Posts Tagged ‘Credibility’

Katie Couric Rips Obama In What Newsmax Describes As ‘A Turning Point’

November 30, 2009

Can someone give me an “Amen”?

Or maybe you can figure out how to sing the following story to the tune of “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead” from The Wizard of Oz.

Turning Point: Couric Rips Obama

Sunday, November 29, 2009
By: Special From Newsmax’ Most Informed Sources

Katie Couric may be best known for her unflattering interview with Sarah Palin. But her nightly news broadcast this past Monday night may be an indicator that the big liberal media are now turning their guns on Obama.

Couric said on “CBS Evening News” that Americans are growing “disenchanted” with Obama and are openly questioning his credibility.

“Is the honeymoon over?” anchor Couric said at the beginning of her correspondent’s report.

[Couric went on to say]:

“Although President Obama has been in office less than a year, many Americans are growing disenchanted with his handling of the enormous problems he and the country are facing, from healthcare to unemployment to Afghanistan.

“His poll numbers are sliding, and at least one poll shows his job approval rating has fallen, for the first time, below 50 percent.”

Correspondent Chris Reid chimed in: “The president is getting battered on everything from the economy to foreign policy.  Some polls show Americans are increasingly questioning his credibility.”

The report asserted that while Obama talks about dealing with unemployment, which is over 10 percent and expected to rise, he has developed “no new ideas” for dealing with the problem.

CBS also cited a poll showing that only 14 percent of Americans believe Obama’s claim that healthcare reform won’t add to the budget deficit, and only 7 percent believe that the stimulus has created any jobs at all.

The report also criticized the president for being “indecisive” on Afghanistan, and for returning from his recent Asian trip “with little to show for it.”

An expert was quoted as describing his trip as the “amateur hour,” as he did not line up agreements with foreign countries before venturing abroad.

You can just see a despairing Obama saying, “If I’ve lost Couric, I’ve lost snooty America.”

I’d pretty much put it this way:

Spot the fake poser in the following photo:

And, of course, your instantaneously supposed to form the conclusion, “Hey wait a minute: they’re both fake posers!”

My brother sent me a picture that illustrates this verity:


You see, in many ways, Michaele Salahi is a doppelganger for Barack Obama.  Because just as the White house is now growing “disenchanted” with the former guest whom they foolishly let in to a state dinner, the country is now growing “disenchanted” with the man they foolishly elected to the aforementioned White House.

But I shouldn’t complain overly much: at least Barry didn’t bow down to her.

In a rare moment of poetic justice, Katie Couric – who was so late to the game in even allowing any hint to come out of her in-the-tank network that the president she helped elect is a dishonest fraud and poser who doesn’t know the difference between the economy and the giant hole in the ground that he’s burying it in (whew!) – also posed with the same fake poser:

The big difference here is that Katie Couric – with all of her impressive “journalist” skills – has probably figured out that Michaele Salahi was a fake and a poser a lot faster than she figured it out about Barack Obama.

The mainstream media will be dragged kicking and screaming to the truth and to fair and honest reporting.  And the only reason they are beginning to tell the truth about what a loser Barack Obama is as a president is the fact that their viewers already realize that Obama is a loser, and will start leaving their networks in droves unless the “journalists” at least occasionally report the truth.

Advertisements

Brandenburg Gate: Pseudo-Candidates Need Pseudo-Credibility

July 12, 2008

When I heard about the flare-up over Barack Obama seeking to use the famous Brandenburg Gate in Germany for a political rally, I remembered this story:

While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year-old Texas rancher whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Obama and his bid to be our President.

The old rancher said, “Well, ya know, Obama is a “post turtle.”

Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a “post turtle” was.

The old rancher said, “When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a “post turtle”.

The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor’s face, so he continued to explain. “You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there.”

Barack Obama wouldn’t have been a state senator had Barack Obama not been able to nullify the signatures of voters to keep Alice Parker – who had won the district with 87% of the vote – off the ballot. He very probably would not have become a U.S. Senator had his opponent (Jack Ryan) not destroyed himself with a sex scandal and a messy divorce before dropping out of a race for a seat previously held by a Republican. He had a total of 149 (or by some counts 218) days of Senate experience before believing himself qualified to be President of the United States. He believes a speech about race ought to trump his 23 years spent in a racist church. He says he can no more disown his racist Marxist pastor than he can disown his own grandmother before throwing his grandmother under the bus for political expediency and then disowning his pastor. He has already compiled more gaffes in his short political career than most seasoned politicians accumulate during a lengthy career. And Luke Boggs of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has compiled a whopping list of things that Barack Obama has come to regret (“Obama’s frequent regrets may make us sorry“).

