If I said this was surprising I’d be a big fat liar. The reason I’m reporting that Saudis are funding the Iraq insurgency is not that I expect anyone will be unaware of it, but rather in the interest of contrasting presidential rhetoric with reality.

Two high-ranking Iraqi officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the issue’s sensitivity, told the AP most of the Saudi money comes from private donations, called zakat, collected for Islamic causes and charities.

Some Saudis appear to know the money is headed to Iraq’s insurgents, but others merely give it to clerics who channel it to anti-coalition forces, the officials said.

So not always insurgents, my bad. Sometimes just anti-coalition forces. Much better. But keep in mind the Iran/Syria chanting that goes on, the talks about cutting off the funding for terrorists, eliminating safe havens for terrorists, and toppling oppressive regimes in the fight for liberty.

Saudi Arabia. The home of the Bin Ladens, where 15 of the 19 hijackers came from, and the most oppressive regime in the area, who is now funneling millions to Iraq insurgents. And they’re an ally.

I could imagine life is a little difficult for the Republican Party these days, at least in terms of the upcoming presidential frenzy. Every single one of the frontrunners has been shot down for one reason or another. Rick Santorum was voted out, along with George Allen. Bill Frist has thoroughly embarrassed himself, and McCain’s position on the war and the media’s ever so gradual willingness to point out his flip floppery are hurting his chances. Beyond that, Brownback? Not likely.

It has be a pain when you have no viable candidates for your party. Worse still, the Democrats have two damn popular potentials. Now, bashing Hillary Clinton has become stale, and it’s just no good to leave the other guy all un-smeared, so the campaign against Barack Obama seems to be up and running.

It seems that our reliable liberal media doesn’t have much to actually go after him for, he’s introduced 152 bills in his two years in the Senate and he’s got a solid voting record plus everything he stands for appears to be eminently reasonable: health care for all citizens, strong education, get the troops home. The issues that would normally be prime for attack are now strong points for Obamamama.

So what’s the solution? Simple: start attacking him over completely irrelevant issues.

We’ve already seen the multiple times his name appears as “Osama” on the media, or the fact that right-wing commentators are having a field day with the fact that his middle name is Hussein, and then the more recent “madrassa” bullshit.

This current one has to be my favorite, however. This Is London, which for some reason is paying closer attention to American politics than I will ever pay to British politics, has introduced the latest salvo: Obama’s father was a jerk. I’m not going to quote anything from this story, it’s fairly pointless.

That’s what they’re “reporting” on Obama. Won’t go after a single issue of his, instead they attack his name, lie about his youth, and go after his father. This is how it’s been for years now. Gore was taken down for “inventing the internet”, Kerry over his war record, and now Obama for his father and his name.

I often wonder what would happen if political ads and campaigns had to be built solely on the comparison and contrast between the candidates’ actual stances on issues.