.

A lot of folks have had a lot to say about what's in the immigration bill currently being considered in the Senate. And a lot of what's being said conflicts — not just in interpretation or implications of provisions, but in the basic facts of what the bill provides. Time and again, one senator would make a claim and another would make an absolutely contradictory claim. One would say the bill would allow imprisoned felons to get Z visas and citizenship, for example, while another would say those individuals were absolutely precluded from Z visas and from any consideration for U.S. citizenship. Obviously, I thought, at least one of them was lying. But now I'm not so sure, as the bill has apparently been being extensively modified and rewritten, even today — even tonight. Under such conditions, no senator can know just what is (and isn't) in the bill this afternoon, or this evening, or what was in it this morning. The same is true of the bill's amendments. So the senators are making different assumptions, relying on what they've been told by people they trust. The senators may not be lying, but they may well have been lied to.

That being the case, I cannot either support or oppose this bill based on what's in it. But I have decided I must oppose it.

The reason I've come down on the side against this bill is procedural. This bill has been brought up, and is being pushed through the Senate, in a unique manner. It has not been handled like any normal bill. There have been no committee hearings, no committee debate, and no committee amendments. Normally, this substantial and comprehensive a bill would be considered by multiple subcommittees and committees; this bill has been considered by none. Normally, a bill comes to the Senate floor in relatively final form; this bill is barely through its first draft, and the few amendments being allowed haven't yet been completed — even though they are being voted on. Harry Reid, the majority leader, is making senators vote on amendments and a final bill they haven't (and could not have) seen or read. That violates every normal principle and procedure of "the world's greatest deliberative body." The key question is why, and I don't see any possible answer that's good for this country or its people.

Three Quotations

"Captain" Ed Morrissey comments on reactions to the study showing how lopsided newsrooms are in their viewpoints:

From campus speech codes to the BCRA [Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, a.k.a. McCain-Feingold] to forcing journalists into political darkness, it seems that America has fallen in love with top-down solutions to hide political differences. Wouldn't sunlight be easier, more effective, and far less costly?

And here's something from an editorial on the National Review Online on the Supreme Court's decision in the Wisconsin Right to Life case:

The Washington Post, a longtime cheerleader for campaign-finance regulation, conceded that the specific advertisements involved in the case were “anodyne” but argued that it was nonetheless better to ban them than to take the risk that sham issue ads would also run: “Yesterday’s ruling reopens a dangerous loophole.”

That dangerous loophole is otherwise known as the First Amendment. If that amendment means anything, it has to mean that government should err on the side of tolerating more speech rather than less. If the power of judicial review means anything, it has to mean that the federal judiciary will not enforce laws that violate that principle. If the pursuit of campaign-finance “reform” ineluctably leads its advocates to regard free speech as a loophole, maybe they should reconsider whether it is such a good idea.

On a little different subject, but still on the subject of Americans' rights, James Taranto of the Opinion Journal web site writes on “The Truth About Guantanamo” — as opposed to what the primary networks and newspapers have been telling us. He notes that the Associated Press (and others) want the terrorists held there to simply be released. But the courts have consistently ruled that Prisoners of War can be held for the duration of their conflicts, and that these prisoners don't qualify for the rights of POWs. He questions why the AP (and others) want to give terrorists and other unlawful enemy combatants more rights than legitimate soldiers. Taranto's conclusion:

By keeping terrorists out of America, Guantanamo protects Americans' physical safety. By keeping them out of our justice system, it also protects our freedom.

Islamist Depravity

The Taliban, upstanding leaders of the Religion of Peace^TM that they are, are using six year old children as human bombs in their quest to commit mass murder.

“They placed explosives on a six-year-old boy and told him to walk up to the Afghan police or army and push the button,” said Captain Michael Cormier, the company commander who intercepted the child, in a statement. “Fortunately, the boy did not understand and asked patrolling officers why he had this vest on.”

The British soldiers defused the vest. The child's name and present location have not been released.