I don’t know how Barack Obama got on top of the post to begin with, but it sure seems something strange is going on to keep him up there.

A guy like this needs some credibility.

By many accounts, Obama began to attend the radical Trinity United Church in order to obtain “street cred” with the mostly black voters in his district (and, you know, try to convince folk that he really wasn’t the arrogant elitist which he all-too-frequently comes across as being).

When you have no credibility of your own, you have to parasitically derive it from something else.

So you can understand why Barack Obama would want to stand in front of the famous pillars of the Brandenburg Gate where President John F. Kennedy in 1963 delivered his famous “Ich Bin Ein Berliner” address, and where President Ronald Reagan delivered his equally famous 1987 “Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall” address.

What’s that you say? They were American Presidents confronting historic moments, and Barack Obama is a President wannabe trying to garner some pseudo credibility? Yeah. I agree with you.

So did German leader, Chancellor Angela Merkel:

Mrs. Merkel has made clear she disapproves of having this potent symbol of German division and reunification pulled into the American election fight. “To use the Brandenburg Gate in some ways as a campaign backdrop, she has a limited sympathy for this and expresses her skepticism over pursuing such plans,” said a spokesman, Thomas Steg, at a news conference Wednesday.

Mrs. Merkel was in Japan for the G-8 meeting with President Bush and other leaders of the industrialized nations Wednesday, when her spokesman made the statements against using the Brandenburg Gate site.

“No German candidate for high office would think to use the National Mall or Red Square in Moscow for a rally, because it would be seen as inappropriate,” Mr. Steg said, though he added that Mrs. Merkel welcomed Mr. Obama’s visit.

You just don’t get it, Chancellor Merkel: Barack Obama NEEDS to stand in front of the Brandenburg Gate and connect himself to the powerful images of the past. Otherwise, people might start evaluating him on his own pathetic merits rather than view him through the prism of all the wonderful images he can connect himself to.

Where’s he supposed to go now? Go to the Trinity United Church of Christ? The New York Police Headquarters, where his professor, board-of-directors, and lecturer pal William Ayers blew up when he was a terrorist with the Weathermen? Come on, Angela: Barack needs a cool image to associate himself with!

What’s that you say? Barack Obama doesn’t have a dang thing to do with the Brandenburg Gate, and if anything his policies are in direct opposition with the reasons that Reagan and Kennedy went there? It doesn’t matter. Image is everything now, buddy. When you can put yourself in the picture, the thousand words are nothing more than so much blah, blah, blah.

This isn’t the first time Barack Obama has got caught trying to give himself some pseudo credibility.

You remember “The Great Seal of Obamaland?”

It was actually a pretty darn cool seal, being emblazoned with a fierce-looking eagle clutching an olive branch in one claw and arrows in the other.

The only problem was that it was deliberately reminiscent of the official seal of the president of the United States.

What’s that you say? Yeah, I knew I’d seen it somewhere before too.

Did I hear you say that Obama actually broke the law ripping off the presidential seal?  I didn’t know that!  You’d have thought the elite media would have pointed something like that out, wouldn’t you?

What’s that you say?  Yes, it was very funny when ABC News referred to it as “the Audacity of Hype.”

That’s the problem with Barack Obama.  All hype, no substance.  All parasitically derived credibility, no genuine credibility of his own.

Why don’t you see John McCain pulling these shenanigans?

Because he doesn’t need to.

Jimmy Carter: Terrorism’s ‘Useful Idiot’

April 21, 2008

A “useful idiot” is a person in who is in such a state of naïve, foolish, and willful denial that he allows himself to become a tool of those who would overthrow his country.  A brief examination of Jimmy Carter demonstrates that he is precisely this.

He is a tool of Hamas, a known terrorist entity; he is a documented tool of anti-Semitism; and he is a tool of anti-American and frankly anti-Democratic forces who have repeatedly vowed our destruction.

The Bush administration – like all U.S. presidential administrations before it – had the policy of refusing to directly engage with terrorist states and rogue totalitarian dictatorships.  Doing so, they argued, gives these states credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of the world while doing little to change their despicable ways.

