Islam, Democrats, and the ties that bind.

I'm beginning to like Raymond Ibrahim, especially his latest. He's a research librarian and author of the 'al-Qaeda Reader', a collection of translated religious and propaganda (how do you tell the difference, with Islam?) materials. His latest essay up on VDH's website is a sort of Islam 101, the basic dissection of why folks associate Islam with violence.

That being that Islam is, in and of itself, a fundamentally violent religion. I mean, there are all sorts of progressive Muslims trying to disassociate themselves and their religion from the ancient cycle of violence that began when the pseudo-prophet Mohammad first ordered the murder of poets and pregnant women. Some of them are nice guys, even. But pretending that there is a Koranic commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself even if thy neighbor happens to be a Jew or a Christian. . . That's an outright lie.

The latest point of contention is, of course, the three Soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division who were captured by enemy forces a few days ago. Given al-Qaeda's track record, it is safe to say that those Soldiers were tortured and murdered. The search continues, using every means available.

May God have mercy on the souls of those Soldiers, and may he grant peace to their comrades and families.

Of course, sez Nancy Pelosi, this is all a dirty, underhanded trick by the Administration. There is no al-Qaeda in Iraq. It's all lies, lies I tell you!

"My thoughts on the president's representations are well-known," Pelosi said. "The 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the president is resorting to it again."

Oh, wait. That was in November of last year. I'm sorry folks. It's so hard keeping up with the lies spewed by the Democratic Party leadership.

Meanwhile, in the interests of supporting the troops, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton were engaging in public grandstanding by voting to cut off all funding for US forces. You can read about here, but what I think is even more surreal is the video clip of Hillary debating with herself about the Iraq campaign. That's one of the beautiful things about modern data storage and video search capabilities. It used to be that a politician could not be shown in color lying through his or her teeth. You had the stance of the week, and like good mindless subjects, we were supposed to forget that last week's official stance was totally different.

The elites in Washington are so used to lying without accountability that they no longer have the decency to admit to actually having changed their mind, without an excuse (George Bush lied to me!!). VDH takes them to task for this lack of integrity. A Second Hand Conjecture posits an explanation for the change in the Democratic Party stance.

Now, some folks have accused the Democratic Party of being treasonous in their support of al-Qaeda. Let's ask the Constitution of the United States of America what the definition of treason is.

Section 3 - Treason Note

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Thank you, Mr. Constitution Man. It's always nice to get a definition of controversial or inflammatory terms.

So, does the Democratic Party's actions meet this definition?

According to the Washington Post, it does. h/t Ace of Spades.

Mohamad al-Janabi, a reputed al-Qaeda member in the nearby city of Salman Pak, said in a interview that he was unable to contact his comrades in Mahmudiyah to determine whether they were responsible for the attack.

But he added: "I can assure you that we will start pressuring Bush in a new way at the same time he is facing pressures from the Democrats and the American people. And there will be no problem to sacrifice 10 soldiers in order to abduct a single American soldier and get him on television screens begging for us to release him."

So, that sounds to me that according to at least one member of al-Qaeda (well, reputed member) is taking aid and comfort from their actions. And they are quicker to adhere to al-Qaeda operatives than US Soldiers, unless of course they think they can make some sort of political point by it.

Compare the outcry from Democratic congressmen over the treatment of al-Qaeda operatives in Guantanamo Bay vs. their position regarding captured United States Soldiers. Hear the resounding silence? Yeah, that's the Democratic Party position on US prisoners of war.

It's in this atmosphere that the LA Times writes a story about the Democrats attempting to overcome their anti-military image.

Oooooh. . . How nice. They want to include vets on their list of constituencies to buy with token monetary bribes while ignoring our real interests. I feel honored to be on a list with the other favored perpetual victims -- ethnic minorities (except Asians, who are too hard-working, economically successful, and well-educated to vote Democrat), queers, atheists, and radical feminists. While we are slinging the stereotypes, let's offend everyone. Who did I leave off the list?

That sort of facile pandering is proof, as if any more were needed, that very few Democrats have one iota of a clue what sort of person joins the Armed Forces.