THE POPE'S REAL THREAT

Many people have written about the controversy over Pope Benedict's recent remarks at the University of Regensburg, where he quoted a medieval emperor about the barbarity of forced religious conversions. In a replay of the Prophet Cartoon madness, Muslims only escalated their rhetoric after the Vatican apologized for any offense the quotation may have given followers of Islam. Despite apologizing Wednesday for quoting Manuel II's words from 1391 (but not for its argument against violence in religion), Muslims burnt effigies of the Roman Catholic leader and staged demonstrations around the world:

Protesters took to the streets in a series of countries with large Muslim populations, including India and Iraq. The ruling party in Turkey likened Pope Benedict XVI to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of reviving the mentality of the Crusades. In Kashmir, an effigy of the pontiff was burnt.

At Friday prayers in the Iranian capital, Teheran, a leading ayatollah described the Pope as "rude and weak-minded". Pakistan's parliament passed a motion condemning the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Ismail Haniya, the Palestinian prime minister, criticised him hours after a grenade attack on a church in the Gaza Strip. ...

The head of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, said the remarks "aroused the anger of the whole Islamic world".

Similar comments were made in other Muslim capitals, raising fears of a repetition of the anger that followed the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper earlier this year.

All this has shown is that Muslims missed the point of the speech, and in fact have endeavored to fulfill Benedict's warnings rather than prove him wrong. If one reads the speech at Regensburg, the entire speech, one understands that the entire point was to reject violence in pursuing religion in any form, be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or Bahai. The focal point of the speech was not the recounting of the debate between Manuel II and the unnamed Persian, but rather the rejection of reason and of God that violence brings (emphasis mine):

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

This is really the crux of the argument, which is that argument, debate, and rhetoric are absolutely essential in forming any kind of philosophy, including religious doctrine. The words of sacred text do not cover all situations in the world, and therefore development of a solid philosophical body of thought is critical to growth and wisdom. That requires the ability to challenge and to criticize without fear of retribution, a difficulty that most faiths struggle to overcome.

Islam, on the other hand, doesn't bother to try. Benedict never says this explicitly, but Islam's demands that all criticism be silenced turns doctrine into dictatorship, which rejects God on a very basic level. A central tenet of most religions is that humans lack the divine perfection to claim knowledge of the totality of the Divine wisdom. Islam practices a form of supremacy that insists on unquestioned obedience or at least silence of all criticism, especially from outsiders, and creates a violent reaction against it when it occurs.

Islam bullies people into silence, and then obedience. We saw this with the Prophet Cartoons, a series of editorial criticisms that pale into insignificance when seen against similar cartoons from the Muslim media regarding Christians and especially Jews. It is precisely this impulse about which Benedict warns can occur in any religion, but modern Muslims show that they are by far the widest purveyors of this impulse.

Unfortunately, the Muslims are not the only people who missed the point. The New York Times editorial board joins Muslims in demanding an apology and an end to criticism of Islam:

There is more than enough religious anger in the world. So it is particularly disturbing that Pope Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims, quoting a 14th-century description of Islam as “evil and inhuman.” ...

Muslim leaders the world over have demanded apologies and threatened to recall their ambassadors from the Vatican, warning that the pope’s words dangerously reinforce a false and biased view of Islam. For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence. And they denounce its perversion by extremists, who use jihad to justify murder and terrorism.

The Vatican issued a statement saying that Benedict meant no offense and in fact desired dialogue.

The Times missed the point, too. They aren't satisfied with the explanation offered by the Vatican. They want a "deep and persuasive apology" for Benedict's temerity in criticizing the use of violence and rejection of reason in religion, and specifically using a six-hundred-year-old quote that insulted people who regularly insult everyone else, including other Muslims. The Times counsels surrender to the threats and the violence.

Benedict opposes both. That's the real threat behind the Pope's speech, and don't think the radical Muslims don't understand it.