In other words, by dialoguing with terrorists, we implicitly recognize them, and thereby recognize the acts that they commit.  We abandon the belief that some acts are so heinous, and so deplorable, that anyone who commits them should be shunned and reviled instead of being rewarded with recognition and legitimacy.  Instead, we tacitly acknowledge that using violence and suffering to advance one’s cause is a valid path to inernational recognition.  Otherwise, we would not have allowed their violent approach to succeed.

Former president Jimmy carter turns this wisdom – attained by virtually every democracy on earth through decades of experiences with terror – on its head.  No one wanted him to go to act as an intermediary with Hamas, which is on both the American and European lists of terrorists.  His hubris is simply astonishing.

The historic democratic diplomatic position has been this: if a group wants legitimacy, it has to set aside terrorism.  If such a group wants to sit at any negotiations, they must stop their murderous attacks on innocent civilians.  Period.  The recent successes of peace agreements with the Irish Republican Army were based on this firm principle.  When they finally set aside their terrorist tactics, they were accorded legitmization.

But Carter seems to think that it would be better if a terror group not have to disavow violence in order to become a viable peace partner.  He seems to think that a terrorist organization should have legitimacy even as it blows up innocent civilians in cafes and markets.  In other words, he seems to believe that it would be a better world if terrorists could eat their cake, and have it too.

What this is all about is a former president of the United States legitimizing the known terrorist group Hamas.  It’s what Israel’s leaders say they fear and in fact is what Hamas’ leaders say is precisely the purpose for the meeting.

Katrina Kratovack reported that “Heading the Hamas delegation in Cairo were Gaza leaders Mahmoud Zahar and Said Siyam. “This meeting is a message to those who don’t recognize Hamas’ legitimacy as a movement,” Zahar said as he left for Egypt, according to Hamas’ Web site.

In Cairo, Hamas spokesman Taher Nuhu told The Associated Press that the purported Thursday meeting would be “a recognition of the ‘legitimacy’ of Hamas’ victory in the Palestinians’ parliamentary election in 2006.

“We do not claim we are the only legitimate group there, but we are an integral part whose legitimacy was manifested in the elections,” Nuhu said.”

And the message that is being legitimized bears notice.  Yunis al-Astal, a Hamas Parliament Member, said that the destruction of Israel is just a precursor to Islam’s domination of the world.  He said on al Aqsa television on 12 April 2008, “Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered… this capital of theirs will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe.”  

 Margaret Thatcher said that “Democratic nations must try to find ways to starve the terrorists and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.”  But Jimmy Carter defies this wisdom as well, preferring to give Hamas all kinds of media access and attention through his visit.

Even as Carter was kow-towing with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal and other terrorists, Israel was the victim of yet another terror attack.  A Hamas car bombing wounded 13 Israeli soldiers at border crossing on 19 April 2008 during the Passover holiday.

Jimmy Cater has, in both his public statements as well as his written works, has long since forfeited any credibility he could have had with Israel.  They know he is no friend of theirs, and not to be trusted.  That is why they shunned him during his visit.

Carter, of course, is claiming that his visit may have had the result of gaining Hamas’ recognition of Israel.  This is clearly flatly untrue, and merely demonstrates that the man has one thing in common with Hamas: he deserves no credibility or legitimacy whatsoever.  A glance at the facts in news reports reveals that Carter accomplished nothing more than getting his name in the papers, and of course giving a terrorist group undeserved credibility in the Arab world.  Hamas continues to hold on to its longtime terrorist positions, it will not recognize Israel’s right to exist, there is no ceasefire agreement, and Hamas didn’t even bother to quit trying to kill Jews while Carter was in town.

“We believe that the problem is not that I met Hamas in Syria,” Carter said in his address to the Israel Council on Foreign Relations. “The problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with these people, who must be involved.”  Just so long as we all understand that it is the United States and Israel who are responsible for all the problems in the world.  Jimmy Carter’s terrorist pals sure aren’t to blame, in his warped worldview. 

Turning to leaders that actually have some genuine current relevance…

Senator Barack Obama criticized Carter’s visit.  After pointing to his “unshakable commitment” to help protect Israel from its enemies, Obama said: “That’s why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas,” Obama said. “We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist and abide by past agreements.”

