Stephen F. Hayes writes:

“THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to al Qaeda.”

So declared CNN Anchor Carol Costello in an interview yesterday with Representative Robin Hayes (no relation) from North Carolina.

Hayes politely challenged her claim. “Ma’am, I’m sorry, but you’re mistaken. There’s evidence everywhere. We get access to it. Unfortunately, others don’t.”

CNN played the exchange throughout the day. At one point, anchor Daryn Kagan even seemed to correct Rep. Hayes after replaying the clip. “And according to the record, the 9/11 Commission in its final report found no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.”

The CNN claims are wrong. Not a matter of nuance. Not a matter of interpretation. Just plain incorrect. They are so mistaken, in fact, that viewers should demand an on-air correction.

The only question is whether these news readers know what they’re saying is untrue, or if they’ve convinced themselves it’s true despite all the evidence. There’s no question it’s irresponsible journalism.

Read Hayes’ whole column here.

Dick Durbin apologized, sort of, for his remarks comparing U.S. servicemen to Nazis, gulags, and Pol Pot. Congressman Charlie Rangel said of the liberation of Iraq, “”It’s the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country. This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed…”

In his column today, Larry Elder asks where is Rangel’s apology? And where is the outrage that was rightly heaped on Durbin?

Only eight days before Durbin’s remarks, Rangel, on New York City’s WWRL radio, attacked Bush for the “fraudulent” case for his War in Iraq: “It’s the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country. This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed [emphasis added]. The whole world knew it and they were quiet about it, because it wasn’t their ox that was being gored.” When the host asked Rangel to clarify, the congressman said, “I am saying that people’s silence when they know terrible things are happening is the same thing as the Holocaust, where everyone would have me believe that no one knew those Jews were killed over there.”

The Anti-Defamation League demanded an apology. But where are the screaming editorials or the outrage from the pundit class? You see, Democrats like black attack dogs such as Rangel. They help to keep the black electorate angry and hostile toward Republicans, the better to ensure their 90 percent monolithic black Democratic vote.

This explains the Democrats’ silence. But what about Republicans? Where is their demand for an apology from Charlie Rangel? This explains one of the reasons why Republicans fail to attract the black vote. Republicans remain unwilling to challenge irresponsible accusations of racism — especially from so-called black leaders — which allows the Democrats to continue to define the Republican Party as a party of bigots.

When Rangel, back in 1994, said of the incoming Republican Congress, “They don’t say [racial epithet for Latinos] or [racial epithet for blacks] anymore. They say, ‘Let’s cut taxes’,” Republicans said little.

Read the whole thing here.

Apparently, if you’re a black liberal Democrat you can get away with saying almost anything. Demand racial equality. Demand Rangel apologize.

Anyone who trots out the tired old line “Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11″, a common refrain on the left, simply does not understand the war on terror America is engaged in.

Some reaction to the president’s speech —

From the AP wire:

Some Democrats quickly accused him of reviving a questionable link to the war in Iraq “” a rationale that Bush originally used to help justify launching strikes against Baghdad in the spring of 2003.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi accused Bush of demonstrating a willingness “exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.”

From the NY Times editorial page:

We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation. But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks.

As Andrew McCarthy writes today in “It’s All About 9/11“, there were multiple points of connection between Islamic terrorists and Saddam’s Iraq.

But in many respects, it’s not about 9/11. It’s about the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. It’s about the USS Cole. It’s about the Khobar Towers. It’s about the African embassy bombings. It’s about Mogadishu. We are in a war against a network of Islamic terrorists. Our aim is not primarily to avenge for 9/11, but to prevent the next attack.

No one who says, “Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11″ shows any understanding of that. The status quo in the Middle East has been a breeding ground for Islamic fanatics. A big part of our goal of eliminating the threat of Islamic terror is to change that status quo. Iraq has everything to do with that goal. President Bush is trying to do that, while Democrats like Nancy Pelosi are mouthing worthless platitudes.

More reaction tothe presidents’ speech from Captain’s Quarters, Lori Byrd at Polipundit, and Powerline.

We oppose the proposed flag desecration amendment passed by the House last week, for several reasons. First, we must remember the principle that rights are unalienable, not granted by government. The 1st Amendment protects a pre-existing right to free expression, it does not create the right. Passing an amendment that restricts that right would to some degree imply that the original right to expression is a privilege granted by the government. The proposed amendment is in essence a partial repeal of the 1st Amendment.

