Well, now that you mention it ...

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf attends an iftar, or the break of fast, dinner at the U.S. ambassador's residence in Saar, west of Bahrain's capital Manama August 22, 2010. Rauf, the imam leading plans for an Islamic community right and mosque near "Ground Zero" in New York, is on a U.S. government-funded tour in the Middle East to talk about religious tolerance in America. REUTERS/Hasan Jamali/Pool (BAHRAIN - Tags: POLITICS RELIGION)

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf attends an iftar, or the break of fast, dinner at the U.S. ambassador's residence in Saar, west of Bahrain's capital Manama August 22, 2010. Rauf, the imam leading plans for an Islamic community right and mosque near "Ground Zero" in New York, is on a U.S. government-funded tour in the Middle East to talk about religious tolerance in America. REUTERS/Hasan Jamali/Pool (BAHRAIN - Tags: POLITICS RELIGION)

The aggregator at over at memeorandum is picking up a lot of action on this quote from Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, head of Park51 a/k/a Cordoba House, the Islamic cultural center proposed for construction two blocks from the outer edge of the World Trade Center complex ("Ground Zero"):

We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US lead sanction against Iraq lead to the death of over half a million Iraqi children.

My first reaction is to wonder what in the hell that has to do with the price of tea in China, or with the question of whether or not Muslims are possessed of the same property and religious rights as, and entitled to the same respect for and protection of those rights as, every other type of damn-fool superstitionist (or, as the case may be, non-superstitionist).

My second reaction is to note that the statement is -- especially if the word "government" is inserted after the phrase "United States" for clarity -- undoubtedly factually correct.

Even setting aside the deaths attributable to the US government's murderous sanctions/air war campaign against the civilian population of Iraq from 1991-2003, it remains true.

The bottom end of estimated civilian casualties in Afghanistan specifically attributable to the military operations of the US and its allied occupiers from 2001 to the present is 5,791. That's nearly twice the 2,976 casualties al Qaeda inflicted on 9/11. The top end, including casualties only indirectly caused by the US and its allies (and not casualties inflicted by Taliban or al Qaeda "insurgents") is 28,583.

That's not counting civilian casualties in Iraq, which are apparently many multiples of the Afghanistan figures, but which don't seem to be as well sorted out by who inflicted them.

Nor is it counting all the civilian casualties of both wars, which are attributable to the US government on the same principle as governs criminal justice in the US itself. If you rob a bank and the security guard keels over with a heart attack while you're waving your gun in his face, you're on the hook for murder. If you launch two wars in violation of international law and without even the fig leaf of the constitutionally required declaration ... well, like Colin Powell said, "you break it, you buy it."

It would be downright morally offensive, if we all weren't long desensitized to the Republican Surrealists' penchant for just making up whatever shit they can think of to try and shift blame onto others for the results of their own policies, that Rauf's statement is being portrayed as even mildly controversial.

If you can't beat'em, shut'em the hell up

No, I still don't support Ron Paul's campaign for the Republican Party's presidential nomination -- I've never voted for a Republican for president and don't plan to start now; I'll stick with my own party and my own candidate, thank you very much -- but ...

He done good.

Real good.

So good, in fact, that the Osama-Enablertarian wing of the Republican Party is desperate to get him off the stage for future debates.

Sean Hannity smirked his way through the whole "text message us your vote" commercials during the thing, but pretty much blew his stack in the post-debate show when he had to tell Ted Danson Norm MacDonald whatever that blow-dried idiot from Massachusetts's name is that the Rudy McRomneys were getting their asses kicked by the Texas Tornado. You suck, Hannity.

But, you know, who can blame the Bushevik America-haters for wanting Paul gone? Sure, the hand-picked Faux "News" audience of Republican Surrealist groupies erupted in bellicose applause at Rudy Giuliani's admission that he's clueless about the causes of 9/11 and prefers to remain so, and keep everyone else equally ignorant, and thereby keep the 9/11-induced gravy train running for his "security consulting" business and his presidential aspirations ...

... but the rest of America, including the 70%+ of us who live in the real world, was watching too. And we just can't have that, see? When the Republican Surrealist line conflicts with reality, the penalty for mentioning it is a pink slip if you're lucky (or a ball gag and an economy class ticket to Gitmo if you're not and if they think they can get away with it).

The GOP is circling the drain, for the same reason the Whigs went down it. For the Whigs, the problematic, divisive issue was slavery. For the Republicans, it's foreign policy.

The Whigs had a flat wrong platform on slavery; the GOP circa 2007 has a flat wrong platform on foreign policy.

The Whigs were unwilling to correct themselves on slavery and unable to keep their dissenters loyal to the party line; the GOP circa 2007 is unwilling to correct itself on foreign policy and unable to keep its dissenters loyal to the party line.

Abraham Lincoln ended up leaving the Whigs and helping form the Republican Party after:

- Giving a stirring proto-Ron-Paul oration in Congress on the Mexican War. Excerpt courtesy of Wikipedia: "God of Heaven has forgotten to defend the weak and innocent, and permitted the strong band of murderers and demons from hell to kill men, women, and children, and lay waste and pillage the land of the just."

- Finding himself on the receiving end, in his congressional district, of proto-Rudy-Giuliani comebacks (op. cit.): "[T]reasonable assaults of guerrillas at home; party demagogues; slanderers of the President; defenders of the butchery at the Alamo; traducers of the heroism at San Jacinto."

Paul already left the Republicans once, for the Libertarian Party -- and if, as seems likely, he is forced to leave again in search of a sane platform, he'll likely take a significant segment of the dying GOP with him.

I'm sure the paleo gorge rises at the comparison of Paul to Lincoln, but hey, gimme a break -- I'm on a roll here.

The cherry on top: Osama-Enablertarian Republican Eric Dondero has announced his intention to run for Paul's US House seat. This is a winner all around!

- If Paul decides not to run again and if the Republicans can't find a man, woman, child or three-legged goat to contest the primary with Dondero, the GOP loses yet another seat in Congress, accelerating its demise.

- If Paul decides to run again, Dondero wastes his time and energy getting his 2% of the primary vote instead of on his more generalized campaign to destroy the Libertarian Party, the libertarian movement and western civilization.