I SUPPORT THE POPE

By Michelle Malkin

Target of jihad

It all seems so familiar, doesn't it (via Yahoo.com):

A Palestinian from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade attends a rally in Gaza to protest against remarks regarding Islam made by Pope Benedict XVI September 15, 2006. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem (GAZA)

Pakistani Muslims chant slogans to condemn Pope Benedict XVI for making what they regard as 'derogatory' comments about Islam, during a rally in Multan September 15, 2006. (Asim Tanveer/Reuters)

Muslim students burn an effigy of Pope Benedict XVI at a protest rally in Allahabad, India, Friday, Sept. 15, 2006. A growing chorus of Muslim leaders has called on the Pope to apologize for the alleged derogatory comments made by him about Islam. (AP Photo/Rajesh Kumar Singh)

There is always an insult to be manufactured. There are always fists and machetes and rifles to be raised. There are always flags and effigies and embassies to be burned. There are always throats and heads to be claimed:

Reader S. writes:

I'm a grad student in Theology at a Catholic seminary here in the U.S. and a long-time reader of your blog.

The media is ignoring the substance of Pope Benedict's remark while letting Muslims appear to be victims. Islam was indeed spread by violence. Denying that is like denying the holocaust. That wasn't the point of what the Pope was saying. In the address scientists on the role of faith and reason in human experience, the Pope recounts a debate between a Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an "educated Persian." Here I quote directly from his address :

Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he [the Byzantine emperor] says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

The Muslims clearly have no response to this, because their religion was spread by the sword, and we can see it is spread so still by the forced conversions of Steve Centani and his camera operator. But underlying this is a theological point about the nature of God and his relationship with mankind that the Muslims also have no appropriate response for. The Pope continues:

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor [of the text where this debate appears], Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

God can't be God if he is unreasonable, because if He is unreasonable then he has some kind of deficiency or imperfection. Imperfection is incompatible with His divine nature. He can't transcend reason because perfect reason is also integral to His nature as God. God can't command us to practice idolatry, as the Muslim theologian Ibn Hazn said, because this would be totally incompatible with His nature. God can't be untrue to Himself - He doesn't have such human failings!

The Muslims can't justify the unreasonableness of violence by saying God transcends reason. The result of their beliefs is to make God in the image of their own leaders who spread Islam by any means possible in order to subjugate as many as possible under their brutal power.

But just as the Cartoon Rage wasn't merely about the cartoons, the jihadists' new Pope Rage isn't merely about his comments. It's a continuation of "unfinished business." The jihadists have had it in for the papacy for years. From a 2002 London Times article on the plot to assassinate the late Pope John Paul II:

The Pope has been told that the al-Qaeda terrorists who masterminded the September 11 attacks in the United States planned to assassinate him during his tour of the Philippines.

The attack never took place because the Pope called off the visit in 1999 through ill-health.

...Vatican officials declined to comment yesterday on reports of the latest plan to kill the Pope, but anti- terrorism experts in Italy said that there had been “repeated warnings” of an al-Qaeda attack on the Pope or on a “symbolic Vatican target” and that security had been intensified in and around St Peter’s Square, with metal detectors introduced for mass gatherings such as the Pope’s weekly audience.

Vatican-watchers said that although an abortive plot in 1995 in the Philippines against the Pope’s life was known about, the 1999 attempt had not been made public before.

[Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's] plan to kill the Pope was put together at the same time as he was enlisting al-Qaeda recruits around South-East Asia, many of whom were sent to Afghanistan for training in specialist techniques, including explosives and assassination.

The first attempt on the Pope’s life was to have been made in January 1995 as he addressed a crowd of several hundred thousand in a park in Manila. Documents show how Mohammed considered planting a pipe bomb and using snipers near the altar where the Pope was to say Mass. The idea was not only to kill the Pope and those standing closest to him, but also to cause pandemonium in the park by then ordering snipers to shoot randomly at those fleeing the carnage.

To fanatics such as Mohammed, the Pope is as great an enemy and obstacle to their vision of a global jihad as the US President.

This assassination plot had, though, to be scrapped after a clumsy accident by Ramzi Youssef, his nephew, who prematurely detonated an explosive device in his flat in Manila. These two men are said by the FBI to have been instrumental in planning the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington. They had the idea of hijacking aircraft and turning them into flying bombs. Both were also involved in the lorry bomb attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993.

