I don’t know how else to say it.  They are nuts.  Looney.  Idiots.

Today it was announced one of the most evil people in the world was killed in Iraq, and all some on he left can do is fire up the conspiracy and spin machines to see if they can make this a bad thing.  While Iraqis are celebrating in the streets, these people sit huddled in their hate groups and try to figure out how to make the President look bad.

Yes I am being deliberately harsh, but this just pisses me off.  Within a few hours the left was coming up with ways to marginalize this, and even to make it look more bleak.  I just want to know why?

Can hatred of George Bush really justify this?  This is the most positive thing in Iraq this year, and they want to pooh pooh it, lest Bush actually be seen as doing something right.

Democrats call Zarqawi killing a stunt

Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war. 

"This is just to cover Bush’s [rear] so he doesn’t have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess — get out." 

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, said Zarqawi was a small part of "a growing anti-American insurgency" and that it’s time to get out.

"We’re there for all the wrong reasons," Mr. Kucinich said.

Officially, Democratic leaders reacted positively to the news and praised the troops that successfully targeted al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq with 500-pound bombs at his safe house 30 miles from Baghdad.

"This is a good day for the Iraqi people, the U.S. military and our intelligence community," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

The key word is Officially.

Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) had to say in response to today’s good news?(from ST):

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.

~Winston Churchill

Breaking News: U.S. officials: Al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been killed.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed overnight in an operation by U.S. Special Operations Forces, U.S. military officials told NBC News on Thursday.

ABC News reported that he was killed in a U.S. air attack on a house in Baghdad.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was expected to make an important announcement at a news conference in Baghdad on Thursday, one of his advisers said.

Here is the official reaction from the President

Statement by the President on Death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
Rose Garden
Washington, D.C.

7:31 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Last night in Iraq, United States military forces killed the terrorist al Zarqawi. At 6:15 p.m. Baghdad time, special operation forces, acting on tips and intelligence from Iraqis, confirmed Zarqawi’s location, and delivered justice to the most wanted terrorist in Iraq.

Zarqawi was the operational commander of the terrorist movement in Iraq. He led a campaign of car bombings, assassinations and suicide attacks that has taken the lives of many American forces and thousands of innocent Iraqis. Osama bin Laden called this Jordanian terrorist "the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq." He called on the terrorists around the world to listen to him and obey him. Zarqawi personally beheaded American hostages and other civilians in Iraq. He masterminded the destruction of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad. He was responsible for the assassination of an American diplomat in Jordan, and the bombing of a hotel in Amman.

Through his every action, he sought to defeat America and our coalition partners, and turn Iraq into a safe haven from which al Qaeda could wage its war on free nations. To achieve these ends, he worked to divide Iraqis and incite civil war. And only last week he released an audio tape attacking Iraq’s elected leaders, and denouncing those advocating the end of sectarianism.

The post was written by Gribbit and published by Jay at Stop the ACLU

A central theme of the 2004 elections coinciding with the Presidential election was state amendments to their individual Constitutions defining marriage or banning same sex marriages. The ACLU has been successful in overturning these laws passed by the popular vote of the people in 2 states. Now, the ACLU is challenging another such law this time in the Volunteer State and the case is now coming before the state Supreme Court.

Several state representatives held a news conference to urge the Tennessee Supreme Court to reject an ACLU challenge on the constitutionality of the marriage amendment and let it go before a voter referendum.

They cited a survey by RealMarriage.org, a Brentwood, Tenn.-based group trying to get the amendment passed, that indicates most Tennesseans want to be able to vote on defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

“It’ll be a sad day when queers and lesbians are allowed to get married … and kiss in front of the courthouse,” Rep. Eric Watson, R-Cleveland, said.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate rejected a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The 49-48 procedural vote was 18 short of the 67 needed for the Senate to amend the constitution. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., criticized this week for bringing the matter to the floor in an election year, said those who favor the amendment will not give up.

“We must continue fighting to ensure the Constitution is amended by the will of the people rather than by judicial activism,” he said. SOURCE

So what are we to do? States are passing these measures by popular vote and those pushing the depravity of same sex marriage cannot prevent it from happening using the ballot so they resort to the judicial system. They bank on the activism of jurists to side with the minority. I’m sorry, but the way I was taught, majority rules is the democratic way.

The arguments are already forming and the rationalizing justifications have begun, along with the hint of the topic that Ann Coulter has everyone frothing about:  Moral Authority.

The object of his supporters is to supply him with justification to excuse his crime by either by mitigating it to make it less then a crime, or offer some rational that makes it a crime, but on one that is excusable or necessary.

let me give you some examples.  (All emphasis below was added by me, except as noted)

The Seattle Times for instance mitigates it:

In a rare case of officer dissent, a Fort Lewis Army lieutenant has refused orders….

It isn’t Disobedience or Defiance, it is just dissent.  It isn’t a crime, just him expressing his opinion.

The UCMJ disagrees, even his lawyer admits that, saying in interviews that the Lt faces 5 years hardlabor, perhaps more if multiple charges are filed.

Over at Alternet they gush about his Courage and make stern notification to all that he is "No Coward".  

Agreed, he has not been shown to be a coward, and though many of his critics will indeed claim that, they have no evidence to back that up.  It is just a convenient label.  What he is, is an oath breaker, a person who has betrayed his unit and the men who follow him, and trusted him for guidance and leadership. 

Some will consider him an opportunist, a person who has traded his honor and his sworn word for a spot on Air America, a diary on HuffPo and a free Cindy Sheehan T shirt.  Time will answer how much truth there is there.

He may even be a patsy, a naive dupe whose family and or peers filled his head with romantic comparisons of other legandary heroes who use disobedience as a tool:

Parents of Army lieutenant stand by son

Bob Watada said he would stand by his son, whom he called patriotic and stubborn.