But Barack Obama is promising to essentially do the same thing with Iran and other rogue regimes that Carter is doing with Hamas, and he doesn’t even attempt to deal with whatever nuances he believes exist between his position and Carters (perhaps this could be an “inane question” in a future debte?).  I would argue that it is every bit as dumb to legitimize an Iranian terrorist state which refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist as it is to legitimize a Hamas’ (Palestinian territory) terrorist state which refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Obama seems to have the same delusion that Carter does: that if the president of the United States doesn’t directly talk with a terrorist state, no one will.  Again, in reality the United States does in fact engage with Iran through any number of diplomatic channels and backchannels.  Allowing Iran to have a global forum and a posture of legitimcy while they develop nuclear weapons and kill American soldiers in Iraq by proxy is a very bad idea that demonstates Obama’s inability to comprehend the nature of this terrorist state. 

(Sigh).  Perhaps I should start thinking about my future post titled, “Barack Obama: Terrorism’s ‘Useful Idiot.’ 

 

Petraeus, Clinton, Obama, and All Democrats: Will The One With Credibility Please Stand Up?

April 9, 2008

As General David Petraeus returns to the US Senate to report on the war in Iraq, it is worth reminiscing on what occurred last time he appeared.

Yes, we had our front page ad “General Betray Us?” in that appeared in the New York Times with a sweetheart rate that violated the papers’ own standard of ethics.

But we also had that bastion of personal integrity – the junior Senator from New York – question the honesty and credibility of the general.

I cite a 12 Sep 2007 New York Sun story that appeared under the headline, “Clinton Spars With Petraeus on Credibility.” The first two paragraphs of that story by staff reporter Eli Lake read as follows:

“WASHINGTON — Senator Clinton squared off yesterday with her possible challenger for the White House in 2012, General David Petraeus, and came closer than any of her colleagues to calling the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq a liar.

Using blunter language than any other Democrat in the last two days, Mrs. Clinton told General Petraeus that his progress report on Iraq required “a willing suspension of disbelief.””

Well, let’s reflect on that a bit. Hindsight being what it is and all.

We now know that Senator Clinton is a documented liar on numerous fronts (her story of coming under sniper fire in Bosnia has been refuted by video of the event; her story of playing a role in the Ireland peace talks has been refuted by a Nobel Prize winning participant in addition to other participants; her story of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was refuted by that stain on the blue dress, etc. etc.).

I saw a biography of General David Petraeus on Fox News after he was named to command the multinational forces in Iraq, and was frankly awed by the man’s history of character and integrity. His entire life is a study in character and honor. He took control over a situation that had been presented as hopeless and turned it around in a manner that can only be described as stunning. By the time he appeared before the Senate last year, he had come through for this nation in a way that merited the gratitude of every American, and in particular every parent who sent a son or daughter to Iraq under his command. And as a reward this true American hero was attacked by demagogues who will never even begin to understand the character and integrity that David Petraeus has demonstrated throughout his life.

Mind you, Senator Clinton has hardly cornered the market on vicious attacks against American heroes:

Jay Rockefeller, the Senator from West Virginia, launched an incredibly hateful statement against Senator John McCain in an interview with the Charleston Gazette. He said McCain has become insensitive to many human issues. According to the paper, Rockefeller said “McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they get to the ground? He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues.”

Rockefeller later apologized for his comment, but you can’t just take back a statement like that, can you? It was inexcusable, and frankly unforgivable. Rockefeller not only attacked JohnMcCain; he attacked every American serviceman who ever fired a weapon against an enemy during time of war.

This Senator Jay Rockefeller, by the way, is the same Jay Rockefeller who has positioned himself as a major Barack Obama supporter, and who recently urged that – for the good of the country – Senator Clinton should drop out of the Democratic primary and support Barack Obama. You can thus add him to the list of associates of Barack Obama who have said and/or done terrible things against America (e.g. Obama’s pastor for twenty years’ [Jeremiah Wright] racist charge that America created the AIDS virus to kill black people; his wife Michelle Obama’s statement that “America in 2008 is a mean place” which itself followed a similar statement that she had never been proud of America in her adult life; Barack Obama’s friend (as acknowledged by Obama’s own strategist David Axelrod) and former Weatherman Terrorist Professor William Ayers – who openly acknowledged bombing attacks after 9/11 – and claimed to have no regrets over them).

[As to William Ayers, it is frankly amazing that this man – who has openly acknowledged bombing the New York Police Headquarters as well as the Capital building and other locations and said on 9/11 that his only regret is that he didn’t bomb enough – is now an honored member of the liberal education establishment and a significant member of his community in Chicago, Illinois. You begin to see more clearly the absolutely toxic political environment that Barack Obama has emerged from].