What can one possibly say about this? I cannot even begin to comprehend this level of subhuman behavior. The best I can do is quote:

The depravity of Islamists has no bounds. Remember that.

I Didn't Know ...

I didn't know Muslims had ritual butt washings. But apparently they do. Note the captions on a couple of the pictures posted on Michelle Malkin's site:

Masked Muslim moral police force a man wearing clothes deemed un-Islamic to suck on a plastic container Iranians use to wash their bottoms.

The Iranian morality police arrest the infidel after forcing him to drink from the toilet watering cans hanging around his neck.

Note that the Iranian "police" are enforcing their "morality" on people who are not conceivably subject to Islamic law, much less their extremist interpretation.

Here's a simple, less egregious example:

Whipped for wearing a soccer shirt.

This picture, like the others posted by several "new media" folks, are official pictures formally released by FARS and ISNA, the Iranian "news" agencies. I also note that, in these and other pictures, the "police" are all masked — which says to me these people know what they are doing is very wrong and, at some level, they are ashamed of what they are doing. Just like criminals the world over. And yet, from the pictures, they seem proud to be abusing innocent people. So why are they hiding behind masks?

More on this at Gateway Pundit, Captains Quarters, and Ali Eteraz. Ali Eteraz says this is all part of the Iranian government's intimidation and misdirection efforts designed to keep Iranians from protesting the fact that Iran's economy has been so mismanaged, that it is in so deep a hole, that this oil-rich nation must ration gasoline to its population.

Views of Iran

Jay Nordlinger had a spectacular Impromptus column a week ago (June 13. In one piece of it, he related something he saw at the “Davos in the Desert” conference not long ago:

Well, at this conference, I witnessed a spectacular outburst from a Palestinian journalist, directed at an Iranian official. The Palestinian pointed out that Iran was acting as the enemy of the Arabs, sowing murder and chaos in Iraq, Lebanon, and the PA [the Palestinian Authority] — arming and training Iraqi militias, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

And what kind of murder and chaos is Iran sowing? And how effective is Iran being at their chosen method of warfare? Nordlinger quotes from an article by Victor Davis Hanson:

not only can “a suicide bomber with a $100 vest” destroy “$1 million worth of electrical infrastructure.” In a “gruesome equation,” he can “cast the American engineers into the role of the incompetent or sinister by their failure to repair and rebuild faster than an illiterate can destroy.”

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem we face in asymmetrical warfare — especially when major elements of our own population refuse to recognize we're in a war at all.

Nordlinger provides a fitting summation: “It is worth bearing in mind: Israel and the United States aren’t the only countries that fear and hate the Iranian regime. And those who fear and hate that regime the most, of course, are Iranian citizens themselves.”

Iran has declared war on us — the United States and the West. Can't we at least take them at their word on this?

Twenty Years Ago

It was twenty years ago this week — on June 12, 1987 — that Ronald Reagan stood at the Berlin Wall and issued his most famous challenge: “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” The Wall came down just two years later. Now only a small piece remains, which the German government is trying its best to preserve as a remembrance and a memorial.

It wasn’t supposed to happen. The State Department and the National Security Council both objected, saying it was both useless and needlessly provocative. Of course, they were wrong. Reagan knew it and kept the line in the speech, knowing it was the right thing to say. Eventually, we all knew it, too.

Red Light Cameras

Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez has been a big proponent of red light cameras. Mayor Marty said the automated system would enable the city's police officers to concentrate more on crime fighting rather than traffic control. He said having these dealt with administratively would avoid clogging the courts. And they wouldn't perturb the Motor Vehicle Division, either, since the city had no power to cause points to be assessed against drivers licenses. Mayor Marty said the hefty fines ($100, $250, and $500 as compared to a fine of about $20 for this offence on a real traffic ticket) would be a deterrent that would cause infractions to drop and accidents to fall. Mayor Marty said this measure was a safety issue.

