Lagniappe: The Right's Moral Equivalence Exposed - From a letter on Andrew Sullivan's Letters Page from May 05, 2004:

A HIGHER STANDARD:
I fully support the effort in Iraq. I believe in a democratic experiment in the Arab world. I have family and friends serving there. That said, I am disgusted in the extreme by what a few prison guards have done and what some over here are saying in their defense.

"In war, terrible things happen." "At least they didn't actually hurt them." "The worst thing that they did was to take pictures." I am hearing such things from Americans on television, talk radio, even in my own family. It's repulsive. The only reason someone could say this is if they are afraid to confront the truth. These acts are despicable on their face. They do not need to be compared to anything Saddam did. And our morality demands that we punish those responsible not only for defiling the prisoners' persons, but for doing such profound damage to our cause's credibility.

It may be a conceit, but in order to accomplish the goal of reinventing the Middle East in a positive way demands that we hold ourselves to higher standard. You cannot act in a moral way if you break your own rules, no matter what has been done by others. All those who make excuses and diminish the crimes are cowards.

Although I don't agree with the letter writer's support of the war, I do think this person's sentiments express a moral consistency that is lacking generally in pro-war supporters' reactions to this scandal. I think this level of intellectual and moral honesty is commendable.

Lagniappe: A Full Accounting? - George W. Bush today called for a full accounting of the abuses at Abu Ghraib. What does this mean? Well, let's see ... Bush promised a full accounting in the Enron scandal and we still have Ken Lay on the loose. So, I guess this means that the full accounting only goes so far. Rumsfeld breaths a sigh of relief. His job is safe while the U.S. reputation crumbles all around him.

Lagniappe: Rummy Toast, part III - The Wall Street Journal online reader's poll has a 51/49 Yes/No % split on whether Rummy should resign. That's as of about 9600 votes cast in this unscientific reader survey. And, by Rummy's own admission, we haven't even seen the worst of the abuse scandal yet. Not looking good for Rummy. Not looking good for Bush. Not looking good for the U.S.

Lagniappe: Rummy Toast, part II - Peter Bienart, of The New Republic chimes in on the subject. His verdict: TOAST.

Laginappe: Is Rumsfeld Toast? - I've seen this feeding frenzy before. Fair or not, the end result is always the same: TOAST. The only question is when. And it doesn't help that the Economist, a generally Conservative-friendly venue, is leading the charge calling for Rumsfeld's resignation.

Lagniappe: Abu Ghraib - Episode 2 continued - To reveal or not to reveal. That is now the question. Donald Rumsfeld has admitted to the existence of evidence of even more prisoner abuse that "can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel, and inhuman." Sounds like unabashed torture to me. Those are some strong words, words which not long ago Rumsfeld and Bush and all of us used to describe Saddam Hussein and his regime. I'm not sure these photos/videos should be released; but what can be done now that the world knows of their existence? The voyeurism of American pop culture, and the need for transparency in front of the world, will demand their release. But the safety of America and American soldiers demands they stay under wraps. What to do? What to do? How did we ever get into this mess?

Lagniappe: Abu Ghraib - Episode 2 - From this AP Newswire report:

Referring to photos of sexual and physical abuse that have drawn worldwide condemnation, Rumsfeld warned there are "a lot more photographs and videos" that haven't yet been seen. "If these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."

He said he had not seen the videos, and did not describe them.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters, "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. we're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience." He did not elaborate.

I think liberals and conservatives alike are finally getting some answers to the question of "why they hate us." This whole situation is embarrassing, shocking, and numbing. The Bush Administration needs to find a way to contain the bleeding. The future of the Middle East, Iraq, and the honor of all those soldiers who died for the cause depends on it. For the sake of America, I desperately want Bush to succeed. And I like what he's done so far, but it's not enough, especially if the ominous warnings of Rumsfeld and Graham come to pass.