Now, that last paragraph will be immediately dismissed by those who argue that you can’thold one’s associations against someone. So it doesn’t matter that Barack Obama sat in a pew for twenty years under the teachings of a documented America-hating racist. But it certainly goes to his judgment and his integrity. Michelle Obama has clearly been influenced by her pastor’s teachings, and Barack Obama has whitewashed several of Reverend Wright’s sermons and teachings – by removing the anti-white rantings but holding on to the substance – for mass consumption. Wright railed against “white greed” in his “Audacity of Hope” message. Obama rephrases it to say, “The greatest problem in America is greed.” Obama leaves it up to you to recognize that he’s talking about “white” greed.

And also mind you, Senator Clinton has hardly cornered the market on telling self-serving lies or padding her resume.

A Snopes.com article details some of Barack’s lies and provides their refutations. While Hillary Clinton’s lie can be seen exposed in vivid, hillarious color, Barack Obama is an even bigger documented liar than she when it comes to rewriting history to fabricate his own story. Barack Obama massively fabricated his association with President Kennedy: his father did NOT come to the United States with Kennedy money. And his mother were NOT inspired to marry and have a child by the Selma march as Barack Obama claimed: the first of the marches did not occur until at least five years after Barack was born!

Furthermore, Obama has lied about numerous aspects of his past in an attempt to bolster his credentials. He claimed on numerous occasions that he was a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago: he was no such thing. He was a lecturer only. There is as gigantic a distinction between “professor” and “lecturer” as there is between “sniper fire”and “there had been reports of possible sniper fire in the area.”

Obama has also boasted of having passed legislation that in reality never even left committee. And fellow organizers have said that Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts.

An 8 April 2008 Time Magazine article by Mark Halperin details the above “misstatements” and many others. Basically, it chops Obama’s credibility down like a tree.

Another clear Obama lie has been his profound mischaricterization of John McCain as saying that McCain “wants the war to last for a hundred years.” Asked whether he would support U.S. troops staying in Iraq for fifty years, McCain said, ““Make it a hundred. We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.” The non-partisan Factcheck.org says Obama’s claim that McCain wants 100 years of war in Iraq is a “twisted” and “serious distortion of what McCain actually said. So much for the candidate of hope and change, and so much for claiming to run and honest campaign.

Barack Obama’s biggest lie of all may well be the central promise of his entire campaign that – as the candidate of undefined “hope” and “change” – he can bridge the gap between liberals and conservatives. In reality, Barack Obama – winner of the prestigious “Most Liberal Senator of 2007 Award” handed out by the National Journal as determine by voting record – has established himself as a radically left of center politician. He is currently having to distance himself from his own views. An Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat, presents extremely liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion – positions that appear completely at odds with the more moderate image he’s projected during his presidential campaign. Yet another lie, I believe. In running for president, Barack Obamama must literally run away from himself.

Thus the Democratic primary becomes a question of “Which liar told bigger lies?” And, “Which group cares more about which lie?”

Meanwhile, General David Petraeus’ character, honesty, and integrity stands out like the giant Gulliver must have stood out among the Lilliputians.

But let’s not be too harsh on Senator Hillary Clinton or Senator Barack Obama. They are Democrats, after all. What do you really expect? They come from the Party of Bill Clinton, who sought to become our Commander in Chief in spite of his letter directly expressing his “loathing the military” (a direct quote completely accurate in context).

The Democratic Party is the party of Senator John Kerry, who said of American soldiers:

“I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command….

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal andvery particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”

The Democratic Party is the party of Senator Dick Durbin, who – on the floor of the U.S. Senate – compared American soldiers to Nazis, and the Guantanamo Bay Detention facility with Soviet Gulags. Durbin’s comment resonated in perfect pitch with actress Jane Fonda’s calling U.S. soldiers war criminals during her visit to North Vietnam in 1972. And I give as my source an al Jazeera article to demonstrate just how harmful to the United States – and how helpful to our vicious enemies – statements such as Durbin’s really are.

The Democratic Party is the party of Representative Jack Murtha, who went on record as the first on-the-record U.S. official regarding the events that took place with U.S. Marines in Haditha. Before any investigation – and certainly before any trial – Murtha said, “Well, I’ll tell you exactly what happened. One Marine was killed and the Marines just said we’re going to take care – we don’t know who the enemy is, the pressure was too much on them, so they went into houses and they actually killed civilians.”