Opponents objected to the level of the fines, to the lack of due process, to the city usurping state authority, and to the imposition of this new "cash cow" revenue source for the city. They were also concerned that the city would shorten the yellow lights, as had been done in other cities, to increase the city's cash take regardless of its effect on safety. There was also concern that the company that processes the tickets has a positive incentive to maximize the number of tickets to maximize it's take (and, coincidentally, that of the city as well). Mayor Marty, the city traffic engineer, and others assured everyone this was about safety rather than money, and the city certainly would not be so dishonest as to monkey with the yellow light timings.

Albuquerque radio station KKOB AM's afternoon host Jim Villanucci has now taken up the cause of the red light cameras. After hearing primarily from proponents for so long, how we're hearing some reality. Now we hear in instance after instance how administrative abuse has replaced judicial review, with city administrative officers berating truthful appellants as liars and routinely upholding erroneous citations. It has also developed that citations have been regularly issued and upheld against cars that did enter the intersection after the light turned red, but did so legitimately under the control of a right turn green arrow. The city absolutely denied this ever happened — right up until confronted with video proof on Albuquerque television station KOAT. And that's the good part of the news.

Now it develops that accidents are not down at the intersections with the red light cameras, as the city has been insisting. The actual statistics show that accidents are up at all or nearly all — at some, the accident rate has doubled since the red light cameras started working. And people are out timing the length of the yellow lights, finding that many have been reduced from 4 seconds to less than 3. On KKOB radio last week, the city engineer claimed these signals all had their yellow lights set for a 4 second timing, and challenged his interviewer (Jim Villanucci) to time them himself. Even during that interview, people were calling in reporting their measurement of yellow light times under 3 seconds. The next day Albuquerqueans observed city workers changing the yellow light times from under 3 seconds to the 4 seconds the city traffic engineer had falsely said they were set at — and they got pictures and video of the city workers making the changes.

In other words, it looks like everything the city and its mayor have said on this subject has been a bunch of lies.

This shouldn't be a surprise. A number of studies (some of these, for example) have shown red light cameras do not increase safety or reduce accidents. What does reduce accidents is increasing the length of the yellow light. Indeed, one study cited by Villanucci said increasing the length of the yellow light by 1.5 seconds (to 5.5 seconds) reduced red light violations and accidents by more than 90 percent.

But Albuquerque and Mayor Marty don't care about that. They're really just in the program for the revenue.

Paul McCartney

Bob Clark, the morning host on KKOB Radio in Albuquerque, has a young son. And that son came in all excited at something he'd just learned.

"Dad, did you know Paul McCartney was a musician before he married Heather Mills?"

"Yeah, he was in a band called Wings."

And I bet he had no idea why his father was laughing so hard!

Greenland

There's a reason the Vikings called it Greenland.

We've Got To Negotiate

We're constantly being told we're losing in Iraq, particularly by the primary newspapers and television networks. These same folks continue on to say "... and we've got to negotiate directly with Iran and Syria."

Funny how those same folks are the ones who decline to report stories about Iraqis turning on al Qaeda (under its many names and guises) and taking — asking — help from U.S. military forces there to help protect their people from the foreign mercenaries.

It also seems to me that the call for us to negotiate directly with Iran and Syria is a direct acknowledgment that those two countries are the current participants in Iraq (the ones providing arms and funds and direction, and most of the manpower) and the violence there is a proxy war rather than a civil war.

Now if they'd just be honest enough to admit it, ....

Deadlines

Politico quoted an insider:

"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that seemed like posturing."

James Taranto, of the OpinionJournal's Best of the Web column comments:

This gives away the game, doesn't it? The "antiwar" people understand what it means to set a deadline — and they seek to do so because they want America to lose.

Taranto is right. These people are not stupid; they know what they're doing and what the probable effects of their actions are.

This strongly suggests that "They're not anti-war. They're just on the other side." The alternative is that they care only about their own political fortunes, and don't care about the effects of their actions for the country.

