Using It All Up
The Democrats have gone too far, too long. It's one thing to exercise "free speech" rights and to publicly debate the wisdom of going to war, when lives are sure to be lost. It's quite another to actively work toward the defeat of your nation. Some call it treason.
Of course, as soon as you impugn the integrity of a Leftist, they get all up in arms and begin spewing vitriol. And naturally, they impugn your integrity.
So, let's set aside the name-calling for a moment. Instead, let's invoke the null hypothesis and say the Democrats are entirely honorable. And then let's see if the facts support our hypothesis.
- Democrats, under Bill Clinton, approved surveillance of foreign spies and enemies without warrants. Bush did the same. Major difference: we are now at war, Clinton's administration was not.
- Democrats, under Bill Clinton, lied about WMD in Iraq. Or, did they? Iraq did have WMD, but Clinton did virtually nothing about it. Bush accepted the Clinton assessment and acted accordingly-- i.e. disarmed Iraq. Same intelligence, different action.
- Democrats, under Bill Clinton, conducted military operations in the Balkans without Congressional approval. Was this a violation of the Constitution? Bush is accused of conducting an illegal war in Iraq, despite specific Congressional approval. Moreover, he is said to have faked intelligence and to have lied to get us into a "war for oil". The Senate Intelligence Committee says otherwise, but try explaining that to Howard Dean.
- Bill and Hillary ordered IRS investigations of political enemies, and forced the FBI to conduct an investigation of the White House Travel Office, destroying lives and careers, all for political expediency. Not a peep of complaint about "domestic spying" from Democrats. Bush orders surveillance of actual enemies, here and abroad, and Democrats want him impeached. During a war, no less.
- Democrats want to "redeploy over the horizon" immediately. Well, not immediately, but very soon. But not today. But definitely out of Iraq, and pronto. 108 Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to not support victory in Iraq, just the other day. In other words, Democrats want to give up on Iraq, but not until we lose a few more troops.
- Democrats "support the troops", but don't support "the policy". That is, they like soldiers but don't want them to succeed in their mission.
- Democrats insists victory is impossible. This, despite three free elections in Iraq in less than a year, and the embryo of the first functioning democracy in that region ever. Saddam Hussein is in jail, complaining of beatings while listening to testimony of his former victims, describing skin being ripped off other Iraqis at Saddam's behest.
- Democrats have paranoid fantasies about having their library cards spied upon, so decry the Patriot Act. This, despite the fact we have had no terrorist attacks on our soil since its passage. Meanwhile, Harry Reid crows, "We just killed the Patriot Act".
- Tim Robbins said, "There is a chill wind blowing...", as he claimed to be censored when he only encountered mild criticism for his blatantly anti-American rhetoric. Democrats and Leftist love to exercise their free speech rights, but cannot accept the same of the Right. When John Kerry ran for president, he asked us to judge him by his record. Not his legislative record, but his Vietnam record. Then, when a group of his wartime peers known as the Swift Boat Veterans wrote a book about the matter, Kerry actually asked a court to force the publisher recall the book-- i.e. censorship. Democrats don't like free speech when it is used against them. Conservative speech is "hate speech" and must not be tolerated, but anti-American Leftist vitriol is "free".
This could go on a while, to include nefarious campaign activities from the likes of Hillary Clinton, including accepting contributions from the Muslim Fund but labelling it the Museum Fund. And on, and on. Then having the gall to call Tom Delay "corrupt".
So let's stop here an see what we have. Anyone see a pattern here? Any conclusions? How is our null hypothesis doing so far? If I left out some act of Leftist/Democrat patriotism, please let me know.
What little credibility the Left ever had has long been used up. Gone. Kaput. They spent it on Vietnam, assuring us all would be well as North Vietnam took over the south. Then, when many thousands perished, the Left simply changed the subject. Now they want us to think "Vietnam" when we hear "Iraq". Well, we do. And we remember what they did.
So, to borrow from Ann Coulter, if they were traitors, how would they act differently?