In another interview Murtha said, “There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed those innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them. And they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. That is what the report is going to tell. ”

The aftermath should demonstrate just how despicable Murtha was in publicly convicting these young Marines without a trial. Charges have been repeatedly dropped. Others have been acquitted. One Marine – clearly believing the zealous prosecution line – agreed to testify against another Marine. Thus far, the Marines have been vindicated. The results of subsequent investigations have clearly exonerated the Marines. Again and again, the details provided by Marines confirmed their story; again and again, the details alleged by the Iraqi witnesses have been demonstrated to be false.

I have heard Murtha apologists claim that Murtha himself was a Marine and therefore his character should be beyond question. Well, so was Lee Harvey Oswald! Should we therefore not question his character?!?! As a further observation, I find a former Marine railroading fellow Marines to be even more contemptible than a non-Marine railroading Marines. It’s like finding out that the man who publicly and maliciously framed you was your own father; there’s just something profoundly wrong with the moral wiring of a man who does this kind of thing.

The Democratic Party is the Party of Representatives Jim McDermott of Washington and David Bonior of Michigan, who, back in 29 Sep 2002 appeared on This Week from the foreign (make that enemy) soil Baghdad and blasted U.S. foreign policy. Their clear point was that Americans should believe the documented torturer and murderer Saddam Hussein and distrust Republican President George Bush. During the course of this on-air fiasco, a clearly stunned George Will said of McCermott and Bonior’s vicious remarks, “”Why Saddam Hussein doesn’t pay commercial time for that advertisement for his policy, I do not know.”

Well, it turns out he did.

We now know that – in the opening words of a recent AP article – that “Saddam Hussein’s intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion, federal prosecutors said Wednesday. An indictment unsealed in Detroit accuses Muthanna Al-Hanooti, a member of a Michigan nonprofit group, of arranging for three members of Congress to travel to Iraq in October 2002 at the behest of Saddam’s regime.” See the full article at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080326/ap_on_re_us/iraq_junket

Even if these Democratic Congressmen didn’t know they were being used by Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Intelligence, their actions were beneath all contempt. These elected American officials allowed themselves to be used as pawns by the intelligence agency of a ruthless tyrant.

The Democratic Party is the party of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said “This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything” on 20 April 2007. Again, I offer as my source al Jazeera to show just how harmful such statements can be to us, and how they can and ARE being used to embolden our enemies.

Anyone who is capable of stepping back from political party partisanship for just a moment ought to have difficulty with a leader who so blithely claims defeat for his country in time of war. Winston Churchill famously said, “We will never give up! We will never surrender!” Henry Reid says, “This war is lost.” Thank God Churchill didn’t think that way, or we’d all be speaking German. As it is – if the terrorists and over a billion Muslims have their way – we might well all end up speaking Arabic.

And the Democratic Party is the party of House Majority Whip Representative James Clyburn, who acknowledged in an inverview on 30 July 2007 before General Petraeus’ first report that good news inIraq amounted to a problem for Democrats.

As General David Petraeus wraps up his visit to the snake pit of Washington, don’t forget who the Democrats are. They are the Party that is invested in American failure, the Party that roots for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan for the sake of opportunistic political advantage.

Christopher Hitchens has a piece in Slate.com titled, “Flirting With Disaster: The vile spectacle of Democrats rooting for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan.” It’s definitely worth reading.

I often wonder: had the Democrats continued to support the war that was authorized by a vote of 77-23 in the Senate (with 29 Democrats supporting [Senator Clinton among them] and only 21 opposed) and 296-133 in the House, and presented the world with a united front, how different could things have turned out? Would our enemies have remained emboldened in the face of steadfast American resolve? Would our allies have continued to refuse to help us had we presented a united face determined to prevail against the forces of international terrorism?

Imagine what would have happened in World War II had Republicans done everything they could have done to undermine, question, distort, and misrepresent Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt? Imagine what would have happened had Republicans en masse called for a withdrawal from the war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan? Had they characterized American fighting men as war criminals? Had they demanded that Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur come to Senate and defend themselves against charges that they were dishonest and incompetent? Do you think it would have helped or hurt the war effort? [This amounts to an IQ test, Democrats: and you have failed horribly].

For the Democrats to turn against the President in time of war and work to undermine American efforts to attain victory out of political opportunism is both craven and cowardly.

If good news in Iraq is bad news for Democrats, then Americans should hope for nothing less than really, really bad news for Democrats this November.