No one in America loathes flag-burners more than we do, but that doesn’t mean the vermin don’t have a right to demonstrate what seditious scum they really are. A few flag-burners aren’t going to harm the country, let them show themselves out in the open.

For the best take-down of the proposed amendment, we can turn, as usual, to Mark Steyn.

…For my own part, I believe that, if someone wishes to burn a flag, he should be free to do so. In the same way, if Democrat senators want to make speeches comparing the U.S. military to Nazis and the Khmer Rouge, they should be free to do so. It’s always useful to know what people really believe.

….

Banning flag desecration flatters the desecrators and suggests that the flag of this great republic is a wee delicate bloom that has to be protected. It’s not. It gets burned because it’s strong. I’m a Canadian and one day, during the Kosovo war, I switched on the TV and there were some fellows jumping up and down in Belgrade burning the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack. Big deal, seen it a million times. But then to my astonishment, some of those excitable Serbs produced a Maple Leaf from somewhere and started torching that. Don’t ask me why — we had a small contribution to the Kosovo bombing campaign but evidently it was enough to arouse the ire of Slobo’s boys. I’ve never been so proud to be Canadian in years. I turned the sound up to see if they were yelling ”Death to the Little Satan!” But you can’t have everything.

That’s the point: A flag has to be worth torching. When a flag gets burned, that’s not a sign of its weakness but of its strength. If you can’t stand the heat of your burning flag, get out of the superpower business. It’s the left that believes the state can regulate everyone into thought-compliance. The right should understand that the battle of ideas is won out in the open.

But there’s another reason why conservatives may want to scuttle the proposed amendment, aside from the merits of the amendment itself. If a string of proposed amendments to the constitution are offered, ones offered later may suffer defeat simply because people are less open to considering them.

Getting a single amendment through the ratification process is very difficult. Getting two or three through would be much more difficult. So priorities must be considered.

We think one of the most important issues facing our nation is the protection of the institution of marriage. That will have much greater effect on our society than arresting a few smelly misfits for burning the flag.

But if the marriage amendment is the second or third one to come up, it may encounter a general public backlash against too much “tampering” with the Constitution, making it more likely to face defeat. So the flag desecration amendment may very well be a bad move strategically in addition to being a bad idea on the merits. Something else to consider.

There’s really not much to say about the confused, difference-splitting Ten Commandments decisions handed down today by the U.S. Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the decisions are not surprising, given the state of the courts today. There are two opposing views of the 1st Amendment in America, the traditional view that appreciates the role of religion in American history going back to the very beginning of this country, and the modern, secularist liberal interpretation that has been in vogue since the 1960s. The second view dominates the legal thinking in the United States, from law schools all the way up to the Supreme Court. It is a view that is hostile to the traditional view of religion that has differentiated America from the more secular societies of Europe.

This is the bottom line decision that America must make – do we want to join the dying secular culture of the EU, or do we want to preserve the unique traditions that have helped make America the great country it is today? Our courts and the Democratic Party prefer the former. The American people generally prefer the latter.

One thing these decisions do is highlight the importance of President Bush appointing good justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas if and when Rehnquist, O’Connor, or [please] someone else retires.

More blogospheric reaction here, here, here, here, and here.

There are two recurring themes prominent in left-wing blogdom in the past few weeks – Karl Rove called anyone who disagrees with Bush a traitor (he did no such thing), and Republicans who support the war in Iraq but don’t join the military are cowards, hypocrites, or both – it’s the old “chickenhawk” smear. See here and here, for example. (Link warning: Blind hatred plus immaturity will often lead to vulgarity.)

Rove said that conservatives and liberals differ in their support for the war on terror. He did not say all liberals. He did not say all Democrats. The RNC provided evidence. The left-wing blogs say if you support a war you must enlist, or you’re a coward and a hypocrite. They say Rove’s comments were slander, that to the contrary they support the war on terror just as much as conservatives.

But considered together, these two arguments cut the other way just as well. By their own standard we would expect that liberals, especially those throwing around the “chickenhawk” charge, who support the war on terror would be enlisting to help fight it. So which is it? Do these liberals support the war, and they’re going to enlist? Or was Rove right? Put up or shut up, boys and girls.