The "Weak" in (National) Review: Nordlinger's Zingers - Jay Nordlinger took a snide potshot at John Kerry recently for his formal salutation in the 1980s of Nicaragua's Sandinista leader, Daniel Ortega, as "Dear Comandante." Nordlinger write:

Canny or not, Kerry has a record on Latin America ? a substantial one. You will recall the 1980s, and that decade's fierce debates over Central America policy. At the heart of these debates was Nicaragua: the Sandinistas, Castro, and the Soviet Union versus the Contras and the United States (or rather, not all of the United States: the Reagan administration, in particular). Kerry was an important player in all this. He was part of a group derided by Republicans as "'Dear Comandante' Democrats," for they would address letters to Daniel Ortega, the Sandinista No. 1, "Dear Comandante."

Well, I wonder what he'd have to say about George Bush's recent salutation and address to King Abdullah of Jordan:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Your Majesty, welcome once again to the White House. I appreciate your friendship, and I appreciate the opportunity to hear your thoughts on a range of issues that face your country, and mine, at this time of challenge and opportunity in the Middle East.

Check out the entire address Bush made. I think he fawns over "His Majesty" at least 50 times. Perhaps Nordlinger should take a close look at King Abdullah's ties to Middle East terrorism and see if such fawning is justified.

Lagniappe: Tom DeLay Just Doesn't Get It - I've been reading all the reports on Bush's continued support for Rumsfeld in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal. They generally quote some of the reactions by Congressmen and women about whether Rumsfeld should stay or go. Only this AP story, among the stories that I have read so far, contains the following quote by Republican Congressman Tom DeLay:

Democrats, shot back House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, "want to win the White House more than they want to win the war" on terror.

Begging pardon, Mr. DeLay, but Democrats believe that, given the abject failures of the Bush/Rumsfeld war plan to date, their winning the White House IS necessary to win the war on terror. Seems to me that DeLay's Texas hip-shooting big mouth only reveals that DeLay would rather defend an incompetent GOP administration rather than to win the war on terrorism.

Lagniappe: Abu Ghraib and the Taguba Report - You've seen the pictures. Now read it from the lips of those involved. Here are some of the more relevant excerpts from the Taguba Report on abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison facility (please be advised that these excerpts contain some graphic descriptions that you may find objectionable). [The Taguba Report may be viewed in its entirety here]

6. (S) I find that the intentional abuse of detainees by military police personnel included the following acts:

a. (S) Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet;

b. (S) Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees;

c. (S) Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing;

d. (S) Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time;

e. (S) Forcing naked male detainees to wear women’s underwear;

f. (S) Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped;

g. (S) Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them;

h. (S) Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture;

i. (S) Writing “I am a Rapest” (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked;

j. (S) Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee’s neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture;

k. (S) A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee;

l. (S) Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee;

m. (S) Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees.

(ANNEXES 25 and 26)

7.(U) These findings are amply supported by written confessions provided by several of the suspects, written statements provided by detainees, and witness statements. In reaching my findings, I have carefully considered the pre-existing statements of the following witnesses and suspects (ANNEX 26):

a. (U) SPC Jeremy Sivits, 372nd MP Company - Suspect

b. (U) SPC Sabrina Harman, 372nd MP Company – Suspect

c. (U) SGT Javal S. Davis, 372nd MP Company - Suspect

c. (U) PFC Lynndie R. England, 372nd MP Company - Suspect

d. (U) Adel Nakhla, Civilian Translator, Titan Corp., Assigned to the 205th MI Brigade- Suspect

(Names deleted)

8. (U) In addition, several detainees also described the following acts of abuse, which under the circumstances, I find credible based on the clarity of their statements and supporting evidence provided by other witnesses (ANNEX 26):

a. (U) Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees;

b. (U) Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol;

c. (U) Pouring cold water on naked detainees;

d. (U) Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair;

e. (U) Threatening male detainees with rape;

f. (U) Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell;

g. (U) Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick.

h. (U) Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee. ...

...