Culture of Corruption

From Powerline:

House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, who has falsely denied the existence of earmarks, now has decreed that earmarks in his bills will not be revealed until a measure passes both the House and the Senate. [emphasis added]

So Obey has already lied to us all, and now he wants to hide his dishonesty and malfeasance — at least until no one can do anything about it.

Seems to me the current Congressional (Democrat) leadership has a lot of brass trying to call the Republicans corrupt.

Reflecting on You Are Not Alone

Bill Whittle has another of his too-infrequent essays out. This one is You Are Not Alone, and in it he takes you through his analysis to demonstrate the conditions under which becoming a barbarian is the rational choice. His examples include explanation of why the "broken windows syndrome" works and effective means of destroying respect for law by convincing the society that laws are for chumps. Along the way he notes that

Everything the West has achieved — all the science, prosperity, security and freedom — is based upon the free exchange of ideas. We tolerate offensive ideas so that this free exchange of information may continue. Disagreement is the crucible of wisdom. The price we pay for this cooperation is the daily offense we suffer at the exposure to ideas we find distasteful.

There's a critical insight here. Look back over history and, to the degree you can, see where the societies had more freedom (particularly freedom of expression) and where they made more progress and created more prosperity. Such a review may be skewed by the fact that, across the distance of history, we are more able to see ideological ferment than ideological freedom, though the latter does not imply the former. But even with that limitation, the correlation is striking. Freedom of speech is not just an important freedom — it is mankind's most important freedom. That's probably why that is the freedom most constantly under attack (as this exemplifies) around the world by all those who want to be in control.

One fascinating thought that appears at points in the essay is that a key, critical difference between a society that we would call modern & civilized and one that we would call backward & barbarian is one that is not easily apparent. It is simply whether the society's dominant viewpoint is short-term or long-term. If the society takes a short-term view, it will follow strategies for immediate gains even if the gains they produce are small, and even if those strategies prevent long-term success. That is not a fault — given those societies' conditions, it is the rational choice. To make larger (and faster) progress the society has to cross a threshold, achieve a critical mass, so that it has the luxury of (and can see the value of) taking a long-term viewpoint. As a result, we make things with greater permanence. Bridges are engineered rather than just built, and last many years instead of a season or two. (This is Whittle's example, from The Bridge Over the River Kwai.) Architects plan every detail of buildings before construction begins. (Think of the World Trade Center. This process sometimes becomes somewhat iterative, as seems to have been the case with the Sagrada Familia Church in Barcelona.) And we're now applying that same sort of architecture and planning process to computer software development, now that we're coming to expect longer-term software performance.

Some of these examples suggest the transition from short-term to long-term viewpoints does not necessarily affect an entire society. We are told, for example, that most of Egyptian society was functioning at a near-subsistence level in the time of the pharoahs, yet that society built the pyramids and temples Egypt is so famous for. Same thing for medieval Europe and its cathedrals. It may be said, though, that these are the societies that showed the way — the ones that had made enough progress to enable some groups of people the luxury of longer-range thinking, and the necessary supporting luxury of not having to spend most of one's time working at getting the next meal. Even so, it still seems the quantum leap necessary for a society to begin making exponential progress is the shift from short-range to long-range thinking by the society as a whole. Or, as Bill Whittle puts it,

nice, forgiving and non-envious [arising from a long-range viewpoint] are advanced strategies that require a topsoil of general goodwill, trust, and respect for the rule of law.

Societies that embrace these qualities will always out-compete those that don’t.

And all that is just the set-up for the rest of Bill Whittle's essay. The best I can say about that is go read the whole thing. And think about it.