Now, they may protest that they were only talking about the war in Iraq, not the war on terror. Leaving aside for now the argument over the connection between the two, it is the same military fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Assets are fungible, as they say. But they can’t with any measure of good faith say their standard only applies to one war.

Of course, the whole “argument” that one must be in the military to support a military action is ridiculous. But those on the left know that, they’re just throwing around disingenuous epithets to undermine support for the war and trying to shame those who disagree with them into shutting up.

Update: Michelle Malkin has another story about a member of the Coalition of Sedition showing his respect for the military and recruiters.

And Jay Tea at Wizbang has some thoughts on the “chickenhawk” non-argument as well.

Update: More on “chickenhawks” from Protein Wisdom.

As we’ve noted before, liberals do not oppose religion in politics. They really oppose conservative, traditionally religious Americans being involved in politics. All this screaming from the left about “imposing values” and “theocracy!!!” is just a big canard to try to shut up people who disagree with leftist ideas. They’re all in favor of imposing values, including values influenced by religion, if those values are liberal/left.

More evidence of this is provided today in this article, Leftward Christian Soldiers, by Rob Garver on the left-of-center American Prospect web site.

Deep in the heart of the reddest county in a red state, a new grass-roots movement is taking shape that means to break the religious right’s hold on the rhetoric of Christianity by developing a network of activists on the “Christian left” that can be mobilized to support progressive causes.

So now that liberals agree it’s OK for people of faith to be involved in politics, maybe they can try arguing for their preferred policies on the merits, and drop all that silly “theocracy!!!” talk.

There’s been lots of commentary — here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for example — about the Supreme Court’s Kelo eminent domain decision, and we don’t want to be redundant in offering our opinion on the case. Let’s just say that as non-lawyers, it seems to be an affront to any respect for private property rights, supposedly protected by the fifth amendment.

On the other hand, it can be noted that the Supreme Court didn’t require localities to take people’s homes, it simply allowed a practice that has been ongoing to continue unabated. This is small comfort to those who are losing their homes, but it does leave open recourse to state and local democratic processes. Those who have lost their homes can blame their fellow citizens at least as much as they can blame the Supreme Court. Lots of folks just love voting for a pack of liberal do-gooders until it means getting evicted from their own home “for the common good.”

Now just a thought to tie this decision to the general trends in Supreme Court jurisprudence – It’s ironic that the same court that bent over backwards (no pun intended) to find a right to buggery in the Constitution, couldn’t find a presumptive right to one’s own property in the Constitution.

So we have a right to do what we want in our own bedrooms, but we don’t have a right to own our bedrooms. The Lawrence and Kelo decisions seem to be at opposite ends of the “federalism” spectrum, which is odd given that property rights are an explicit part of the fifth amendment, and “sexual behavior” rights aren’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. It seems usually the courts are just making it up as they go along.

RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman has responded to the hypocrisy and duplicity of the Democrats’ wailing and gnashing of teeth over Karl Rove’s observation:

“It’s outrageous that the same Democrats who stood by Dick Durbin’s libeling of our military are now expressing faux outrage over Karl Rove’s statement of historical fact. George Soros, Michael Moore, MoveOn and the hard left were wrong after 9/11, just as it was wrong for Democrat leaders to stand by and remain silent after Dick Durbin made his deplorable comments.”
- RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman

The RNC press release goes on to provide evidence for Rove’s observation:

Liberal Third Party Groups Urged Restraint, Blamed America:

Immediately After 9/11, MoveOn.Org Petition Urged “Moderation And Restraint” And Use Of “International Judicial Institutions.”

