Today on Memorial Day, we remember those heroes who gave their lives so that we might be free. I know that I owe the freedom I enjoy to host this blog, to speak my mind, to those many brave men and women who, over the centuries, fought against those who would deprive us of our liberties — or whose actions threatened the security of this great nation. As the president said on Saturday in his radio address, we “live in freedom because patriots are willing to serve and sacrifice for our liberty.”

At Winds of Change, Joe links to a number of posts honoring our heroes and providing means to support our troops.

Both Powerline and Opinionjournal quote the credo of Sgt. Michael Carlson who was killed on January 24, 2005, in Iraq.

In the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby tells the story of another hero, Marine Sgt. Rafael Peralta, who tucked a live grenade “into his gut” and so saved the lives of fellow Marines fighting with him to root terrorists out of the Iraqi city of Fallujah. (Hat tip: Chuck Muth.)

As the president said today at Arlington Cemetery:

The soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines we remember today answered the call of service in their nation’s hour of need. They stood to fight for America’s highest ideals. And when the sun came up this morning the flag flew at half-staff in solemn gratitude and in deep respect.

At our National Cemetery, we receive the fallen in sorrow, and we take them to an honored place to rest. Looking across this field, we see the scale of heroism and sacrifice. All who are buried here understood their duty. All stood to protect America. And all carried with them memories of a family that they hoped to keep safe by their sacrifice.

And we, who cherish our freedom, remember that sacrifice.

I may be a little more sanguine that Roger Simon about the results of yesterday’s elections in Lebanon. Noting the 28 percent turnout in Beirut, Roger concludes that “Lebanon seems somewhat less eager for democracy than Iraq” (where turnout five months ago today was roughly twice that).

I see it as a good sign that in the first elections in this diverse nation “since 1990 to be free of Syrian interference” that the opposition swept all the seats. (To be sure, the candidates on opposition leader Saad Hariri’s list were unopposed in nine of hte city’s 19 seats.)

Many Christians boycotted the elections “because of what they consider to be a lack of representation.” The Times (of London) noted that “These elections are being held under a gerrymandered law, introduced under Syrian tutelage, that favoured Damascus’s allies in parliament.” Hopefully, if the opposition wins a majority in Parliament as it expected, the new government can create districts which more accurately reflect the tiny nation’s diverse population.

Since turnout was so low, this can’t be considered a resounding victory for democracy, but we can certainly cheer the success of the opposition. Before the Iraqi elections in January, opposition parties didn’t fare all that well in elections in any Middle Eastern nation (save Israel). If the opposition wins a majority when the rest of the seats are decided (to be held over the next three Sundays) and there is a peaceful transition to a new government, then these elections will represent one part of this Mediterranean nation’s progress toward democracy. I agree with Jayson at Polipundit that this is another effect of the Bush Doctrine.

And acknowledge as well the wisdom of Roger Simon’s question, “Whoever said this was going to be easy?”

Just minutes after 14 Senators worked out a compromise on judicial nominations, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid attempted to kill the nominations of two of the president’s nominees to federal circuit courts:

In the privacy of his Capitol office last Monday night, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked for commitments from six Democrats fresh from the talks. Would they pledge to support filibusters against Brett Kavanaugh and William Haynes, two nominees not specifically covered by the pact with Republicans?

Some of the Democrats agreed. At least one, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, declined.

If AP has this story right and any of six remaining Democrats who agreed to the compromise have provided such a commitment to the Minority Leader, then it’ would be clear they broke their word–and lost no time in doing so. It would be another piece of evidence confirming that the Democrats are the real extremists on judicial nominations.

If any of the seven Democrats who joined the compromise vote to filibuster the aforementioned judicial nominees, the seven Republicans who joined them in supporting the compromise would the be duty-bound to vote to abolish the filibuster for judicial nominations. This time, they could easily show that while they tried to compromise, the Democrats broke their word.

Hat tip: Polipundit.