11. (U) I reach this finding based on the actual proven abuse that I find was inflicted on detainees and by the following witness statements. (ANNEXES 25 and 26):

a. (U) SPC Sabrina Harman, 372nd MP Company, stated in her sworn statement regarding the incident where a detainee was placed on a box with wires attached to his fingers, toes, and penis, “that her job was to keep detainees awake.” She stated that MI was talking to CPL Grainer. She stated: “MI wanted to get them to talk. It is Grainer and Frederick’s job to do things for MI and OGA to get these people to talk.”

b. (U) SGT Javal S. Davis, 372nd MP Company, stated in his sworn statement as follows: “I witnessed prisoners in the MI hold section, wing 1A being made to do various things that I would question morally. In Wing 1A we were told that they had different rules and different SOP for treatment. I never saw a set of rules or SOP for that section just word of mouth. The Soldier in charge of 1A was Corporal Granier. He stated that the Agents and MI Soldiers would ask him to do things, but nothing was ever in writing he would complain (sic).” When asked why the rules in 1A/1B were different than the rest of the wings, SGT Davis stated: “The rest of the wings are regular prisoners and 1A/B are Military Intelligence (MI) holds.” When asked why he did not inform his chain of command about this abuse, SGT Davis stated: “ Because I assumed that if they were doing things out of the ordinary or outside the guidelines, someone would have said something. Also the wing belongs to MI and it appeared MI personnel approved of the abuse.” SGT Davis also stated that he had heard MI insinuate to the guards to abuse the inmates. When asked what MI said he stated: “Loosen this guy up for us.” Make sure he has abad night.” “Make sure he gets the treatment.” He claimed these comments were made to CPL Granier and SSG Frederick. Finally, SGT Davis stated that (sic): “the MI staffs to my understanding have been giving Granier compliments on the way he has been handling the MI holds. Example being statements like, “Good job, they’re breaking down real fast. They answer every question. They’re giving out good information, Finally, and Keep up the good work . Stuff like that.”

c. (U) SPC Jason Kennel, 372nd MP Company, was asked if he were present when any detainees were abused. He stated: “I saw them nude, but MI would tell us to take away their mattresses, sheets, and clothes.” He could not recall who in MI had instructed him to do this, but commented that, “if they wanted me to do that they needed to give me paperwork.” He was later informed that “we could not do anything to embarrass the prisoners.”

d. (U) Mr. Adel L. Nakhla, a US civilian contract translator was questioned about several detainees accused of rape. He observed (sic): “They (detainees) were all naked, a bunch of people from MI, the MP were there that night and the inmates were ordered by SGT Granier and SGT Frederick ordered the guys while questioning them to admit what they did. They made them do strange exercises by sliding on their stomach, jump up and down, throw water on them and made them some wet, called them all kinds of names such as “gays” do they like to make love to guys, then they handcuffed their hands together and their legs with shackles and started to stack them on top of each other by insuring that the bottom guys penis will touch the guy on tops butt.”

e. (U) SPC Neil A Wallin, 109th Area Support Medical Battalion, a medic testified that: “Cell 1A was used to house high priority detainees and cell 1B was used to house the high risk or trouble making detainees. During my tour at the prison I observed that when the male detainees were first brought to the facility, some of them were made to wear female underwear, which I think was to somehow break them down.”

Satirical Lagniappe: Bush Appearing on Arab TV - In a wily effort to coax angry Arabs to shoot their GE television sets in fits of blind rage, while at the same time seeming to be reaching out humanely and apologetically to the Arab world, President Bush has decided to appear on Arab TV to discuss the prisoner abuse situation. Bush's hope in his two ten-minute appearances is both to show the Arab world that he really, really, really is on their side, even against his own fellow American troops, and also to boost the U.S. economy by increasing demand for more GE television sets to replace the ones that will inevitably be used as target practice by those Arabs he fails to convince with his Texas twang, his folksy cowboy charm, and his affected humility. Some think that this little bit of genius is really the work of Karl Rove, who is not convinced that the "red, white, and blue" Bush campaign bus tour through the outsourced Midwest battleground states is likely to generate enough voter enthusiasm. A little bit of war distraction, gripping stories of torture and sexual abuse, all glossed over by the congeniality and warmth of an effusive, but apologetic, President Bush to the Arab world will make all the difference. If nothing more, it's guaranteed to get Bush good TV ratings, which, as research has shown, clearly means a bump up in the pre-election polls. An all-around winning scenario -- that is, if you want to win the U.S. Presidential election and not the war on terror.