* “We, The Undersigned, Citizens And Residents Of The United States Of America … Appeal To The President Of The United States, George W. Bush … And To All Leaders Internationally To Use Moderation And Restraint In Responding To The Recent Terrorist Attacks Against The United States.” (MoveOn.Org Website, “MoveOn Peace,” http://web.archive.org/web/20021127190638/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3, Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)

* “We Implore The Powers That Be To Use, Wherever Possible, International Judicial Institutions And International Human Rights Law To Bring To Justice Those Responsible For The Attacks, Rather Than The Instruments Of War, Violence Or Destruction.” (MoveOn.Org Website, “MoveOn Peace,” http://web.archive.org/web/20021127190638/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3, Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)

* “[W]e Demand That There Be No Recourse To Nuclear, Chemical Or Biological Weapons, Or Any Weapons Of Indiscriminate Destruction, And Feel That It Is Our Inalienable Human Right To Live In A World Free Of Such Arms.” (MoveOn.Org Website, “MoveOn Peace,” http://web.archive.org/web/20021127190638/peace.moveon.org/petition.php3, Posted 9/13/01, Accessed 6/23/05)

Just After 9/11, Liberal Filmmaker Michael Moore Derided “Terror And Bloodshed” Committed By Americans. (David Brooks, Op-Ed, “All Hail Moore,” The New York Times, 6/26/04)

* Just After 9/11, Moore Blamed America’s “Taxpayer-Funded Terrorism” And Bush Administration For Terrorist Attacks. “We abhor terrorism – unless we’re the ones doing the terrorizing. We paid and trained and armed a group of terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s who killed over 30,000 civilians. That was OUR work. You and me….Let’s mourn, let’s grieve, and when it’s appropriate let’s examine our contribution to the unsafe world we live in.” (Michael Moore Website Archive, “Death, Downtown,” Posted 9/12/01, www.michaelmoore.com, Accessed 7/27/04)

* Michael Moore Said U.S. Should Not Have Removed Taliban After 9/11. Moore: “Likewise, to bomb Afghanistan – I mean, I’ve never understood this, Tim.” (CNBC’s “Tim Russert,” 10/19/02)

Liberal Donor George Soros Claimed America Should Have Treated 9/11 Attacks As Crime, Responded With Police Work. “War is a false and misleading metaphor in the context of combating terrorism. Treating the attacks of September 11 as crimes against humanity would have been more appropriate. Crimes require police work, not military action. To protect against terrorism, you need precautionary measures, awareness, and intelligence gathering – all of which ultimately depend on the support of the populations among which terrorists operate. Imagine for a moment that September 11 had been treated as a crime. We would have pursued Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but we would not have invaded Iraq. Nor would we have our military struggling to perform police work in full combat gear and getting killed in the process.” (George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy, 2004, p. 18)

* Soros Said The Execution Of 9/11 Attacks “Could Not Have Been More Spectacular.” “Admittedly, the terrorist attack was a historic event in its own right. Hijacking fully loaded airplanes and using them as suicide bombs was an audacious idea, and the execution could not have been more spectacular.” (George Soros, The Bubble Of American Supremacy, 2004, p. 2)

* Soros Said War On Terror Had Claimed More Innocent Victims Than 9/11 Attack Itself. “This is a very tough thing to say, but the fact is, that the war on terror as conducted by this administration, has claimed more innocent victims that the original attack itself.” (George Soros, Remarks At Take Back America Conference, Washington, DC, 6/3/04)

Liberal Democrats Urged Restraint, Blamed America:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): “‘The Time For Peace Is Now,’ [Kucinich] Declared Optimistically July 11, Two Months To The Day Before Terrorists Hit The Pentagon And The World Trade Center. … Sitting In His Capitol Hill Office Last Week, Near A Window Where He Could See The Smoke Rising From The Pentagon On Sept. 11, Kucinich Insisted He Is More Optimistic Than Ever That People Worldwide Are Ready To Embrace The Cause Of Nonviolence.” (Elizabeth Auster, “Offer The Hand Of Peace,” [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)

* Kucinich: “Afghanistan May Be An Incubator Of Terrorism But It Doesn’t Follow That We Bomb Afghanistan …” (Elizabeth Auster, “Offer The Hand Of Peace,” [Cleveland, OH] Plain Dealer, 9/30/01)

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI): “Only Now Are We Trying To Figure Out What Is Islam. Maybe If There Was A Department Of Peace, They Would Be Able To Say, ‘Uh-Oh, We’ve Got Some Problems With These People,’ … I Truly Believe That If We Had A Department Of Peace, We Would Have Seen [9/11] Coming.” (Ethan Wallison, “War A Challenge For Peace Caucus,” Roll Call, 10/1/01)

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): “I Am Convinced That Military Action Will Not Prevent Further Acts Of International Terrorism Against The United States.” (Eddy Ramirez, “Calif. Congresswoman Alone In Vote Against War Powers Resolution,” [University Of California-Berkeley] Daily Californian, 9/17/01)