For explanatory purposes here, though, let me continue on with a related thing or two. If you take Bill Whittle's essay and put names to the active proponents of the short-term and long-term strategies in today's world, and flesh out the concepts with current world events, you get something like Melanie Phillips' essay Liberalism vs. Islamism. To avoid misunderstandings, here are the definitions she uses:

• Islamism - "the politicised version of Islam which mandates jihad, or holy war against the infidel and conquest of the non-Islamic world for Islam."
• Liberalism - "the commitment to a free society ... from which follow the concepts of equal respect for all people, freedom of conscience, tolerance and the rule of law."

On the first definition, she says "I’m well aware of the argument that there’s no difference between Islamism and Islam: that’s a theological argument for others to have." On the second, I woud note that her definition is what others have called classic liberalism.

Phillips sees Liberalism and Islamism, so defined, as being in a death struggle — though many twist their logic into pretzels trying to deny it. And so she asks and answers a key question:

Why is a liberal society so reluctant to defend its own most cherished values of freedom and tolerance? The answer, I suggest, lies both in the intrinsic nature of liberalism — and also in what I would call our dominant culture of corrupted liberalism, in which true liberal values have actually been turned on their heads.

Essentially, she is saying we have been changing from a liberal society to a "liberal" one, to a society that still has the right words but has lost (or is losing) their substance. That is the same issue Bill Whittle was writing about in his essay — and the same one that (with Whittle's essays for inspiration) has made me write this one.

Is this a problem? Definitely. Can we recover? Absolutely. The only question is how and when (and under what conditions) we choose to do so. That is what You Are Not Alone is really all about. And that's another reason why I remain optimistic. I agree with Bill Whittle:

My friends, Western Civilization is not on its last legs.
Western Civilization is going to the stars. Count on it.

Iraqi "Insurgents"

It's an article of faith on the Left that nearly all the "insurgents" in Iraq are home-grown. Thus, the Left asserts these individuals and their attacks are part of the "civil war" in Iraq and not part of the Global War on Terror. Just as an example, I myself heard Alan Colmes on Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes show yesterday evening stating as fact that "at least 95%" of the insurgents are home-grown and not foreigners.

An inconvenient truth, for this viewpoint, has been published frequently — and ignored as frequently. It is that the substantial majority of the insurgents are, in fact, imported fighters. The latest is from Gateway Pundit who reports that more than 2/3 of the insurgents — currently 70% — are foreigners imported into Iraq through Syria using forged passports and travel documents provided by Syria.

This is part of a broader issue, which is the reason the Left is so adamant in claiming foreigners are a trivial part of the attacks and attackers. The Left (aside from those who want to pretend the Global War on Terror doesn't exist) wants with all its heart to believe Iraq is a diversion from the Global War on Terror. They need to believe the attacks in Iraq are part of a civil (rather than proxy) war, and that al Qaeda has little or nothing to do with Iraq. Too bad (for them) the facts on the ground tell a different story.

“Fascist!”

In his Impromptus column on Tuesday, Jay Nordlinger notes that “All of us who are conservative, or classically liberal, have had to be called fascist.” He also notes, correctly, that

“Fascist” is an epithet used by mean or stupid people against those they dislike who are perceived to be “on the right.” One result is that, when a real fascist comes along, there is no word left for him.

The people calling others fascists or nazis almost never have any conception of the real meaning of the words. Followers of Jefferson, Lincoln, Churchill, Roosevelt, JFK, and Reagan are not nazis and fascists.

Perhaps we can help these poor ignorant people. We can follow the example of one of Nordlinger’s friends — instead of using the terms ‘nazi’ or ‘fascist’, we can use the more specific correct term ‘national socialist’. And that may help them understand that these were parties of the left, not the right.

Two Outstanding Marines

New Mexico has a long history of providing men of valor to the U.S. military. Troops from New Mexico rode up San Juan Hill with Colonel Theodore Roosevelt in the Spanish-American War. New Mexico's National Guard (coastal artillery units) were at Bataan and in the Death March at the start of World War II, with many members remaining in Japanese Prisoner of War camps throughout the war. The famous Code Talkers were drawn from the Navajo Reservation of New Mexico and Arizona. Many others from New Mexico, whether in New Mexico by birth or assignment, have served with honor and valor in U.S. military actions from territorial days to the present.

