Author: Greg Saunders

I probably should be surprised by this completely insane remark by Pat Robertson, but it seems like par for the course for a political operative who’s been disguising himself as a religious man for more than forty years now. (via Atrios) :

There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he’s going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

You know, I don’t know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don’t think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United … This is in our sphere of influence, so we can’t let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don’t need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It’s a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

Now think about this for a second…Pat Robertson – the founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network and the Christian Coalition – is calling for the murder of another human being. I cannot imagine how any honest Christian can look at this man and not come to the conclusion that he’s, at the very least, a complete fraud. The fact that the more devout members of the WWJD? crowd would follow Robertson rather than decry him as the anti-Christ tell you all you need to know about the personality-driven nature of “mainstream” (read : overbearing, xenophobic, paranoid, mass-media based subset of) Christianity in America.

This sort of thing makes my blood boil. I hate Christian sects that insist that their interpretation of the Bible is the only “true” Christianity, but I feel rather justified in saying that anyone who actively supports Pat Robertson’s ministries at this point is a “bad” Christian. There is no way you can reconcile Pat Robertson’s apparent bloodlust with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Period. Even attempting to justify a remark like this is tantamount to putting “thou shalt not kill” and “love thy neighbor” behind less important teachings like “thou shalt cover they televangelist’s ass”.

As far as the political aspects of a remark like this, I think it’s high time that the Democratic party borrow a page from the Republican playbook and insist that high-profile conservatives like George Bush, James Dobson, Bill Frist, John McCain, Rick Santorum, Tom DeLay and the like go on record about whether or not they agree with Pat Robertson’s call for the killing of Hugo Chavez. Do you agree that Chavez should be assassinated or not? Since you’ve been so willing to speak for Jesus in the past, do you think he’d support sending someone to murder the democratically elected leader of a foreign country?

Good grief. Ms. Malkin, to her eternal shame, couldn’t do a post about the cross-destroying dickhead on her side without turning it into an attack on the left :

Nice to see the far Left finally outraged about the desecration of crosses.

Don’t seem to recall their outrage about this or this or this, though. Or, of course, this.

I’ll spare you the hyperlinks, but suffice to say, they’re as contradictory as the rest of her oeuvre. The first three links are to news stories of desecrations of pro-life protests that used white crosses and the fourth is, hilariously, a link to the infamous art piece “Piss Christ”. Perhaps Michelle and Michelle will need to have a second debate on whether or not they support the first amendment’s freedom of expression?

And since we’re playing the childish “you didn’t denounce it on your site, therefore you support it” game, I don’t seem to remember Michelle making an effort to denounce the cross burnings in North Carolina, not that I’d expect any less from the writer of a racist book. (via Atrios)

That book, of course, was In Defense of Internment: The Case for ‘Racial Profiling’ in World War II and the War on Terror. Think about the title alone for a minute or two. Turn it over in your mind. Then focus on this: what Malkin defended for the length of an entire book was internment based on one characteristic alone: a person’s ancestry. This is the most blatant and repellent form of racism. Due to Malkin’s efforts, the “acceptability” and “defensibility” of racism achieved great prominence in our society. It was, and still is, a “respectable” topic of conversation. Racism as the basis of government policy was an “acceptable” subject on which to offer an opinion — and a range of opinions was encouraged. Perhaps it was bad policy, perhaps it wasn’t. Who can know for sure? The historical record is complex. Certainty on this question is impossible of achievement.

Add these further facts to your consideration of this matter. As Eric Muller and Greg Robinson examined and proved in great detail, Malkin plays fast and loose with the actual historical record. Her research methods were contemptibly shoddy. The arguments she offers cannot withstand even casual scrutiny. Her book and her subsequent arguments defending it are filled with dishonesties. In short: there are no facts or arguments to sustain Malkin’s position. The policy of internment was irrational at its foundation, and it destroyed many lives. It stigmatized a large group of people for no legitimate reason, and changed many lives forever. For nothing.