Al Sharpton (D-NY) Said That The Attacks On The World Trade Center Are Evidence That “America Is Beginning To Reap What It Has Sown.” (Adam Nagourney, “Say It Loud,” The New York Times, 12/1/02)

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) Claimed Osama Bin Laden Could Be Compared To “Revolutionaries That Helped To Cast Off The British Crown.” “‘One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown,’ Kaptur told an Ohio newspaper, The (Toledo) Blade.” (Malie Rulon, “Lawmaker Compares Osama, U.S. Patriots,” The Associated Press, 3/6/03)

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) Said The United States Would “Pay Every Single Hour, Ever Single Day” That Bombs Were Dropped In Afghanistan. “‘How much longer does the bombing campaign continue?’ Biden asked during an Oct. 22 speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. ‘We’re going to pay every single hour, every single day it continues.’” (Miles A. Pomper, “Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01)

“The Bombing Campaign, [Biden] Said, Reinforced Existing Stereotypes Of The United States As A ‘High-Tech Bully …’” (Miles A. Pomper, “Building Anti-Terrorism Coalition Vaults Ahead Of Other Priorities,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 10/26/01)

Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) Said Osama Bin Laden Not Guilty. Dean: “I Still Have This Old-Fashioned Notion That Even With People Like Osama, Who Is Very Likely To Be Found Guilty, We Should Do Our Best Not To, In Positions Of Executive Power, Not To Prejudge Jury Trials.” (“Dean Not Ready To Pronounce Osama Bin Laden Guilty,” The Associated Press, 12/26/03)

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) To High School Students: “How Would [Muslims] Look At Us Today If We Had Been There Helping Them With Some Of That Rather Than Just Being The People Who Are Going To Bomb In Iraq And Go To Afghanistan? … War Is Expensive Too … Your Generation Ought To Be Thinking About Whether We Should Be Better Neighbors Out In Other Countries So That They Have A Different Vision Of Us.” (Gregg Herrington, “Senator Asks Students To Ponder,” The [Vancouver, WA] Columbian, 12/19/02)

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “[W]ar On Terror Is Far Less Of A Military Operation And Far More Of An Intelligence-Gathering, Law-Enforcement Operation.” (The Iowa Brown & Black Coalition Presidential Forum, Des Moines, IA, 1/11/04)

* Kerry: “[W]hat We’ve Learned Is That The War On Terror Is Much More Of An Intelligence Operation And A Law Enforcement Operation.” (NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)

Howard Dean takes the cake for hypocrisy and chutzpah:

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean called on Mr. Bush to “show some leadership and unequivocally repudiate Rove’s divisive and damaging political rhetoric.”

Hillary Clinton on Rove:

“I would hope that you and other members of the administration would immediately repudiate such an insulting comment from a high-ranking official in the president’s inner circle,” Clinton said.

Hillary Clinton on Durbin:

No comment.

Harry Reid on Rove:

“Karl Rove should immediately and fully apologize for his remarks or he should resign,” Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement. “I hope the president will join me in repudiating these remarks.”

Harry Reid on Bush:

“I think this guy is a loser.”

More from Polipundit, CQ, Michelle Malkin, and The Shape of Days

When the Durbin kerfuffle began, we said the GOP ought to put together an ad stringing together some of the recent outrageous comments by Democrats, to demonstrate that the Durbin comments weren’t an isolated event.

Looks like they listened. (We’d like to think) The “Wild Thing” video can be found here.

Thanks to The Anchoress for the link.

Various members of the Coalition of Sedition are upset (Warning: link will contain much puerile vulgarity, count on it) that Senator Durbin “apologized” for comparing Americans to Nazis, gulags, etc.

Joshua Micah Marshall, who didn’t have a thing to say about Durbin’s slander, is very upset by Karl Rove saying liberals are softer on national security than conservatives. Looks like the lefties are going to try to Durbinize Rove. There’s no equivalence at all between what Rove said and what Durbin said. But as Durbin demonstrated already, liberals have a real problem detecting genuine moral equivalence.

Via Wizbang, Senator Schumer is also upset by Rove’s comments. The hypocrisy of Schumer saying no one should politicize the national security issue is just staggering.