Like you, I was horrified by the tragedy that took place on the Greyhound Bus bound from Edmonton to Winnipeg on July 30th. Tim McLean, all of 22 years old, was repeatedly stabbed and beheaded while the bus was traveling west of Portage La Prairie, Manitoba. Vince Weiguang Li has been charged with second degree murder and could face the rest of his life in prison if convicted (Canada has no death penalty.)

Tim McLean’s murder hit me hard for several reasons. Aside from the sheer brutality of this crime there is the fact that it took place in my home and native land. When I lived in Canada, I did most of my travel by bus. On dozens of occasions, I took the bus from Ottawa to Toronto and back. Today, I still travel by bus from Boston to New York, sometimes to New Hampshire or Maine for a day trip.

When I travel on a bus I almost always travel alone. This means I don’t know the person sitting next to me much less of what they might be capable. In other words, what happened to Tim McLean could have happened to me. Or it could have happened to the person sitting in front of me.

The passengers aboard the bus fled to safety once they realized what was going on around them. Some have lambasted the behavior of those passengers. One such condemnation came from Debbie Schlussel. In an entry on her blog dated August 1st (two days after the incident) Schlussel referred to the passengers as “cowards.” With all the subtlety of a ball pein hammer she titled this post “About that Beheading on the Canadian Bus: The Cowards Who Fled & Did Nothing.” (http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2008/08.about_that_behe.html)

Of course, it is easy to call someone a coward from a safe distance. It also easy to call someone a coward with the comfort you probably will never find yourself confronted by someone wielding a knife. By her own admission, Schlussel states she “would probably run” if she was in the midst of a life and death situation on the count of her gender and her diminutive size. That sounds like a cop out to me. She cannot very well excoriate people for behaving in a way she would have probably behaved herself.

Schlussel rightly lauds the passengers and crew of American Airlines Flight 63 who subdued Richard Reid, the infamous failed shoe bomber. The flight which was bound from Paris to Miami had to be diverted to Boston because of Reid’s failed act of terrorism. Those passengers and crew were undoubtedly inspired by the courageous actions of the passengers and crew who attempted to thwart the hijackers on United Flight 93 on September 11, 2001, just over three months earlier. Despite the noble efforts of the passengers and crew of United Flight 93 they would all perish. The events of September 11th were still fresh in the minds of those aboard American Airlines Flight 63 when Richard Reid disrupted the proceedings. They were determined not to let history repeat itself.

It is worth noting there was no passenger revolt on the three other flights that were hijacked on September 11th – American Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175 & American Airlines Flight 77 (although there evidently had been discussion amongst the passengers about storming the cockpit on the United Flight 175 according the 9/11 Commission Report). Does Schlussel think the passengers aboard these flights were cowards because they didn’t attempt to overcome the hijackers?

A case can be made that Tim McLean might have been spared some of the indignities done unto him had someone intervened. However, there is no guarantee such efforts would have saved his life. It is also possible more lives would have been lost that day or at the very least a large risk of serious injury befalling a passenger attempting to restrain a man swinging a Rambo knife. The passengers who ran off that bus did so to save their own lives and in some instances to save the lives of their children. It must be remembered there were children on that bus. Are we to begrudge those who wanted to ensure the safety of their children?

I have no doubt those passengers wanted a different outcome. I have no doubt those passengers wish that someone amongst them had saved Tim McLean. But if someone had saved Tim McLean that hero would not have described the others who fled as cowards.

Did Wesley Autrey call cowards the other people standing on a New York City subway platform while he jumped onto the tracks to save the life of a young man who had fallen after having a seizure? No.

Did Lenny Skutnik call cowards the other people standing on the 14th Street Bridge in Washington, D.C. after he jumped into the Potomac River to save the life of a woman too weak to grab the line from a helicopter attempting to rescue passengers from Air Florida Flight 90? No.

Did John McCain call cowards any of his fellow soldiers who accepted their release from captivity while he remained a POW? No. Not only did he not refer to his fellow soldiers as cowards he went so far as to decline offers to be released by the Viet Cong so that others could go ahead of him.

Heroes possess the humility not to call others cowards.

So what would I have done? The truth of the matter is that I don’t know. I’ll never know unless I find myself suddenly confronted with such a situation. I hope it is a question I will never have to answer.

On March 13th, an ABC News report revealed incendiary excerpts from several sermons recorded on DVD by Obama’s spiritual advisor, The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr. Until his retirement last month, Wright was the pastor at the Trinity United Church in Chicago.

Reverend Wright suggested amongst other things that the United States government “lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.” He also claimed the United States bore some responsibility for 9/11 attacks. Wright said, “We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own backyard. America is chickens coming home to roost.”

In one sermon delivered in April 2003, a month after the War in Iraq began, Reverend Wright said, “The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America. No! No! No! God damn America for killing innocent people. God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans. God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.”

When Obama was initially asked about this quote by a reporter from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Obama appeared unconcerned. “Here is what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor. There are times when people say things that are just wrong. But I think it’s important to judge me on what I’ve said in the past and what I believe,” said Obama.

However, that did not quiet the storm. On March 14th, Obama issued a statement concerning the controversy. “I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies….In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue,” said Obama.