Lagniappe: Abu Ghraib and the International Criminal Court of Justice - Hmmm... I wonder ... will the penalties for war crimes committed by U.S. soldiers be simply a "reprimand" and a possible dishonorable discharge with no jail time? Well, there's some evidence to indicate that this might be the case. Maybe that's why so many people didn't want to subject U.S. soldiers to some kind of international tribunal. If we did so, these soldiers actually might get the punishment they deserve for their crimes against humanity.

Liberal Lighthouse: Abu Ghraib and Where the Buck Stops -- Apparently not with President Bush or Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. In fact, it seems that Bush and Rumsfeld are playing "Pass the Buck" like a game of hot potato, hoping that one or the other doesn't get stuck with the steaming tuber when the music stops.

Lagniappe: Abu Ghraib and the U.S. "Republican" Guard - Here's a bit of tit-for-tat for those who like to give such nicknames to prominent liberals like "MuqTeddy" Kennedy, or John "F'n" Kerry, or "Baghdad" Jim McDermott ... let's just call those members of the George Bush/Don Rumsfeld military serving in Iraq and overseeing Saddam's Abu Ghraib prison, you know ... America's finest ... the new "Republican" Guard, who seem to have managed Iraq's most notorious torture chambers and prison consistent with its other "Republican" Guard legacy -- all under the watchful eye of our Republican President and his illustrious Republican cabinet.

Lagniappe: Where y'at, man? - Well, I've been AWOL from the Blog for a couple of weeks. End of April/Beginning of May is hell-time for college professors (and college students, too, to be fair!). I'm sure to return to the fray with more regularity probably by mid-May at the latest. Stay tuned and come back every so often to see where I am with this thing. Peace.

Lagniappe: Responsibility for 9/11 - After sifting through and thinking about all the information that is out there concerning the Bush Administration's response (or lack of one) to the perceived al-Qaeda threats emanating up through the intelliegence bureaucracy, I have come to the conclusion that, when you sort through the piles and piles of rhetoric, there is really nothing there to pin on GW. Listen, I'm a die-hard, pacifist, unapologetic left-leaning liberal. I'm voting for Kerry in November. And I don't have any fondness for Bush at all. None. I will be elated when he joins his daddy as a one-termer. But I like to think that I'm fair. And when it comes to responsibility for 9/11, there's enough blame to go around for everyone. It is unfair to single out the Bush Administration. Sure, I believe, given the benefit of hindsight, that the Bush Administration could and should have done things differently. But, I can't really find fault with the Bush Administration's handling of the intelligence it had. I'm sure that intelligence briefings on terrorism always portend ominous things and that the information Bush had was, in many respects, very much consistent with the tone of other types of similar briefings and reports. Who would ever have suspected such an attack on the U.S. of the magnitude of 9/11? For the life of me, I can't see how the Bush Administration could have known this. Bush should be blamed for 9/11 about as much as Clinton should, which is really not much at all. It is just one of those tragic, unfortunate, wake-up calls from the way we conducted anti-terrorist intelligence gathering business. I don't think the same mistakes will ever be made again, or at least I think any President worth his salt will do his best to see that it doesn't happen again. What is important, I think, is to stop looking for blame and to start working on fixing the holes in our system that made it possible. It is as unfair to blame Bush, or Ashcroft, as it is to blame Clinton, or Gorelick. Liberals can and should oppose Bush on his ill-advised policies of the past that led us to war with Iraq and that threaten civil liberties. Liberals can and should criticize Bush for his penchant for secrecy and vendetta-like character assassinations of his critics, even his Republican critics. Liberals can and should question the wisdom of Bush's tax cuts and his unwillingness to curb spending. Liberals can and should question Bush's Iraq strategy and its utter failure. But Liberals, true American Liberals, should not blame Bush and his administration for 9/11. There's just nothing at all in the evidence to indicate any single person, administration, or bureaucratic entity is to blame. 9/11 just happened. It's tragic. Maybe things could have been done to prevent it from happening, maybe not. We've all got to get beyond seeking blame where there is none, or recognizing that we all share in the blame if blame has to be assigned. Liberals, in spite of the temptation to want to lay on Bush's shoulders the crushing weight of responsibility for 9/11, should, in this one matter, just lay off.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: Racism in LA Electoral Politics - Do you think Louisiana is beyond the issue of race in its electoral politics? Think again. As Stephanie Grace reports in the Times-Picayune, the white Democrat woman candidate for governor beat the conservative Republican man of color because the folks who had a penchant for voting for David Duke and usually support more conservative candidates opted for the white woman against the dark man -- even though the dark man was clearly the more conservative of the two. In certain parts of Louisiana, apparently race matters much more than ideology in voting behavior. Sad.