Malkin’s failures were both predictable and unavoidable. An irrational policy cannot be defended with rational arguments. Facts cannot be marshalled to support delusions. And note one additionally ugly aspect of the history of internment in World War II, pointed out in the Muller-Robinson discussion: nothing similar happened to those of German or Italian ancestry, although those countries were also our enemies. It was only those slant-eyed yellow people — those people who are not “really like us” — who were singled out. This is the lowest, most primitive, and subhuman version of racism. Racism in any form is immoral, irrational and always to be condemned. In that sense, degrees of immorality do not apply. But in another sense, this may be the worst kind of racism of all.

By the way, does anyone know how internment camps and an APB on any “swarthy” looking Arab men would have helped aid in the capture of Richard Reid , Jose Padilla, or John Walker Lindh? It seems to me that the (suspected) terrorists have already found a loophole in the “arrest any brown people with funny names” plan.

There’s an additional, and somewhat amusing, disagreement between the two Michelles over the term “grief pimps” :

The Los Angeles Times graciously admits it was wrong when it said I disdainfully called activists supporting Cindy Sheehan “grief pimps”. . .The Times has appended the correction to its original article. I’ll be looking for corrections from all the other papers that repeated the Times’ false allegation.

Where could the Times have gotten the bizarre idea that Michelle Malkin thinks the activists supporting Cindy Sheehan are “grief pimps”? Could it be the letter she reprinted without comment a letter from a reader that expounds on the term “grief pimps” or the fact that the post in question is actually called “grief pimps”? Perhaps the title of the post was referring to something else entirely? Since she didn’t technically use the term “grief pimps” on her own to explicitly reference the supporters of Cindy Sheehan, I guess she’s right in saying that the Times use of the words “disdainfully called” represents a “false allegation”. Perhaps they should have said “callously suggested” instead. There was a time when this sort of hyper-parsing was called “Clintonian”, but these days I prefer the term “Malkinized”.

In order to help the debate over Cindy Sheehan to move forward, I’ve agreed to moderate a debate between right-wing hack Michelle Malkin and conservative apologist Michelle Malkin. (most links via John Cole)

Michelle, we’ll start with you. What do you think of the protest by Cindy Sheehan outside of the President’s Crawford ranch? She says that she wants to know the “noble cause” for which her son died :

I can’t imagine that Casey Sheehan would approve of such behavior, conduct, and rhetoric.

Uh-oh. Michelle, you’re shaking your head over there and flipping back to your notes from last year’s Presidential debates. Would you like to respond to what Michelle said?

John Kerry stooped to the lowest of the low with the shameless, invasive line that will be played over and over again on the news in the next 24 hours. . .Um, has John Kerry talked to Dick Cheney’s daughter? Has John Edwards? Has Mary Beth Cahill, who called Mary Cheney “fair game” on Fox News Channel after tonight’s debate? If they haven’t talked to her, they should shut up.

Ouch. Tough words from Ms. Malkin.

Now going back to you, Michelle. You recently had some harsh words in response to the rumors that the New York Times was looking into the adoption records of Supreme Court Nominee John Roberts. So you think someone’s personal life is off-limits?

I think it’s the journalistic equivalent of dumpster-diving, Steve. And I think there’s no excuse for it. There’s no defense for it and the New York Times should apologize for it.

The name’s Greg, but I see your point. On the same subject, I’m going to pass this one to you Michelle. Michelle has taken a pretty firm stand against digging into personal records, but you recently printed Cindy Sheehan’s divorce records on your own site. Where do you stand on that?

Like it or not, the dispute between Cindy Sheehan and some of her family members is news.

Interesting point she’s got there. Do you have anything to add, Michelle?

What could possibly be gleamed from the adoption records of four and five year old children of a Supreme Court nominee whose professional and personal lives have been beyond reproach? This is what the New York Times has sunk to? Investigative opposition research of pre-schoolers? It’s pathetic.

Okay, so you both seem to disagree on whether digging into someone’s personal life is fair game, but to take this back to the Cindy Sheehan case, where do you think what do you think about the attacks she’s received by people on the right?

Well, I do want to emphasize what you said, Bill, which is that losing a child in any situation, whether it’s in a war, from an accident or disease, is one of the most painful of human experiences. And Mrs. Sheehan deserves compassion and sympathy.

And apparently, according to the accounts from last year when President Bush met with her, that’s exactly what she got. I don’t think that anybody should demonize her.

Well put, Michelle, even if you did get my name wrong again. Do you have anything to add to that Ms. Malkin?

