Who Defends the Insane?

Truthers versus Birthers.

Birthers truly are a fringe while truthers, whose belief that Bush at least allowed the 9/11 attacks if not plotted them is shared by about a third of Democrats, is not quite so isolated.

And believing the president is lying about his natural born American society may be ridiculous, but at least it isn't as outrageous as the Truther accusation.

The Birthers need to answer why it is even important if the president was born in Hawaii since as the child of an American, he's natural born. I see no reason to doubt the president was born in Hawaii, but even if he wasn't, so what?

The Truthers are far nuttier. They apparently believe that our government engineered the 9/11 attacks to go to war against Iraq or some such thing. Which fits in with the constant claims by anti-Iraq War types that the president implicated Iraq in 9/11. He didn't, of course--not ever--but somehow the president Jedi-mind tricked the public into thinking that there was a link.

But what I want to know is if the president could engineer 9/11, wouldn't it be child's play to implicate Saddam Hussein? Why even rely on Jedi mind tricks? Why is such a huge plot left with such a huge hole?

If Birthers are ever championed and defended by conservatives with the same fervor as Truthers are on the Left (Van Jones' speaking fees are surely skyrocketing now), I'll be shocked and disappointed.

And I'll condemn those defending the Birthers. Our president is our president. He won fair and square, and our next opportunity to review that decision is in 2012.