Lagniappe: Bush Admits His Ignorance - As this AP news report indicates, Bush, declaring that he would have done anything within his power to prevent the 9/11 attacks had he known they were coming, is planning to tell the 9/11 commission that he really had no clue. Duh! Of course, Georgie. What person in his right mind who knew such an attack was likely would just turn away from it and do nothing? That's not the problem, nor the issue, Mr. President. The real issue is WHY DIDN'T you know? Did you close your ears and eyes? Were you distracted by Iraq to hear the warning bells of your anti-terrorism security teams? Did they themselves somehow fail to gain good intelligence warning of such an attack? These are the important questions. Why won't you answer them?

Lagniappe: WoT Bush Watch - From President Bush's April 2, 2004, speech on Strengthening Economy and Job Training. Opening statement:

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming. Please be seated. I wish Dan had said, a friend of longstanding -- (laughter) -- as opposed to "an old friend." I knew him when he lived in Texas. You've got a good one running Marshall University here. He's a fine fellow. He's doing a fine job. (Applause.)

I'm proud to be back in Huntington. We're going to have an interesting discussion about how to make sure people have an opportunity to get the skills necessary to fill the jobs of the 21st century. That's really what we're here to talk about. We're going to talk about how to make sure everybody's life is optimistic and hopeful, as this economy of ours grows and changes. [Emphasis added.]

A perfect place to do so here is at this community college, and I'm so honored to have been invited. Thank you for opening up your fantastic facility, and thank you for giving me a chance to come and talk.

How nice, we're going to be talking about good old bread and butter issues. But, wait, first we need to discuss 9/11, the War on Terror, and Saddam Hussein, just in case anybody missed it. Even before Bush gets into the stated subject of his speech, lo and behold, we hear:

And then, as we were recovering from the recession, the enemy hit us. They attacked us. And it affected us. It affected our way of thinking, for starters. See, when most of us were growing up, we thought oceans could protect us, and we found out that wasn't the case. We found out that America could be harmed by people who hate what we stand for. We suffered for those who lost life. I vowed then and there that the best way to protect America was to get on the offense and stay on the offense and bring people to justice. (Applause.) We resolved, as a nation, not to allow terrorists to cause us to lose our optimism and our spirit. That's what we resolved. And we still have that spirit and resolve, by the way.

And then we found out we had some corporate citizens who didn't tell the truth. That affected our economy. It kind of shattered our idealism about people in positions of responsibility. We passed tough laws, by the way. We're not going to tolerate dishonesty in the boardrooms of America. There will be consequences if you lie to your shareholders and your employees. (Applause.) But it affected us. It was a hurdle we had to cross. It was a challenge to our economy.

And then, as you know, I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Let me tell you -- (applause.) One of the important -- one of the important lessons of September the 11th, and it's important for people to understand, is that when we see a threat, we cannot let it materialize. That's an important lesson. I saw a threat -- I looked at intelligence and saw a threat. The United States Congress looked at the same intelligence and it saw a threat. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence and it saw a threat. People were worried about Saddam Hussein because of his past behavior. Remember, he had used weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors and his own people. I remembered the lesson of September the 11th as I looked at the data. I had a choice, either to trust a madman or defend the country. Given that choice, I'll defend America every time. (Applause.)