Mrs. Sheehan, as they say, seems to “have issues.”

Now Michelle, you recently printed a reference to Sheehan’s supporters as “grief pimps”. Michelle, would you like to add anything to Michelle’s contention that there’s something exploitational about these activists joining grieving family members?

One of the pro-abortion Left’s favorite attacks on people of faith is that we only care about children before they’re born and not afterwards.

Perhaps this is why the mainstream media has ignored the amazing stories of pro-life activists who have been keeping vigil outside Terri Schiavo’s hospice — people like Steve and Tony Sakac, the Withey family, and the Anderson sisters who won’t ever appear on the front page of the New York Times or Washington Post.
. . .
For millions of Americans of faith of all ages, standing up for the sanctity of life is not just an empty slogan — but a deeply-held principle put into action daily. The MSM had ample opportunity to tell the stories of some of the inspiring people who have stood vigil outside Terri Schiavo’s hospice. Instead, as they have done throughout this ordeal, they looked the other way.

And we’ll have to end it there ladies. I want to thank you both for joining us and though you didn’t seem to agree on much, I hope this debate has helped inform our readership by presenting both sides of what’s happening down there in Crawford.

It should be noted that the search for answers regarding the Iraq war goes well beyond a grieving mother camping outside the President’s posh ranch. For example, during the press conference for last year’s Senate report on pre-war intelligence, committee chairman Sen. Pat Roberts promised that the follow-up investigation on the use of Iraqi intelligence by senior policy-makers was “one of my top priorities”. Well, it’s been more than a year later and phase two isn’t on anyone’s radar, except for a few tenacious lawmakers like Sen. Dianne Feinstein :

I am increasingly dismayed by the delay in completing the Committee’s ‘Phase II’ investigation into intelligence prior to the Iraq War. As you know, the Committee voted unanimously on February 12, 2004 to investigate five questions on pre-war intelligence, including use of intelligence by policymakers. Nearly eighteen months later, much work remains before these questions will be satisfactorily answered.

In addition to the terms set out early last year, the Committee should address the significant issues raised by the so-called ‘Downing Street Memo’ — whether the ‘intelligence and facts were being fixed’ to support the policy of using military force against Iraq. This claim raises serious questions about the use of intelligence, and whether intelligence resources were unduly focused away from other priorities in order to provide additional — and as we have found, flawed — intelligence on Iraq.

It would also be my preference to include in Phase II any new revelations concerning the CURVEBALL case since the Committee’s first Iraq report.

It is important that the Committee complete its study of these questions, both to fulfill our oversight responsibilities and because there is no other body capable of doing this work. The Committee’s report assessing the intelligence on Iraq ‘s WMD capabilities was of outstanding quality and demonstrated both our ability to inform the American public and uncover needs for intelligence reform. I urge you to take whatever steps are needed to complete the Phase II investigation and produce a report as comprehensive and thoughtful as the first phase of the Committee’s investigation. I stand ready to participate in this investigation in any way possible.

And that just covers the lies that led us into this war. As far as how the hell we get out of it, I’ve written in the past about the Pentagon’s foot dragging in regards to giving the American public a clear set of benchmarks by which to judge the administration’s performance. As I mentioned, getting those answers was legally required by the most recent war appropriation bill. Well, it seems that Congress got some answers a couple weeks ago, but they fell short of the mark.

Congressional critics of Bush administration Iraq policy lashed out at the Pentagon Thursday for keeping classified parts of a report that gave a detailed assessment of the readiness of Iraqi fighting forces.

Sen. Carl Levin, ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he fears “the American people are going to be left out” of discussions about when the United States can bring troops home and the wartorn country over to Iraqi security forces.
. . .
Joining Levin, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California said Thursday that if Rumsfeld submits merely “a progress report on the war without standards, goals and timetables specified” he will not have satisfied the intent of Congress.

“A meaningful strategy for success must include benchmarks by which the American people can better ask how the war in Iraq is going and when our troops can come home,” she said.

A few days after those remarks, the Democrats were rebuffed again, this time by the Republicans in the House :

Iraq benchmarks: Voting 203 for and 227 against, members on Wednesday rejected a Democratic request that President Bush set public benchmarks for measuring U.S. progress in Iraq in areas such as defeating the insurgency, establishing democratic institutions and bringing U.S. troops home. This occurred during debate on a bill authorizing State Department activities and other foreign operations in fiscal 2006.