From among New Mexico's more recently valorous men, allow me to bring two particularly outstanding men to your attention. One is from November of 2004 when Falluja was one of the most violent and dangerous places in Iraq. Private First Class Christopher Adlesperger was with one of the teams that moved in to pacify that city on November 10. His squad encountered a well-prepared machine gun position in one of the houses, which turned out to be an enemy command and control position. Adlesperger's response was to attack. He pinned down those at the gun position while he helped his wounded comrades up a stairway he cleared to a rooftop area from which they could be evacuated. From there, though wounded, he was able to use a grenade launcher to make holes in the building wall so he could fire on and destroy the enemy gun position. In doing so, he destroyed the last strongpoint in Fallujah's Jolan District. For this action, Adlesperger was awarded the Navy Cross and has been nominated for the Congressional Medal of Honor. He was subsequently promoted to Lance Corporal. LCPL Christopher Adlesperger was killed while leading a clearing mission on December 2, 2004. His Navy Cross was presented to his family on April 13, 2007. Chris Adlesperger graduated from Albuquerque's El Dorado High School.

In the same district of the same city a few months earlier, Captain Douglas Zembiec climbed up on a tank while under fire to guide it to where his men were pinned down. He coordinated the actions of his Marines from atop the tank while bullets and rocket-propelled grenades impacted all around him. He was already badly wounded before climbing onto the tank. And that wasn't the only time. Those who served with him call him a warrior without peer, not much different from those who led the Spartans into combat. He commanded incredible respect from his men, always leading from the front. That action was on April 26, the last day of major fighting before the Marines pulled out of the city under the terms of a cease-fire worked out by politicians and diplomats — a cease-fire that created the conditions under which PFC Adlesperger's unit would have to reenter the city six months later. Since that day in Fallujah, Zembiec has been promoted to Major and given more responsibility. MAJ Douglas Zembiec was reported killed last week in Iraq. As of yesterday, the Defense Department has not yet confirmed his death or provided information on its circumstances. Based on his history, I think we may assume he was taking the fight to the enemy, creating what he called "menacing delimmas for the enemy," when he died. Doug Zembiec graduated from Albuquerque's La Cueva High School where, as a junior, he brought the school its first ever state wrestling title. (He won again as a senior.) MAJ Zembiec was a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, and a veteran of combat in Kosovo and the Middle East.

The stories of men and women like these are usually not easily available or widely published. Stories on Major Zembiec and Lance Corporal Adlesperger were printed on the front page of the Albuquerque Journal only because they were from Albuquerque. I suspect some of the papers near Camp Pendleton were the only others to print them. The stories of their heroism apparently were not printed before their deaths. These stories can be found, but they commonly have to be explicitly sought out (as Blackfive frequently does).

And then there is the larger question: Where do we find such men? How do we grow or create them? I don't know the answer, and sometimes think the answer may be unknowable. But I do know we can all be very grateful for men and women like these — and many thousands of others. And we need to do better in telling their stories.

Insanities

I saw several reports and interviews on the television while at the gym this afternoon. And some of them were really nuts.

First was a report on Al Sharpton's attack on presidential candidate (former Massachusetts governor) Mitt Romney. What Sharpton said was “As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don’t worry about that, that’s a temporary – that’s a temporary situation.” (See also reports here and here.)

Sharpton denies ever saying that. He also claims he was talking about Christopher Hitchens, the atheist he was debating at the time he made the statement. But I — along with much of the country — have heard the audio on both radio and TV. There's no question of what he said.

Sharpton's apologists admit that's what he said, but claim it's not what he meant. They claim he made clear what he really meant to say later in the debate. If that's so, Sharpton should apologize for what he said and make clear that it wasn't what he meant. The fact that he won't do so indicates it really was what he meant, and that he's the same race-baiting bigot he's always been.

