Richard Mourdock and the Tea Party Taliban

Mourdock Accepts Impact Of Controversial Rape Remarks

 GOP Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said Monday he can't "unring the bell" on comments he made last week about rape, and he's joining a national Republican effort to shift discussion away from his remarks.

"You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, you can't unring the bell," Mourdock said Monday. "I apologize that anyone might have been offended by it personally, and we've moved on and are talking about what people are talking about."

Richard Mourdock - Caricature (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

Mourdock also told reporters he was surprised by the reaction to his remarks after last week's Senate debate and didn't realize he had said anything controversial.

 This is not just an instance of insensitivity about the subject of rape. Rather, it's the continued radioactive leakage of extremely conservative Republicans whose views on society in general, and women in particular, is appalling to the rest of society. The Tea Party has its own unique vision of the world. They can't why anyone would take issue with what they say, because they only speak the "truth."




"When I walked off the stage, I expected -- walking to my green room -- high-fives, because I had no idea that the statement that I made would possibly go a direction that it went," he said.
The direction that statement took last week knocked not only his campaign off track, but provided ammunition for national Democrats looking for women voters in key swing states. The Mourdock campaign has used the Democratic responses in fundraising appeals to supporters, while also arguing federal spending and the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya are more pertinent issues.
Top Republicans working the Sunday talk show circuit attempted to right the ship this weekend, answering questions about Mourdock's comments at times with statements about the attack. Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, one of the tea party's biggest winners in 2010, told Fox News Sunday that abortion is not an issue voters are talking about.

Afghanistan: A Problem without a Solution?

During the past six months, I have read numerous articles and watched television news stories about what is happening in the war in Afghanistan. Last night, On 60 Minutes, I saw evidence that we are fighting a war with no end in sight. CBS correspondent, Lara Logan was embedded with troops of the 101st Airborne in areas of Afghanistan immediately adjacent to Pakistan. She exhibited bravery that few people associate with correspondence these days.

Ms. Logan didn't just talk to the troops about the conditions they were confronting. She went on a mission with a captain in the 101st airborne that showed the intensity of fighting at this front line position. When the American soldiers arrived at the small native village, the chief of the village showed no inclination to talk or work with the captain. On the return mission, the unit came under heavy fire and the captain demonstrated an incredible indifference to bullets whizzing by him as he tried to extricate a truck stuck in the rocky terrain. The captain described an endless supply of soldiers coming in from Pakistan. No matter how many his men killed, more of the enemy pour across the border. He described the non-Afghani soldiers as well trained and willing to die. The captain's efforts to win over small isolated villages were meeting with little success. If the villagers cooperate with us, they are dead the next time that the Taliban enter their town.

The type of combat situation we saw on 60 minutes goes far beyond "Winning the Hearts and Minds of the People." General Pertraeus, who had much more success in Iraq, assured the president and the American people that with additional soldiers the country could be stabilized under what passes for Democratic leadership in that country. Please note I didn't say, "Win." Unless we find a way to seal off the border with Pakistan the war with the Taliban will go on forever. Is this another Vietnam, where no matter how many soldiers we pour into the country the fight continues to rage?

Recent polling has shown that the majority of Americans have now decided they are not in favor of our efforts in Afghanistan. However, there is still staunch support for our continued presence in that country as evidenced by the headline in the September 28, 2010 Christian Science Monitor.

" Afghanistan war: Is the US in it to win it? America's engagement in Afghanistan remains vital. Now is the time to renew our resolve and pursue our broad-based strategy, not look for an exit."

The article written by Kurt Volcker cites General Pertraeus statement, "We are in this to win." With the corrupt government in Kabul and a continual supply of soldiers crossing the border from Pakistan, the question must be raised as to whether it is possible to actually "win." At the same time, it is obvious that if we pull out of Afghanistan, or withdraw to the major cities, the Taliban will take over most of the country and Al Qaeda will have a training ground for far more terrorists than it had in 2001 when we first invaded the country. I don't pretend to have a solution. The question is whether the administration, or anyone in this country (Republicans included), has one.

Fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban with Panties

In response to the brutal military regime in Burma, the women of that country launched an unusual counteroffensive. "The Panties for Peace campaign was launched by the women’s organization Lanna Action for Burma on Oct. 16, 2007, in the hopes of bringing an end to the military regime’s rampant abuse of Burma’s population – and the abuse of Burma’s women in particular. The basis of this protest is the superstition of the male led military junta. They believe that contact with women’s garments, particularly those that cover the lower half of the body is emasculating."

The brutality against the Burmese people and the Burmese women in particular is an extremely serious situation. However, the notion of using women's panties against violent people has potential for circumstances outside of Burma. What if the American military adopted this idea and, with the help of American women, launched an all-out blitz against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and terrorists wherever they may be found. In view of the highly misogynistic nature of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and most terrorists it is likely that they would find contact with women's panties highly threatening, perhaps even immobilizing.

One of the problems confronting American and NATO forces in Afghanistan is the ability of the Taliban and Al Qaeda to find refuge in Pakistan. Supposing that at the height of Taliban and Al Qaeda attacks, American B-52s dropped special bombs designed to release hundreds of thousands of women's panties over the areas in which these groups were fighting. In an effort not to come in contact with the women's panties these groups could not function in a military manner and could be surrounded and captured. Furthermore, the passes leading to and from Pakistan would have saturation bombings of women's panties such that no piece of bare ground or rock was uncovered by the aforementioned garments. This would effectively cut off the entry and exit routes into Afghanistan. Think of it; neutralizing a deadly enemy without killing any of them or risking the lives of American soldiers.If this works, the potential for using women's panties as a means of interrogating terrorists would also be explored. More on this later