Comedian Eddie Izzard does a fun bit about how the Church of England just isn’t as nasty as the Roman Catholic Church was back in the Inquisition days. Instead of threatening people with “confess or die” all the time, it would be more like “Tea and cake, or death?” and the people would get to choose.

“Cake or death?” That’s a pretty easy question. Anyone could answer that.

“Cake or death?”

“Eh, cake please.”

“Very well! Give him cake!”

“Oh, thanks very much. It’s very nice.”

“You! Cake or death?”

“Uh, cake for me, too, please.”

“Very well! Give him cake, too! We’re gonna run out of cake at this rate. You! Cake or death?”

“Uh, death, please. No, cake! Cake! Cake, sorry. Sorry…”

“You said death first, uh-uh, death first!”

“Well, I meant cake!”

“Oh, all right.”

You don’t have to be all that bright to figure out which would be better. Even if they are serving carrot cake, and it makes you break out in hives–is death preferable to hives?

Speaking of things that irritate, Alberto Gonzales is currently under the Senate’s microscope. Since the announced stepping down of John Ashcroft, Gonzales is President Bush’s nominee for the position of Attorney General. You would think that Senate Democrats, as the self-proclaimed champions of minorities everywhere, would be climbing all over themselves to praise Gonzales and support his nomination for this position. After all, he would be the first Hispanic to become Attorney General, and the Hispanic with the highest-level position in the executive branch of U.S. government. You would think the Democrats would be singing his praises, but you’d be wrong.

The Democrats dislike Gonzales because he isn’t one of their Hispanics. The dirty truth about Democrats is that they only love the minorities who follow Democrats and kowtow to their ideas. But once you leave the liberal plantation, you are a race-traitor and no longer considered a real minority. Look at Justice Clarence Thomas and Secretary of State nominee Condoleezza Rice. Neither one is considered by Democrats to be part of the black community because they are *gasp* Republicans. When President Bush nominated Miguel Estrada as the first Hispanic to sit on the Washington D.C. circuit court, the Democrats in the Senate never allowed Estrada’s nomination to be confirmed by vote. Why? Because he “wasn’t Latino enough” for them. Feel free to read that as “too conservative,” because that was exactly what they meant. Essentially, people are part of a cherished liberal minority if, and only if, those people also bow the knee to Democrat ideas. If they choose to think outside the liberal box, they are no longer part of the minority group. That is why people like Thomas and Rice are derogatorily referred to as “Oreos,” because Democrats think of them as black on the outside, but white on the inside. These Democrats think that being black, Hispanic, or any other minority means you must think, act, and vote with the group.

If that isn’t racism, what is?

So the Democrats will have a field day pointing their fingers at Gonzales, jumping on their high horses about the torture of al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. You will hear just how shocked and awed the senators are that Gonzales inquired of the Justice Department just what constituted the torture of detainees. The Democrat senators are shocked, shocked that he would even ask such a question. Doesn’t it make sense that this is precisely the type of question that should have been asked regarding al-Qaeda and Taliban thugs? Well, not if you are a liberal. Expect to hear much about the Abu Ghraib excesses, and marvel as the Democrats try to lay the blame for these soldiers’ actions at Gonzales’ feet because he dared to ask the Justice Department, “So, what’s that law?”

Expect to hear much discussion about the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners of war. Mainly you will see the Democrat senators and their liberal allies in the mass media bemoaning the fact that we aren’t treating Islamist fanatics according to the rules of the Geneva Convention. It will make for a great sound bite, because the senators can sound so very concerned about the terrible treatment of the prisoners. These same prisoners, incidentally, would love to see these senators dead, but that probably won’t make the evening news. I find it interesting that the Democrat senators are choosing to stand in defense of al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners. I guess their sworn oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” takes a back seat to their desire to stick it to President Bush and his nominee.

Incidentally, does the Geneva Convention cover these prisoners? Here’s the Cliff Notes version for the slow reader: no. First, to be bound by the Geneva Convention, both nation-states must be signatories to the treaties. When did al-Qaeda and the Taliban sign them? Why, bless my soul, they never did! Second, if a signatory violates the terms of the Geneva Convention–say, by using banned poisonous gases or hiding behind civilians–all constraints are off. The Islamist fanatics who have been fighting coalition forces are guilty of both these violations. Finally, to be viewed as a lawful soldier and merit the protections of same, the soldier must be dressed in uniform or bear some recognizable insignia. These fanatics do neither. Therefore they are not soldiers, but are considered unlawful combatants. If the U.S. wanted to do so, we could choose to execute on the spot any Islamist fighter captured by our soldiers; under the terms of the Geneva Convention, this execution would not be considered a war crime at all.

Most senators are lawyers, so none of this information should be news to them. Why, then, do they maintain this fiction? Quite simply, they would rather use the Gonzales nomination to bury a political hatchet in President Bush’s back than “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

So the Democrat senators are going to bring up the *gasp* torture *shock* that went on at Abu Ghraib and try to pin it on Gonzales (and, by implication, President Bush). But I wish that every time someone tried to bring up the “torture” of being leashed like a dog, forced to participate in a naked dog pile, or having panties placed on one’s head, a Republican senator would show the video clip of Nick Berg having his head sawn off with a large knife, to the accompaniment of the “Allahu Akbar” chorus. I cannot see how the two compare. When you get down to it, the stuff that went on in Abu Ghraib–while completely unacceptable–is about as disturbing as a standard frat hazing. When some fanatic does the Ginsu action on your neck, it is going to leave a more permanent mark.

If the Democrat senators cannot see the magnitude of difference between these two actions, either there is something seriously wrong with their judgment, or they are attempting to make political hay. Either way, it doesn’t reflect well on them. It’s pretty hard to miss the difference when offered a choice of “Cake or Death?”

Leave a Reply