Then there's John Kerry. A report on the National Journal web site says he responded to a question about Building 7 at the World Trade Center on 9/11 by saying “I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things, that they did it in a controlled fashion.” It was not clear from the video clip I heard if he was really talking about WTC Building 7, though that was what people like Webster Tarpley asserted very firmly. If Kerry meant what he seems to have said, his connection to reality is much more tenuous that I'd previously thought.

And who is Webster Tarpley? On his web site (no, I'm not going to provide a link) he identifies himself as "Intelligence Expert, Activist, Historian" and author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA. I saw him interviewed this afternoon, too. He claims World Trade Center Building 7 was effectively undamaged, and was brought down by a controlled demolition. He says placing the explosives to do that would require several days of work by experts. (No suggestion was made as to how that was accomplished without anyone noticing.) He says Arabs do not have the capability to carry off such a task, and asserts it was an "inside job" carried out by rogue elements within the Bush Administration. Of course, this also means the attack on the World Trade Center's twin towers (and the Pentagon) was also carried out by Bush Administration elements. (He says the destruction of the twin towers was also by controlled demolition with explosives that took days of work by experts to place.) Tarpley does not deny the existence of Al Qaeda, but says it's a sham — "the CIA's Arab legion." He said, too, that there are several Osama bin Ladens, all actors on the CIA payroll.

Listening to Tarpley, I couldn't help wondering what color the sky is in his world. He gives moonbat a whole new level of meaning.

Col. Repya Is Tired

I don't like to reprint things whole — I'd much rather quote them, and point to them. But I'm making an exception for this piece. It's too good not to reproduce in full.

Two weeks ago, as I was starting my sixth month of duty in Iraq, I was forced to return to the USA for surgery for an injury I sustained prior to my deployment. With luck, I'll return to Iraq to finish my tour.

I left Baghdad and a war that has every indication that we are winning, to return to a demoralized country much like the one I returned to in 1971 after my tour in Vietnam. Maybe it's because I'll turn 60 years old in just four months, but I'm tired:

I'm tired of spineless politicians, both Democrat and Republican who lack the courage, fortitude, and character to see these difficult tasks through.

I'm tired of the hypocrisy of politicians who want to rewrite history when the going gets tough.

I'm tired of the disingenuous clamor from those that claim they 'Support the Troops' by wanting them to 'Cut and Run' before victory is achieved.

I'm tired of a mainstream media that can only focus on car bombs and casualty reports because they are too afraid to leave the safety of their hotels to report on the courage and success our brave men and women are having on the battlefield.

I'm tired that so many Americans think you can rebuild a dictatorship into a democracy over night.

I'm tired that so many ignore the bravery of the Iraqi people to go to the voting booth and freely elect a Constitution and soon a permanent Parliament.

I'm tired of the so called 'Elite Left' that prolongs this war by giving aid and comfort to our enemy, just as they did during the Vietnam War.

I'm tired of antiwar protesters showing up at the funerals of our fallen soldiers. A family who's loved ones gave their life in a just and noble cause, only to be cruelly tormented on the funeral day by cowardly protesters is beyond shameful.

I'm tired that my generation, the Baby Boom -- Vietnam generation, who have such a weak backbone that they can't stomach seeing the difficult tasks through to victory.

I'm tired that some are more concerned about the treatment of captives than they are the slaughter and beheading of our citizens and allies.

I'm tired that when we find mass graves it is seldom reported by the press, but mistreat a prisoner and it is front page news.

Mostly, I'm tired that the people of this great nation didn't learn from history that there is no substitute for Victory.

Sincerely,
Joe Repya,
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
101st Airborne Division

The line about those who claim they 'support the troops' particularly struck me. In part, that was because I am also frustrated by the apparent disingenuousness of it. But I have also run across Jay Tea's commentary on The Support Trap, which has brought up the possibility that the Left's self-deception is the only deception involved.