PunditGuy

George Will unloads on ex-president Jimmy Carter.

Husband runs over his wife, not once, but twice…accidentally of course. She survived.

                                 Remembering the Watts Riots.

Cindy Sheehan decided to spend time in Crawford, Texas, protesting the war and her son’s death outside President George W. Bush’s ranch. She’s created quite a stir, and has become a darling of the media. Cable news has been working the story for a few days now, and the debate has reached a boiling point.

Recently, the Democrats have been defending Cindy, the mother of Casey Sheehan, the American soldier who lost his life serving in Iraq. Anti-war leaders hope that putting the spotlight on Sheehan will motivate Americans who oppose the war, creating a political force strong enough to compel the Bush administration to change course.

Cindy’s credibility has been in question ever since it was revealed that more than a year ago she praised Bush and fully supported his administrations policy on Iraq. She’s been quoted to have said the following:

“I now know he’s (Bush) sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis. I know he’s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he’s a man of faith.”

For some reason, Cindy doesn’t seem to express the same feelings today. Many have wondered what might have caused Sheehan’s dramatic shift in her support of the White House.

All the while, Democrats and liberal groups have cried foul, complaining that Republicans are out of line regarding their complaints and criticisms of Sheehan. After all, how can any right minded person judge the motives of the mother of a dead American soldier? Her pain is unlike any other, and her protest is simply a respectful mourning of her son. Her honor should not be questioned.

But the fact is Sheehan hasn’t fully explained why she has turned against the president, and one can’t help but believe that her protest isn’t about her son Casey anymore.

Sheehan and her liberal supporters now have to face other family members. Today they issued the following statement:

The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son’s good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect.

As of yet there hasn’t been any response from Cindy to her family. Nothing from her supporters either, but I suspect their own statement isn’t far away. Will they discredit Cindy’s family members? Probably. My guess is someone will float the idea that Republicans or administration officials are pressuring Sheehan’s family. What about the columnists who published editorials yesterday in support of Sheehan? This statement by the family has to put Cindy’s credibility in doubt.

The drama is far from over.

UPDATE: Cindy blogs for Ariana.

Salman obviously hasn’t learned from past death threats levelled against him.

Rushdie urges Islamic reformation

Islam needs to be reformed to bring it into the modern era, the Indian-born Muslim novelist Salman Rushdie argues.

A broader interpretation of the Koran would lead to better relations and cut alienation, he writes in the Times.

This would also combat jihadist ideologies that led to the 7 July London terror attacks, Rushdie argues.

Oh, but there’s more!

“What is needed is a move beyond tradition – nothing less than a reform movement to bring the core concepts of Islam into the modern age.

“A Muslim Reformation to combat not only the jihadi ideologues but also the dusty, stifling seminaries of the traditionalists, throwing open the windows of the closed communities to let in much-needed fresh air.”

He’s right of course. But does he really have any credibility among the Muslim community? I don’t think so, and therefore his words are invisible. 

I admire the guys tenacity, but his chamber is empty.

Uh, yeah…right, okay Mick. Whatever.

The Rolling Stones’ upcoming album contains a song seemingly critical of President Bush, but Mick Jagger denies it’s directed at him, according to the syndicated TV show “Extra.” “It is not really aimed at anyone,” Jagger said on the entertainment-news show’s Wednesday edition. “It’s not aimed, personally aimed, at President Bush. It wouldn’t be called ‘Sweet Neo Con’ if it was.”

Could it be that members of the Dixie Chicks got in touch with Mick and told him that U.S. fans don’t buy concert tickets or CDs when music celebrities disparage their president?

Like gas meeting flame.

There is something the Islamic extremists and some Christian groups share: They agree that Israel is the problem. The Presbyterian Church (USA) — not the members, but the learned elders — has announced it will use its stock holdings to target Israel for being mean to the Palestinians.

Lileks.

According to the Scotsman, Steven Vincent wasn’t killed in Iraq because he was a member of the media and wrote a controversial article. He was killed because he wanted to marry a Muslim. 

AN American journalist who was shot dead in Basra last week was executed by Shiite extremists who knew he was intending to marry his Muslim interpreter, it has emerged.

Mr Vincent was abducted from his hotel three days after writing a piece in the New York Times accusing British officials of allowing religious parties to infiltrate the Basra police.

In America, his death was taken as retribution for his article. But in London yesterday, British officials pointed out that the police in Basra believed it was retribution for his affair.

“We warned him to look after his security in a more professional manner than he was doing,” said the official.

Something isn’t quite right with this story. Was he murdered because he was going to marry the muslim woman or was he murdered for having an affair with her? What about his American wife? What did she have to say about this?

Muslim women are not permitted to marry non-Muslims, whether they’re living in North Africa, Saudi, Iraq, Pakistan, the U.S., etc. It’s a life-threatening offense. So either the story is false or Vincent was a convert to Islam. Or both. Or…

Confused yet? 

Democrats: Dreaming the impossible dream…

During the last presidential campaign, there was much talk about a Kerry-McCain ticket after Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) sounded out Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) about joining him on a bipartisan fusion ticket.

McCain obviously turned Kerry down, but as the 2008 election approaches there are signs that an equally intriguing McCain-Kerry ticket could be in the works.

Putting fantasies aside for a moment, and assuming you think McCain is a real Republican…

Isn’t it revealing how some Democrats believe they must have a bipartisan ticket to win the White House in 2008, as if the electorate is somehow demanding that the next president/vice president “team” come from both sides of the aisle?

Would Howard Dean agree?

How about Hillary?

This is messed up.

Growing use of ‘wet’ drug is alarming authorities

It’s known as “wet,” “dip” and “leek,” and if you haven’t heard of it yet, drug experts around New Jersey say you will soon.

A potent blend of marijuana and embalming fluid, the drug combination offers a paralyzing hallucinogenic high that can lead to erratic, if not psychotic, behavior. Doctors, drug counselors and law enforcement officials say that smoking marijuana and embalming fluid can cause brain damage, lung damage and a permanent dulling of the senses.

“There’s the catatonic, lights on but nobody’s home type of thing going on, and then you’re also physically wound up so you can be angry, frustrated or depressed and have an increased propensity for physical violence,” said Special Agent Douglas Collier of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration’s New Jersey division.

“This is highly toxic, extremely carcinogenic, and there’s a lot of potential for causing a real health concern,” he said.

Tragic. People will put anything inside their bodies if it promises an escape from reality.

On the one hand, I want to take the same attitude expressed by this person, who left the following comment here:

At least the pre-use of embalming fluid saves expenses in the end.

I say legalize drugs. Hell give it to them for free. Force it on them, even — just to get the inevitable over with and the government can stop taking away the rights of normal people in efforts to save these morons from themselves.

But on the other hand, it’s not that easy. What if the user is your 12-year-old son, who’s a “good kid” but just fell to the pressure of school friends telling him that this high was “cool” and “not that dangerous”?

It used to be that one could stereotype drug addicts by the way they look, where they live, etc. Today, it’s impossible. Ask any cop. They’ll tell you that the victims of this kind of drug abuse come from all walks of life. The demographics cannot be determined.

Can the war on drugs be won?

Raiding crack houses and closing methamphetamine labs is one thing, but when law enforcement has to deal with combating a strange drug mix like “Wet”, stop the paint huffer, or prevent grade school kids from inhaling of substances like Dust-Off, how can anyone be confident that progress is being made?

Perhaps progress is measured one (saved) life at a time?