Rep. Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey, urged benchmarks “so we know exactly what we need to do to achieve success in Iraq. Up to this point, Congress has abdicated its responsibility on Iraq. The Republican leadership has provided the administration with a blank check when it comes to Iraq.”

Cindy Sheehan is sitting in the dirt outside the President’s ranch hoping to find out what the “noble cause” is that took her son’s life. In seeking those answers, the American public deserves to know what the practical cause is for the Iraq war as well. Administration justifications about WMD’s, ties to 9/11, spreading democracy, and “rape rooms” have been proven to be either lies or hypocritical posturing. Rhetoric about troop levels, training of Iraqi security forces, and the strength of the insurgency has been shown to be equally hollow. Two and a half years into this nightmare, we still don’t know the real reason why we went there and how it’s all going to end.

In the past, I’ve suggested that readers help in the search for those answers by contacting their representatives, but I’ve lost all hope that this would do any good. Clearly one side of the aisle is concerned with getting answers and the other side it concerned with covering the President’s ass. At this point, if you want to get involved, contact the media and ask why they aren’t concerned with the same questions. Why hasn’t Wolf Blitzer shown as much interest in “phase two” as he has in patting himself on the back for interviewing Bill Clinton? Why aren’t local papers covering the anti-troop voting records of their Congressional representatives? I dunno, but I sure hope that Cindy Sheehan’s crusade will prompt the media to finally seek the answers we deserve.

Now, I’m sure you could write similar articles about history students who think George Washington wrote the constitution or math students who think a rhombus is a drink from Starbucks, but this is probably what we should come to expect from a political climate that insists on blurring the lines between science and religion :

While sleek crime-scene TV shows have turned students on to forensic science, an investigation of today’s high school laboratories shows that reality isn’t so flattering.

Most of the labs are of such poor quality that they don’t follow basic principles of effective science teaching, said a report released Monday by the private National Research Council, a prominent adviser to government leaders on matters of science and engineering.

The typical lab is an isolated add-on that lacks clear goals, does not engage students in discussion and fails to illustrate how science methods lead to knowledge, the report said.

Also contributing to the problem: teachers who aren’t prepared to run labs, state exams that don’t measure lab skills, wide disparities in the quality of equipment and a simple lack of consensus over what “laboratory” means in the school environment.

The study also found that the vast majority of science classes required students to bring their own Bibles from home. How are students supposed to test the salinity of Lot’s wife or the molecular transformation of water into wine without the proper materials?!

Joking aside, here’s a real example from a few days ago of sneaking a particular flavor of Christianity into public schools under the guise of Bible history :

The Texas Freedom Network, which includes clergy of several faiths, also said the course offered by the Greensboro, N.C.-based National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools is full of errors and dubious research.

The producers of the Bible class dismissed the Texas Freedom Network as a “far left” organization trying to suppress study of a historical text.
. . .
Chancey’s review found that the course characterizes the Bible as inspired by God, that discussions of science are based on the biblical account of creation, that Jesus is referred to as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy, and that archaeological findings are erroneously used to support claims of the Bible’s historical accuracy.

He said the course also suggests the Bible, instead of the Constitution, be considered the nation’s founding document.

To be fair, that last part does make a lot of sense. There are ten commandments and ten amendments in the bill of rights. That can’t have anything to do with the fact that we use a decimal number system and that we’re naturally drawn to numbers divisible by ten. No way. You’d have to be a complete moron to not see the similarity between the third commandment, “Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.”, and the third amendment, “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law”. This country was clearly founded by people who interpret the Bible the exact same way as James Dobson, Roy Moore, and Pat Robertson.

UPDATE : Since I’ve gotten a number of emails on this post, lemme clear up a couple of things. (1) The whole bit about children having to bring Bibles from home to their science classes was a joke. (2) The commandment I identified as the third is only considered the third in Catholic and orthodox Christian traditions, but it’s considered the fourth by Protestants and Jews. Meanwhile, it sorta looks like it’ the fifth of eleven commandments on the Judge Roy Moore version. If you’re bothered by the misquote, just pretend I said “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.” instead.