Replies

It's a pretty sorry situation when we have to get news -- or even educated speculation -- from a British tabloid, and a Labour-supporting one, at that.

They may well be right; I suspect they're closer to the truth than the Boston Mayor, and various Administration and (U.S.) media talking heads, who assert that the two perps were acting on their own, and that we must not read anything into their religion, which, as we all know, is a Religion of Peace.

The President warns us not to leap to conclusions, and that makes sense. Unfortunately, his own Administration, and his media sycophants, didn't follow this advice in the hours immediately following the bombings. David Axlerod, to cite one of many examples, quickly suggested, absent a shred of evidence, that the bombings could have been by tax protestors. The disappointment in some quarters that the perps were not Tea Party followers, and did not have NRA membership cards in their pockets, was palpable.

Meanwhile, our "opinion leaders" not only avoid jumping to conclusions; they make a conscious effort to avoid seeing the obvious. Anyone who so much as raises the possibility of a connection to al Qaeda or other terrorist groups risks being labeled as an Islamophobe. Such a label, to me, isn't pejorative; rather, it connotes an ability to connect the dots. There are none so blind as they who will not see.