Although his nephew was arrested soon after the abortive papal bomb plot in 1995, Mohammed escaped.

He returned to the Philippines intent on reviving the assassination plot against the Pope, but the Pope cancelled his trip to Manila at the last minute.

Security experts say that there is a danger that Mohammed [ed.: since captured and now at Gitmo] will try again. Dr Rohan Gunaratna, a terrorism expert and author of the book Inside al- Qaeda, is quoted as saying: “They (al-Qaeda) often return to complete unfinished business. When they didn’t destroy the World Trade Centre first time around, they came back to finish it off. That is how it was with the Pope in the Philippines.”

Pope Benedict's November trip to Turkey is now in jeopardy, but calling it off will neither make him or Catholics any safer nor end the new manufactured outrage by the jihadists. Via Time:

Pope Benedict XIV's controversial comments about Islam have already ignited a firestorm of criticism in the Muslim world, but it may end up costing the Vatican more than just its reputation. A top Catholic Church official inside Turkey says the polemics following Benedict XVI's comments about Islam may cause the cancellation of his November visit to the majority Muslim country, which is nevertheless governed on secular principles.

"At this point, I don't know if the trip will happen," Mons. Luigi Padovese, the Vicar Apostolic in Anatolia, the Church's representative for what amounts to the eastern half of Turkey, told TIME. "There are leading politicians, members of the ruling parties, a top minister and others who have expressed a negative opinion on the visit." Padovese blamed the outcry on voices in the Turkish press whom he described as "nationalist, Islamist and anti-Christian," and said the Pope's intention was not to offend anyone. "I don't know if anyone even read the Pope's discourse," Padovese said. "These elements tossed out the bait, and others took it."

The sharpest rebuke inside Turkey came from Salih Kapusuz, the deputy leader of the ruling Justice and Development, or AK Party, who said that Benedict would go down in history "in the same category as leaders such as (Benito) Mussolini and (Adolf) Hitler." He told the state-owned Anatolia news agency that Benedict's comments were a deliberate attempt to "revive the mentality of the Crusades: He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages." He added that Benedict "is a poor thing that has not benefitted from the spirit of reform in the Christian world..."

Asked if the Turkish authorities had made any specific requests of the Holy See, Padovese said that the only demands have come from the press. "There is a request that the Pope apologizes for what he said," says Padovese. "But I read into this request a kind of triumphalism — to see the Church and Christians and the Pope say out loud that they were wrong." Padovese spoke by phone from the parish in the Black Sea coastal city of Trebizond, where in February Father Andrea Santoro was killed by a young Muslim man in an apparently religiously-motivated attack. Two other Catholic clergy members have been the victims of attacks in Turkey over the past several months.

And there will be more.

Guess what's on the best-seller list in "moderate" Turkey right now? Via AllahPundit and Gerald Augustinus:

It's a hot-selling novel titled Papa’ya suikast (”Attack on the Pope”) which predicts that Pope Benedict will be assassinated in Istanbul.

Which side will the West--and moderate Muslims--stand on?

Who will stand up and say without equivocation:

"I support the Pope."

SENATOR POODLE SHOULD STOP YAPPING!

Kerry Accuses Bush of Cutting & Running in Afghanistan

Jean Francois Kerry made another totally dippy statement today, accusing the Bush administration of cutting and running in Afghanistan. Here’s a portion of his statement:

“The administration’s Afghanistan policy defines cut and run,” Kerry said in remarks prepared for delivery at Howard University on Thursday. “Cut and run while the Taliban-led insurgency is running amok across entire regions of the country. Cut and run while Osama bin Laden and his henchmen hide and plot in a lawless no-man’s land.”

