Have you had the same urge to laugh at some of the antics of the Left as they go about protesting the President and his policies? A while back, there was a huge rally in the center of town. And when I say “huge” I mean about 3-4 dozen people banging pots and making noise. Gosh, they sure did show the Administration that they meant business. The irony is that the only people they annoyed with their noise were the other liberals downtown.

On the local Air America radio affiliate this morning, a lady from Taos, Arizona was crowing over the citizens’ arrest of Sec. Donald Rumsfeld at his home on April 30th. Rumsfeld was taken to the city center, tried by a jury of his peers, found guilty of war crimes, and sentenced. You probably missed this because it was only a mock arrest, and in this case “mock” means “completely ineffectual staging of events to make liberals feel like they are doing something, when their actions really amount to nothing but a lefty circle-jerk.” I guess “mock” is shorter and easier to type.

Do you think this mock citizens’ arrest of Rumsfeld sent a chilling message to the Administration? Do you think the Administration was even aware this happened? Do they even care? From just listening to the Arizonan, you’d think her group had conquered Rummy and that a new day was dawning for liberals in America. But in reality, their actions accomplished nothing substantial. It was merely an exercise to “raise awareness.” I have long learned to ignore liberals when their goal is to raise awareness and point the finger of moral outrage at others.

The major news continues to be the photos depicting the acts of some American soldiers in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. I am disturbed by these images since I do not think these acts are necessary, nor do I think they are acceptable. Are they just the pranks of some bored GIs? Or were these acts ordered by their superiors to break the will of the prisoners? I do not know.

But I have some questions.

  • Has the military been investigating these acts? Yes, it most certainly has been. So why the need to publicize the investigation now? What is gained by it? It makes the U.S. look horrible — that is the only way I can answer.
  • Were these investigations classified? Yes, they were. Will anyone be charged with leaking this classified information? Probably not, since the investigations have since been declassified.
  • Is it a crime to leak the facts of a criminal investigation in progress? Yes, it is. Will anyone be charged with leaking this information? Again, probably not. To put this in context, if I were to leak information about the rape trial of Kobe Bryant, I would be quickly charged.

Some Democrats, smelling blood in the water, and a few stupid Republicans are making political hay from these photos to call for the resignation, firing, or impeachment of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. President Bush has stood firm behind the Secretary of Defense, even while Rumsfeld has taken full responsibility for these acts happening under his watch. Does his taking responsibility mean he should step down? I would say no. Why not? We need not look further than the example of past Attorney General Janet Reno. When she took “full responsibility” for the deaths of the men, women, and children at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, she didn’t step down. And she was much more personally involved with the making of that tragedy than Secretary Rumsfeld has been with the prisoners in Abu Ghraib.

But today, everything is different.

Today, an appalling video of the beheading of an American hostage in Iraq at the hands of terrorists was released. On this tape, the masked thugs made their threats, pronounced their hatred for all things American, and proceeded to cut Nick Berg’s head off.

Fox News published the following today:

“Senators … are in a virtual state of shock about the beheading,” said Sen. John Warner, R-Va., recalling earlier concerns that the prisoner abuse could lead to retaliation against Americans.

Gen. Ronald L. Burgess told Warner “there has been an increase” in threats in the days since the prisoner abuse became known through the publication of photographs.

Earlier this month President Bush went on Arab television and apologized for the abuse. If I were President Bush, I would call a press conference today and rescind that apology, based on today’s video from Iraq. And while I am feeling particularly bloodthirsty today, I would like each of the thugs on today’s video hunted down and dispatched in precisely the same fashion that they brought death to Nick Berg.

While I have been upset over the prison abuse photos, I refuse to be upset anymore. Let me see if I can put the acts of these GIs in perspective with the acts of the followers of the “religion of peace:”

Religion of Peace U.S.
Being dipped feet-first into acid. Americans smiling behind a pyramid of naked, hooded Iraqis.
Having hands and feet macheted off, then allowed to bleed to death. A group of clothed but bound prisoners.
Tossed off multi-story buildings while bound hand and foot. Hooded and naked prisoner handcuffed to cell bars.
Dead bodies mutilated, burned, dragged through the streets and hung. Hooded prisoner standing on a box with hands wired together, but not connected to anything.
Beheading Daniel Pearl. Naked Iraqis bound together.
State-run rape rooms. Naked Iraqi with panties on his head.
Beheading Nick Berg. Simulated sex acts.
Being tossed into a wood-chipper. Iraqi on a leash.
Slamming two airliners into the World Trade Center. A naked dogpile.

