One of the great race-baiters in all contemporary journalism, Robert Fisk, of Britain’s The Independent, was in Vancouver earlier this month, preaching to the converted.

You remember Fisk, of course. He of “the Americans are nowhere near Baghdad Airport” fame – apparently moonlighting for “Comical Ali,” Mohamed al-Sahaf, Saddam’s riotous Information Minister – even as Saddam’s vaunted Republican Guard came acropper in the very opening days of the Liberation of Iraq.

Fisk is a midwife in the Aspiring Truth School of Journalism, boldly substituting what the reporter wants (“aspires”) to be the truth for the actual truth of simple facts (“just the facts, Ma’am”).

Psychiatry classifies it as the “Wishful Thinking School of Reality.”

Thus, shortly after 9/11, when Fisk, reporting near the Pakistan border, was attacked by a group of Afghan refugees, he subsumed himself into the Living Christ on the Cross, no less, imploring history to account his attackers “blameless” (“they know not what they do”) instead, blaming the West and Christianity for what we’ve done to them.

Recalling what he had said of Western failure in Iraq, going back to WW1 (“the Iraqis … wanted real liberation – not by us from the Ottomans, but by them from us”) the self-appointed “expert” on the Middle East, on tour with another “new” book, observed, to thunderous applause on Vancouver’s Working TV: “the best thing we can give ‘them’ is freedom from ‘us’.”

But who would the “us” be? And “them”? It’s simply amazing how left-loons get away with explicit, ugly racial reference. Who else would be “us”? Certainly not Conservatives and others who believe that it is the Christian duty of the West to go and liberate their brethren from thugs like Saddam.

“Us” would be that secular, satanic, loud-mouth liberal minority that sees a difference between going to liberate Europe and going to die in the teeming jungles of Vietnam, Africa and the ancient hate of the Middle East.

But what must that difference be and what does it tell us of the voices that back it? The U.S. could have easily “contained” the “Pacific Theatre” of WW11 in response to the attack at Pearl Harbour. Taking on Hitler was strictly an “over-kill.” So what justified it? To this very day, there is not a pinch of evidence that Europe under Hitler would have been any less “contained” than the post-war Soviet Dungeon, not to mention endless, continuing, spectacularly savage Third World dictatorships.

So why war then but not now? The most vitriolic critics of historical revisionists have been forced to concede that from Siberia to Saddam to Rwanda, Hitler has been multiply outdone. Yet the West is co-opted in cosmic silence. Why? 

Hitler had to be dismantled for what he stood, over and above anything he did. Supporters of the Liberation of Iraq believe no less of Darfur and the mass-graves and rape-rooms of Saddam.

When it is said that Iraq is about oil, which is why we are not in Darfur, you would think that the obvious rejoinder would be: So you would support an armed liberation of the Sudan and other slave pens of black Africa?

Liberals will not permit the question. Conservatives are even more intimidated than leftist hypocrites in wielding the power of the question. How could it be?

The ugly (actual) truth is that liberals no longer want (aspire) to liberate anyone from anything. Having lost their bearings in a sewer of unthinking equivalences, liberals simply see no difference between Saddam and celery. Political tastes differ. That doesn’t make democracy “superior.”

“Freedom is organic,” liberals now insist. Freedom from Saddam must come from, must “grow out of” the people themselves. At any rate, it is not for the West to “impose” democracy on them.

For Conservatives, on the other hand, 9/11 was a rude reawakening to the mathematics of Christian sacrifice. Your freedom is free here in direct proportion to their unfreedom being made unfree there. If you do not take your freedom there, they will bring their unfreedom here. Cost is computed in inverse proportion to stability.

Conservatives, rightly, used to mock wasteful liberal failures at “nation building.” It is the neo-isolationism of the loon-left that now cannot cost faces of freedom to phases of freedom. Instead, in the diabolical idiom of Robert Fisk, liberals now want to set the wretched of the earth free from free people (“freedom from us”). A more perverse inversion is not possible in soul-crafting stupidity!

President Bush, in enlightened opposition, has committed himself to the theorem that brown skin is not a deterrent to democracy. Our Chief of Defense Staff General Rick Hillier upheld this arithmetic at a recent Family Day in Petawawa, Ontario. Hillier described the imminent deployment to Afghanistan of 1600 troops from the base as “a mission for 28 million men and women in the worst days and months of their lives” in Afghanistan.

But Robert Fisk can pluck a race-card like a kicking rabbit out of a hat. He says we have been “invaded” by racism, apparently in proportion to our invasion of Moslem lands. Responding to our recent major terrorist arrests, his June 10 column bore the hefty headline: “How racism has invaded Canada: What is the term ‘brown-skinned’ doing on the front page of a major Canadian daily?”

Again, that sewer of unthinking equivalences. Making racial references in criminal identification (“racial profiling”) is seen to be no different from simple racial name-calling. Race is race.

I give you then the Parable of the Portuguese Prime Suspect.  A recent immigrant from Portugal to Chicago was, in fact, the only suspect in the beating death of his wife. Years later, when he was caught, he was found to be hiding in plain sight in Canada – guess where: in the Portuguese community of Montreal, Quebec, where he was a respected member.

The single greatest help in his fugitive tenure was the failure to provide a full racial profile. He knew they were looking for a white male. No one was looking for someone “more European, fresh immigrant, in looks.” No one was looking for a member of the Portuguese race/ethnicity. No one was looking in the Caucasian ethnic margins. He was just another, “basic white guy.” No one was listening for an accent or watching for the accompanying nuances of gesture and gesticulation.

Michael Jackson’s plastic surgeons could not have perpetrated a finer cover!

That’s what you get when political correctness trumps common sense. In criminal pursuit, racial profiling is criminal, not racial. Either we really want to flush out a criminal or we aid and abet escape.

First, we need to be free from Fisk.