Sen. Kerry should read the newspapers before making such a stupid comment. The Taliban are trying to mount a comeback of sorts but NATO troops (aka the Allies) keep killing them, according to this CBS article:

An Associated Press reporter who traveled to Pashmul saw warplanes drop five bombs within about 20 minutes on orchards where militants were believed to be hiding. Explosions echoed across grape and pomegranate fields and clouds of dust rose amid the greenery and dried-mud houses of the Panjwayi district, which is about 12 miles from Kandahar city.
Operation Medusa was launched Saturday to flush out Taliban fighters from Panjwayi and neighboring Zhari district. NATO spokesman Maj. Scott Lundy said alliance and Afghan troops had gained ground and disrupted the militants’ command system so guerrillas were moving in confusion. Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak said Taliban casualties were high, but could not confirm the NATO report of more than 200 dead.
A NATO statement said its figure was derived from “surveillance and reconnaissance assets operating in Panjwayi and Zhari districts, as well as information reported by various Afghan officials and citizens living nearby.” About 80 other suspected Taliban were arrested by Afghan police and a further 180 fled the area, it said.

I’m betting that the Taliban are wishing that the allies would cut and run. They’re SOL, though, because Democrats don’t occupy the White House.

It’s also worth noting that his statement today is a signal that Kerry wants to run for president again. Couple that statement with his interview with the Washington Examiner, where he said that he was “prepared to kick [the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth] ass from one end of America to the other” and you get the impression that he’s running again.

What this means to me is that Kerry still thinks of himself in presidential terms even though most people don’t take him seriously. How can you take him seriously when he makes statements like that? How can people take him seriously when he can’t even get the most elemental facts right?

ONE ARAB'S APOLOGY

Finally!

Five years after 9/11, an Arab American speaks openly about Islamic Fascism and his silence. In One Arab’s Apology, Emilio Dabul posts a heartfelt apology worth reading:

“The only time I raised my voice in protest against these men who killed thousands of innocents in the name of Allah was behind closed doors, among the safety of friends and family. I did at one point write a very vitriolic essay condemning their actions, but fear of becoming another Salman Rushdie kept me from ever trying to publish it.

Well, I’m sick of saying the truth only in private - that Arabs around the world, including Arab-Americans like myself, need to start holding our own culture accountable for the insane, violent actions that our extremists have perpetrated on the world at large.

Yes, our extremists and our culture.”

At one point, Dabul mentions Christian bombers of abortion clinics:

“A Christian who bombs an abortion clinic in the name of God is still a Christian, at least in his interpretation, and saying otherwise doesn’t negate the fact that he has spent a goodly amount of time figuring out his version of the one true and right thing to do.”

I’d add one more difference — the Christian bombers of abortion clinics are often pursued, charged, prosecuted, and imprisoned by Christian witnesses, police, prosecutors, and jailers; while many Arab countries teach murder and pay families when their children blow themselves up killing others.

Dabul’s comments are late, but gladly accepted. I know it wasn’t easy, but the risks he takes places him among other Americans who risked to make America a better place.

—

Clark Baker is a senior contributor to CaliforniaConservative.org. He is an author, filmaker, father and retired LAPD officer. You may read more of his work here and here.

ARABS INCREASINGLY SEE LEBANON AS A LOSS

At the imposition of the UN Security Council cease-fire resolution, the West almost unanimously considered the war in Lebanon a disaster for Israel. Most analysts insisted that Israel's failure to destroy Hezbollah amounted to a humiliation and worried about the energizing effect Hassan Nasrallah's victory would have on radical Islam's popularity in the region. These analysts would be surprised to learn that Arabs increasingly view Hezbollah's war as a disaster as well -- but a disaster for Arabs:

At the height of the war, as Hizbullah rockets regularly sent hundreds of thousands of Israelis scurrying to the shelters like "rabbits and mice," as some of the Arab media noted with undisguised gratification, the mood tended to be militantly euphoric, buoyed by the widely broadcast images of Israeli suffering and humiliation. But as the war came to its conclusion and life in Israel returned pretty much to normal, opinion in the Arab world has shifted to more sober analysis, as Lebanon, Hizbullah and the Shi'ites face the daunting task of what will probably be years of multi-billion dollar reconstruction.