Yet I cannot bring myself to believe that Barack Obama is telling the truth where it concerns The Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr.

It is because of the following paragraph in Obama’s statement:

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

The preceding simply does not pass the smell test.

Obama has been a member of Reverend Wright’s congregation for nearly two decades. Reverend Wright married Barack and Michelle Obama. Reverend Wright baptized their daughters.

Does Obama really expect us to believe that in nearly two decades he never attended a service where Reverend Wright uttered an unkind word about America? Did Reverend Wright only go off the deep end on the Sundays when Obama wasn’t around?

Does Obama really expect us to believe that in nearly two decades, the man whose sermon inspired his book The Audacity of Hope, never told him face to face he believed the United States was responsible for spreading HIV against people of color? Or what he really thinks about Israel?

Does Obama really expect us to believe he would not demand a white Republican politician disassociate with a church whose pastor denounced African Americans? Not on your life. Even if that pastor’s retirement was imminent.

If he does, Obama must really think the American people are stupid. One would hope that Democratic Primary voters might begin to clean their rose colored glasses. This, however, might not be in the offing. If Obama should prevail against Hillary, I suspect it will not be the last time we hear the name Jeremiah Wright.

People are judged by the company they keep. It is hard for me to believe that Obama would title one of his books based on one of Wright’s sermons and yet be unaware of what he preaches. That Obama should protest he only became aware of Wright’s views at the outset of his presidential campaign and yet retains him as a national leader of his campaign’s African American Religious Leadership Committee descends to the depths of disingenuousness. Now that’s what I call audacity.

EDITORIAL – In a previous column, I excoriated Rush Limbaugh for mocking Michael J. Fox’s symptoms of Parkinson’s Disease and argued that it could cost the Republican Party dearly at the polls on November 7th.

However, I also wrote this pearl of clairvoyance:

“We are entering the final stretch of the midterm elections. As the old adage goes, a week in politics is a lifetime…We are one step removed from a prominent Democrat likening our troops to al Qaeda terrorists. Such an ill-advised utterance could change everything and save the GOP majority in one if not both Houses of Congress. So much could happen between now and November 7th.

Indeed, I wrote the passage thinking of Kerry’s statement to Bob Schieffer on CBS’ Face The Nation that our troops were terrorizing women and children in Iraq though I did not mention Kerry by name. ( www.americandaily.com/article/10643 ).

O.K., John Kerry did not liken our troops to al Qaeda terrorists. However, he did the next worse thing when he questioned their intelligence. While appearing on behalf of California Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides at Pasadena City College on October 30th, Kerry offered, “You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

These comments hit a raw nerve with soldiers and civilians alike. They also hit a raw nerve with our Commander in Chief.

President Bush rightly condemned Kerry’s comments the following day while speaking at a rally in Georgia. He described the comments of his opponent during the 2004 Presidential election as “insulting and shameful” and said that he owed the troops an apology. Later that day, Kerry, who by this time was in Seattle, was defiant. Not only would Kerry not apologize he said that Bush and Cheney should be the ones doing the apologizing. The junior Senator from Massachusetts claimed they had “misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it.” On top of that, Kerry insisted that his remark was “a botched joke.”

Yes, I am sure we will see Kerry work on his stand up routine at a comedy club near you.

While it remains to be seen whether Kerry’s gaffe will shift electoral momentum towards the GOP, it clearly made Democrats nervous. While some Democratic candidates such as Pennsylvania Senatorial candidate Bob Casey stood by Kerry many others distanced themselves from his comments. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez both described Kerry’s remarks as “inappropriate.” Jon Tester, the Senatorial candidate from Montana bluntly called Kerry’s attempt at comedy as “poorly worded and just plain stupid.” Representative Harold Ford, Jr. who is in a tight Senate race in Tennessee, echoed President Bush’s sentiments stating, “He needs to apologize to our troops.”

With pressure being brought to bear on November 1st, Kerry came out with an apology. Sort of:

As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: my poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop.

I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member, or American who was offended.

Loosely translated: You just don’t get it. You don’t appreciate nuance or subtlety. Besides can’t you guys take a joke?

But he did apologize, however belatedly and tentatively. It’s about as good as we’re going to get out of Kerry.

Yet this is certainly not the first time Kerry has sullied our troops. Indeed, his disdain for our troops represents the building blocks of his political career. When testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 he made unsubstantiated accusations that his fellow troops committed war crimes and were done so with the knowledge of the highest level of command. Fast forward 34½ years later, he accuses our troops of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. Different war, same shtick. It is why Kerry’s name is still mud in many a VFW hall to this very day. Again, it is not the first time Kerry has sullied our soldiers. Sadly, it probably won’t be the last.

Here’s a sadder thought. There is a critical mass within the Democratic Party and among broad left wing circles that view American power with inherent suspicion. This suspicion encompasses the Commander in Chief on down to 18-year-old army privates and navy seamen. Don’t think for a moment that Kerry is alone in having those sentiments.