They don’t really compare, do they?

Recently I wrote about some comments made by the Malaysian prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad. His recent comments were merely one incident in a long string of Jew-bashing speeches he has made. But honestly, did you hear about Mohamad on the nightly news? While some Jewish organizations spoke out against Mohamad’s comments before the Organization of the Islamic Conference summit, the major media basically gave his speech a pass. Where is the outrage?

Well, the media outrage is not focused on Mahathir Mohamad’s speech; instead, it is focused on Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin’s recent comments. Gen. Boykin is the decorated former commander and veteran of the Army’s elite Delta Force and the new deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence. If you have been watching the nightly news for the last week, you will have seen news stories about Gen. Boykin’s comments. But let me quote a few, just so you know what the hubbub is all about.

Speaking of President George Bush: “He’s in the White House because God put him there.” Speaking of the battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia: “I knew my god was bigger than his. I knew that my god was a real god and his was an idol.” Speaking of radical Islamists: “[They hate America] because we’re a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian … and the enemy is a guy named Satan.”

Did he make these comments before the nation in some televised forum? No. These comments were made in churches around the nation, but the media decided to make the comments into national news. Judging by the venom issuing from the left, you would think that the General had eaten a spotted owl or done something similarly evil. Representative John Conyers (D-MI) jumped into this fray with his letter to the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld:

“I am writing to express my extreme displeasure over Lieutenant General William Boykin’s remarks about the war and the Muslim religion. Lt. Gen. Boykin serves as deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence and is charged with heading a Pentagon office that focuses on finding Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other targets. This is a critical policymaking position, and it is outrageous that someone who holds such extreme, closed-minded, zealous views would be allowed such a prominent position in our military.”

There has also been some reaction from the Islamic community. Nihad Awad, the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said, “Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs, no matter how ill-informed or bigoted, but those beliefs should not be allowed to color important decisions that need to be made in the war on terrorism.” Tell me, Mr. Awad, should we instead listen to you and other members of CAIR? Your organization is suspected of having ties with Hamas and other radical terrorist groups. Former and current members of CAIR have been arrested for such offenses as conspiring to train on American soil for a “violent jihad.” Forgive me if I’m not too keen to follow suggestions issued by CAIR.

While listening to discussions of Gen. Boykin’s comments on the radio, I heard several conservatives suggest that he should not have made religious pronouncements while in uniform. But contrary to the popular and incorrect view of separation of church and state, the General did nothing wrong. When someone joins the military or has a position of leadership in the government, that person does not give up his religion nor his freedom to express it freely.

Gen. Boykin has stated that he respects Islam, but that the terrorists and radicals who fight against America are “not true followers of Islam.” For the pundits on the left, this was not enough. Last week, Boykin apologized by saying, “For those who have been offended by my statements, I offer a sincere apology.” I can understand the political necessity for it, but I think that style of apology was the wrong choice. Here’s the apology I wish I had heard him give:

“Ladies and gentlemen of the press, I do have an apology to make. To the good and faithful people of Islam, I am sorry that radicals have twisted your faith into an excuse to commit murder. I regret that too many good Muslims have stood by while terrorists and lawless thugs have hid behind the words of Mohammed in an attempt to justify their evil deeds. I apologize for the need to kill these people who have taken up arms against our nation and our people. I regret that Islam stood by while evil men conspired to do wickedness in the name of Allah. I am sorry Afghanistan and Iraq needed to be freed from the hands of brutal, diabolical dictators. I am truly saddened at the loss of life caused by these terrorists, and I apologize for the need to hunt these murderers like the dogs they are. I pray to God that we are victorious in ripping out, root and branch, this wickedness from off the face of the earth, and that the terrorists burn in hell forever.”

Now that is the type of apology I would love to hear, but I realize that we as Americans are not unified in the war on terrorism. Too many people have forgotten the image of planes slamming into the World Trade Center towers, and too many people do not understand that radical terrorists do not want to discuss their hatred for us. They want to kill us. But this understanding has been lost. That is why there is more reaction to the fervent words of a decorated, twice-wounded soldier who believes in God than the malevolent speech of an outgoing Malaysian prime minister who wants to see Israel destroyed. Please tell me, which of these two is filled with more hatred?