Even a cursory perusal of the Arab press, will reveal that Hizbullah's status in Lebanon has changed for the worse, as many Lebanese come to the rather shocking realization that the south of their country, unknown to them, had in fact been transformed into an Iranian and Syrian launching pad against Israel posing an existential threat to their own livelihoods and to their entire country. Hizbullah is now on the defensive, trying to protect its political assets against a more assertive Lebanese domestic majority, that seems more determined than ever to contain Hizbullah's "state within a state," so that they are not drawn again into a destructive war with Israel, without as much as a word of consultation.

Many in Lebanon, especially non-Shi'ites, but also some important Shi'ite spokespersons, are calling for an end to the armed phase of Hizbullah's development and its integration into the Lebanese political system, like all other political parties, lest further provocation of Israel will expose Lebanon to even greater devastation in the future. In other words, they are demanding the disarming of Hizbullah.

Muna Fayyad, a Shi'ite professor at the University of Lebanon, and the Mufti of Tyre, Sayyid Ali al-Amin, for example, both questioned the right of Hizbullah to bring disaster on the Shi'ites of Lebanon, by dragging them into an ill considered adventure they never wanted, in the interests of a foreign power like Iran, about whom they were never consulted.

The war stripped more than a few masks from the players in the region. Nasrallah now has to contend with the fallout from his impatient attack on Israel, from the Lebanese and also from the Iranians who had wanted Hezbollah and their rockets as a threat to be feared, not an attack to be weathered and then discounted. His image as the protector of Lebanon has been shattered, and the Lebanese now see him as a threat instead of a savior. After years of Syrian control, they now have to recognize that a large portion of their country is under de facto Iranian occupation, and they're not happy about it.

This has eroded the veneer of victory that Nasrallah placed on the cease-fire. Western commentators and no shortage of Israeli pundits pointed to Nasrallah's claims to have prevailed as a devastating propaganda offensive that would make Israel and the West look weaker than ever. Arabs have taken a more realistic view of the war's results, including the fact that Nasrallah has to make those claims from undisclosed locations to this day. They scoff at his bravado, noting that Nasrallah's vaunted rocket attacks killed more Israeli Arabs than anyone else and proved singularly ineffective as a deterrent to the Israeli incursion.

The Jerusalem Post notes several indicators that the Arabs now discuss that hardly supports the idea that Nasrallah triumphed over Israel:

* Hezbollah lost almost a quarter of its ground forces and had to flee the sub-Litani region; Israel lost 100 men.

* The war left multibillion-dollar damage throughout Lebanon; Hezbollah barely dented Israeli infrastructure.

* Hezbollah lost a number of command-and-control centers that Israel destroyed during its incursion, and will not likely be allowed to rebuild them.

* Almost all of its long- and medium-range rocketry and launch materiel has been destroyed, and the short-range rockets that they have in large numbers proved completely ineffective, both militarily and as a political/terror deterrent. In fact, the failure of the rocketry to force Israel out of the war has severely damaged Hezbollah's main purpose for the Iranians, which wanted Hezbollah and its rockets to serve as a psychological weapon and deterrent against any military action. Now that the Israelis have weathered the worst of Nasrallah's attacks, no one fears them any more.

Instead of manipulating a cowed Lebanon, Nasrallah now must watch as the Lebanese Army marches into what had been Hezbollah's exclusive domain for the past twenty years. Only the Shi'ites still support him, and even that appears tenuous. The rest of Lebanon, looking around the ruins of their nation that came from a war they never wanted, have a much clearer perspective than anyone credited for the calculations of victory and defeat, and Nasrallah's underground boastings have not convinced anyone except Nasrallah.

As I wrote at the time, Nasrallah can claim anything he wants. As the smoke clears, people will understand the real results of his war, and they have begun to do so -- to his detriment.

TAPEGATE IN CALIFORNIA

By Michelle Malkin ·

This is a stunning story, and I'm sorry I haven't gotten to it sooner. Drudge and California media have been all over it and now the police are involved. Via AP:

The campaign of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Democratic rival acknowledged Tuesday that it downloaded - and leaked to the media - a recording of a private meeting in which the governor described a Hispanic legislator as having a "very hot" personality.

But Cathy Calfo, campaign manager for Democrat Phil Angelides, said the campaign had done nothing wrong because the file was available publicly on the governor's Web site.