Should we elect to hand control of one or both Houses of Congress over to the Democratic Party there is a good chance these sentiments will find their way into legislation that would ultimately result in sapping the morale of our troops be it through reduced appropriations or reduced esteem upon the military as an institution that preserves our democracy.

John Kerry might be able to put this episode behind him especially if Democrats are wise enough to keep him away from their events and out of the public eye for the rest of the year. The Democrats might be able to win one or both Houses of Congress despite Kerry. But mark my words so long as there is a critical mass of the population opposed to our efforts in Iraq (and for that matter Afghanistan) this will not be the last time anti-military sentiment will rear its ugly head.

The leading left wing periodicals are practically tripping all over themselves on the Iraqi prisoner abuse incident at Abu Ghraib. The Nation, Mother Jones, The Progressive and The American Prospect vie to outdo each other as to whom be can blame America the most for the ills of the world.

Both The Nation and Mother Jones have compared the incidents at Abu Ghraib to the My Lai massacre where 400 Vietnamese civilians were murdered by U.S. troops back in 1968. Aside from the fact that Abu Ghraib incident, while ugly and vile, did not produce any fatalities, it also trivializes those who lost their lives at My Lai. Michael Tomasky of The American Prospect is moved to call President Bush ?dumber than we thought.? Wow! What incisive political commentary. Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive took radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh to task for describing the incident as a ?college fraternity prank.? Yet Rothschild failed to mention that Limbaugh had, in fact, condemned the act. ?It?s bad. It?s unfortunate, shouldn?t have happened. It?s over! We found out about it. We?re going to do something about it. We?re investigating it.? Limbaugh said.

Yet when it comes to Nicholas Berg, who was brutally executed by al Qaeda terrorists, these same outlets are either silent or are content to blame the usual suspects ? the United States and Israel.

As of this writing, the online editions of both Mother Jones and The American Prospect are mum on the execution of an American civilian. Matt Bivens of The Nation blamed Berg?s murder on the failure of the U.S. military to kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man widely believed to be responsible for carrying out Berg?s murder. Bivens self-righteously shrieked, ?Isn?t it time, that we asked ? again ? why we did not kill Zarqawi when we had the chance??

Well, if the U.S. military had killed al-Zarqawi you can bet The Nation and every other left wing rag in this country would condemn the U.S. for exercising aggression, inflaming the passions of Islamic fundamentalists and perpetuating cycles of violence. More to the point, if the U.S. had to kill al-Zarqawi it most likely would have been based on information gathered in an interrogation setting such as ? the Abu Ghraib prison. Information is not easy to extract in a war situation and the people one must gather this information from are not all nice and sweetness. If the information that led to the murder of al-Zarqawi originated from a detainee at Abu Ghraib The Nation would have come out with its My Lai analogies faster than you can say quagmire.

But again I?ll reserve my harshest criticisms for Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive.

Rothschild?s commentary on Berg starts out promising. ?This barbarism sickens me, as I?m sure it does anyone with a shred of moral fiber,? Rothschild writes. He even notes that Nicholas Berg, like Daniel Pearl before him, was Jewish and states that ?not enough has been made of the crude and ugly anti-Semitism that runs through Al Qaeda?s ideology.? So far so good.

Unfortunately, Rothschild does not blame Al Qaeda for Nicholas Berg?s death. Whose fault is Nicholas Berg?s death? Why George W. Bush and Ariel Sharon, of course:

Unfortunately, George W. Bush?s policies have been enflaming Islamic hatred of Americans and Jews alike. His unprovoked war against Iraq, the inept occupation that led to the grotesque humiliation and torture of Iraqi prisoners, and Bush?s blessing for every unilateral act of Ariel Sharon ? all these served only to reinforce the basest prejudices that now circulate so widely.

Rothschild then hastens to add, ?Don?t get me wrong. Nothing, nothing, excuses the slaughter of Nicholas Berg.?

But Mr. Rothschild, you just did excuse the slaughter of Nicholas Berg.

Al Qaeda did not need any reason to slaughter Nicholas Berg anymore than it did Daniel Pearl. Al Qaeda did not need any reason to bomb the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Al Qaeda did not need any reason to bomb Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia or the U.S.S. Cole. Al Qaeda did not need any reason to kill 3,000 people on 09/11. All of this dated the American incursion into Iraq and for that matter the election of Ariel Sharon. Al Qaeda?s mission is to create world dominated by a narrow interpretation of Islam. All those who stand in its way are to be destroyed.

For Matthew Rothschild to blame either Bush or Sharon for Berg?s death is defamation. For Matthew Rothschild to excuse Nicholas Berg?s death as retribution for the war in Iraq or Ariel Sharon?s efforts to prevent pregnant women and children from being murdered by suicide bombers gives legitimacy to Al Qaeda?s cause and for that Rothschild should be ashamed.

Then again, since when has the Left has any sense of shame (expect for America and Israel)? Besides, isn?t it the Left that argues that Al Qaeda and Saddam had nothing to do with each other? If that argument is true then why should Al Qaeda be compelled to avenge the deposed Saddam? Well, the Left doesn?t think out its arguments to that level of detail. The raison d??tre of the Left is to define itself by embracing anything that blames and scapegoats America and Israel for the ills of the world.