So, the Right seems to have finally coalesced around a single, if convoluted, argument regarding the “Flying Imams”. It is either (A) That these were truly dangerous people, perhaps even linked to Hamas, and that getting them kicked off the airline was justified. One can only assume that if it they had raised enough suspicion with the authorities to warrant further detention (they didn’t), that other courses of action, perhaps even “alternative interrogation techniques” might be on the table. Or it’s (B) That this was all just a ruse by a bunch of ACLU pansies attempting to make a constitutional civil rights case by trying to get kicked off of a plane.

Actually, the correct answer is (C) The Right is always the victim. We called it. No take backs.

Over at the Washington Monthly, there was a lively discussion on Newt Gingrich’s response to a story that I initially found too predictable to bother looking into; the story of the “Flying Imams”. Long story short, six Muslims arouse suspicion from a passenger by praying in public. He follows them around the gate, eavesdrops in on their conversations, and takes note of what he believes to be suspicious activity. He sends a note to the pilot, the Imams are escorted off the plane, arrested, and released shortly thereafter. Yawn, right? But listen to the Newtster’s takeaway:

“If you give me any signal in the age of terrorism that you’re a terrorist, I’d say the burden of proof was on you,” Gingrich said.

Over in the comment section at WM, the typical rightwing response was to point to the police report of the incident in an effort to prove that the actions of the passenger, flight crew, and airline were not just prudent, but patriotic and totally understandable. I won’t go into the specifics of the report, but for the sake of argument, let’s stipulate that everything the Imams did after coming under scrutiny was, shall we say, a little “weird”. But how did they come under scrutiny in the first place?

Grewenow and I boarded the aircraft and met the reporting party, who identified himself with his photo California driver’s license as [redacted], date of birth [redacted] told me the following: He witnessed six Middle Eastern males in the gate area praying and chanting in an Arabic dialect. They chanted the words Allah, Allah, Allah. He then eavesdropped into their conversation and overheard them mention Sadam and heard them curse about the U.S. involvement.

Praying in public is now considered suspicious terrorist activity in America 2.0. Forget the fact that Muslims are encouraged to pray in groups, “out loud”, using words in “Arabic”. Forget the fact the Muslims are required to pray at certain times of the day, and can’t always keep their “suspicious” activities out of earshot of anyone that might find it threatening. Forget the fact that real terrorists don’t fucking pray in public before getting on a fucking plane. That’s for the liberal elite in their ivory towers to debate. Real Americans don’t let things like reality and information get in the way when stupidity beckons us to spring into action.

Most Muslims in this country have learned to live with this stupidity. It comes with the territory. But it’s worth noting that this mentality, and its abuse by people like Newt Gingrich and the Bush administration, is the real reason we are languishing in Iraq today. The blurring of the lines between Muslims and terrorists, Saddam and Al-Qaeda, the absence of proof versus the proof of absence. These lies, cultivated and propagated by people who really do know better, are the reason that Joe Six-pack supported, and now scratches his head over, the war in Iraq.

The truly dangerous people in this country are those that seek a nation where the average American is kept in the dark, chasing shadows. Whatever it takes to convince the public to support the “right” course. Secure in the knowledge that an ignorant foot soldier is just as good, if not better, than an informed one. These people are truly enemies of this country.

So the Vice President kinda sorta admitted that the United States has waterboarded terrorism suspects:

“Again, this debate seems a little silly given the threat we face, would you agree?” Hennen said.

“I do agree,” Cheney replied, according to a transcript of the interview released Wednesday. “And I think the terrorist threat, for example, with respect to our ability to interrogate high-value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, that’s been a very important tool that we’ve had to be able to secure the nation.”

[…]

“Would you agree that a dunk in water is a no-brainer if it can save lives?” asked Hennen.

“It’s a no-brainer for me, but for a while there, I was criticized as being the vice president `for torture.’ We don’t torture. That’s not what we’re involved in,” Cheney replied.

While McClatchy is playing a game of gotcha here, I’m interested in something completely unrelated. You see, in Cheney’s quote, he uses the phrase “with respect to”, something I’ve always felt he’s said an awful lot these past six years. Along with, “from the standpoint of”, this is probably the one phrase that I associate with the man. So how often does he use these phrases?

From a single source, the White House website, I found 82 cases where Cheney used the phrase “from the standpoint of”. His most famous use of this phrase is probably this one;

“If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again — that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.”

And what about the other phrase? Cheney used the words “with respect to” 357 different times, according the White House website. He used it 12 times during the 2004 vice presidential debate with former Senator John Edwards. 12 times! Edwards used it once. I’ve added some of my favorites below:

Most Outlandish:
“It’s clearly established in terms of training, provision of bomb-making experts, training of people with respect to chemical and biological warfare capabilities, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Iraq for training and so forth*” (Cheney, CNBC’s “Kudlow & Kramer,”

Strangest:
“And we’ll take a look to see if we can’t have similar impact with respect to sugar.”

Most Compound usage:
“Most recently, of course, the focus has been on California, the problems that California has been suffering through, partly as a result of a flawed regulatory scheme with respect to electric power, partly as a result of combined economic growth and lack of any additional supplies with respect to electric generating capacity over the last 10 years.”

Most Incoherent:
He’s made it clear he has a different perception of how to defend the nation with respect to the current kind of threat we’re faced with than does the President — would have been fundamental differences, for example, over the situation with respect to Iraq.

Most Rapid-Fire:
He’s not someone you can enter into an agreement with, with respect to a permanent arrangement for peace. No one is going to trust him with respect to being the presiding authority, if you will, with respect to a Palestinian homeland.

Oh hell, he said “if you will” too. That’s another favorite of his, but I’ll save it for another post.