"No one hacked," Calfo said at a news conference to address the role played by the Angelides campaign, first reported by The Sacramento Bee. "They accessed information that was available to the public."

Schwarzenegger spokesman Adam Mendelsohn said someone would have had to snoop to find the audio file.

"The file that was leaked to the Los Angeles Times was in a private area of the governor's server not accessible to the public without manipulation of information," he said.

Schwarzenegger's legal affairs secretary, Andrea Lynn Hoch, said the sound file was stored in a password-protected area. She said she forwarded the Internet Protocol address used to download the file to the California Highway Patrol, which is investigating.

The chutzpah of the Dems is flabbergasting. Watch as they try to turn this around and blame Schwarzenegger. Via the SFChronicle:

The acknowledgement Tuesday that the campaign of Democrat Phil Angelides leaked an embarrassing tape of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to the news media set off a new clash between the warring camps over the standards of political ethics in a world dominated by the Internet.

Although a criminal investigation continues into allegations of computer hacking, the manager of Angelides' gubernatorial campaign said members of her staff found four hours of Schwarzenegger's private tapes while perusing the governor's Web site and turned a small snippet over to the Los Angeles Times.

The six-minute section of the tape included comments by the governor attributing the passionate temperament of Cubans and Puerto Ricans to a combination of "black blood" and "Latino blood" -- comments that Schwarzenegger has apologized for.

Cathy Calfo, Angelides' campaign manager, said the actions by her staff members were not sanctioned by her or by Angelides. But she also insisted that the private tapes had been left unsecured on a public section of the governor's Web site and that no laws were broken when staffers downloaded the audio file.

"The Schwarzenegger campaign's continued contention that someone hacked into their computer system is a blatant attempt to mislead the public, and they should stop the cover-up, admit that their office made a mistake and stop the finger-pointing," she said.

The Democrats' p.c. privacy-invading attempt to embarrass Calif. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has blown up in their faces. Good. My feelings about Arnie are lukewarm, but this was a gobsmackingly stupid attack by the Dems on two levels--not only from an ethics and legal standpoint, but also on the substance. Trying to play "gotcha" over the governor's harmless private comments? State Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, R-Cathedral City, the subject of the governor's comments, had the right attitude:

State Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, R-Cathedral City, says the leaked comments Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made about her were not offensive and the leak was clearly politically motivated.

"It's eight weeks from an election; I'm not surprised," Garcia said Saturday in an interview with The Desert Sun.

"I absolutely see it as an attempt by a fledging (Phil) Angelides campaign on its last leg trying to gain political traction from this."

The Angelides' campaign could not be reached for comment Saturday evening. The Democratic gubernatorial candidate and state treasurer, however, described Schwarzenegger's comments on his campaign Web site as "deeply offensive and embarrassing."

Garcia was swept up in a national political firestorm after taped, private comments referring to her "hot'' personality produced by the mixing of "black blood'' and "Latino blood'' were published, prompting an apology.

A Los Angeles Times story disclosed the remarks Friday setting off a day of finger-pointing from opponents and words of support for the governor by lawmakers from both parties.

On the tape, Schwarzenegger and chief of staff Susan Kennedy spoke affectionately about Garcia and speculated about her nationality.

Kennedy asked if Garcia is Puerto Rican. Schwarzenegger responded, "It seems to me a Cuban." Whether Cuban or Puerto Rican, "they all are very hot," the governor says on the recording. "They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it."

Garcia said Schwarzenegger's comments were taken out of context and does not believe him to be discriminatory or disrespectful.

"I think if you were a fly in my house for two minutes you can make anyone of us look like Archie Bunker," she said.

***

You know who else looks stupid here? The Los Angeles Times. Nice going, tools.

Can you imagine the LATimes editors accepting a leaked tape from GOP operatives and splashing its contents all over the front page in a last-ditch attempt to humiliate a Democrat governor?

Bias? What liberal bias?

***

Reader Tim e-mails:

So the Dems are against phone tapping and bank transaction surveillance of suspected terrorists but it’s OK to hack the Governor of California’s web site?