We've still got hard work in Iraq. The reason we do is there's killers there who want to shake our will. They want the American people to forget what it means to promote freedom. They want us to retreat. See, a free Iraq is an historic opportunity. A free Iraq will change a neighborhood that needs to be free. A free Iraq will make the world more peaceful. But a free Iraq is something that the terrorists fear. They hate freedom. They can't stand the thought of a free society. So they're willing to kill. And they're trying to shake our will. But they don't understand this country. We will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins. (Applause.)

When will the irrelevant reference to the WoT ever end? Probably never. It's all Bush has.

Kingfishery & Kingcakery: Sins of the Catholic Voter - Recently, the Catholic Archbishop of the New Orleans diocese went on a campaign to criticize Catholics who happened to vote for a pro-choice candidate for public office. Essentially, Archbishop Hughes called into question the moral integrity of such Catholics, and offended these faithful members of the Church by contending that those who voted for pro-choice candidates should refrain from the sacrament of communion because of their sinful, base voting behavior. Of course, Mary Landrieu, a devout Catholic Democratic Senator, is one of these pro-choice candidates that Alfred Hughes so despises. But recently, in the Archdiocese's own newspaper, The Clarion Herald, none other than Moon Landrieu, Mary Landrieu's father and a former mayor of New Orleans, wrote a brilliant letter to the editor showing the absolute lack of logic in the Archbishop's position and even the hypocrisy of this selective emphasis on voting for pro-choice candidates. Moon Landrieu's letter can be accessed online here. But it's such a good letter that I need to reprint it in full for you in this blog:

There appears to be no shortage of devout Catholics who rejoice in denying the saving grace of Christ in the Holy Eucharist to those of us who have allegedly sinned by voting differently than they did. Quite orthodox, but not very Christ-like.

I am not surprised, but I am curious as to how they voted and how they justify receiving Communion because not one major presidential or gubernatorial candidate in my memory passes the test of acceptability on all the following issues: abortion, physician-assisted suicide, homicide, the destruction of human embryos in artificial fertilization, stem-cell research, cloning, artificial insemination, contraception, adultery, pre-marital sex, homosexuality, divorce, capital punishment and preemptive war.

I am not referring to the personal moral beliefs of the candidates, but rather to their positions with respect to the criminalization of these sins.

It would be interesting to know how the church hierarchy voted in past elections. We know Archbishop Hannan actively supported Edwin Edwards over David Duke, who claimed to be pro-life, but clearly neither of them met the test.

President Bush? On abortion - he favors exceptions for rape, incest and threat to the life of the mother. Remember - no exceptions. He also flunks the test on most of the other life issues. Pro-life? Hardly!

I have never met a politician who is for abortion, and I have never met one who is willing to put a woman in jail for taking a morning-after pill after being raped, nor have I met one recently who is willing to make a crime of adultery, pre-marital sex, contraception, or divorce. That does not mean they are for those sins. If you should find a candidate who is perfect on criminalizing life issues, and that candidate also meets your concerns on poverty, environment, race, peace and justice, by all means vote for him or her, but I doubt that you will find one.

The Louisiana bishops supported a bill in the Louisiana Legislature that provided exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, even though their lobbyist was called a baby killer by those who insisted on no exceptions. The United States bishops opposed a United States Senate amendment that would have made illegal all abortions after viability except where "the continuation of a pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health." In both instances, the bishops were faced with difficult political choices. I trust that they did not sin.

We live in an imperfect, pluralistic society in which voters, too, are faced with difficult choices. A vote for an imperfect candidate that is not intended to reward or further the imperfection, but rather is intended to advance the good that the candidate offers in preference to another candidate, surely cannot be sinful. If the archbishop is correct, the only safe thing for a Catholic to do is not to vote, but then the failure to do one's civic duty is also a sin.

MOON LANDRIEU

Go get 'em, Moon. Let's see how the single-issue anti-abortion Catholic voters respond to this.