For the sake of consistency

David Frum is apparently of the view that where a larger group of people includes a subset who provide dubious excuses for some of their actions, that lack of credibility provides justification to lock up the whole and throw away the key. I can only wonder whether he'd be willing to apply that logic to a Canadian group with an equal propensity toward patently ridiculous or inconsistent explanations for its actions.

Update: Canadian Cynic has more.

As an added bonus, let's take a look at one of the excuses which Frum finds so implausible:

A former Egyptian army officer acknowledged that he had undergone training in Afghanistan at a camp run by the Kashmiri group, Lashkar-i-Taibi (LiT). However, he said, he had been listening to the BBC in February 2001 and heard an announcer describe LiT as a terrorist organization. After that, he said, he quit the group and had never had anything to do with them again. How had he supported himself in Afghanistan over the following year? He had, he said, relied on charity from his fellow Muslims.

Which seems either to be an indictment of faith-based social programs in general ("he must be lying! surely a person couldn't survive off of religious charity!"), or a slam at Muslims in particular. Your mileage may vary - but either way, this one looks to be worth highlighting.