If Rep. Anthony Weiner Doesn’t Resign, It Is Proof Positive That Democrats AS A PARTY Are Slime

As we speak, Anthony Weiner is standing at a podium and acknowledging that he is a liar and that all the sexual garbage is true and all of his previous accusations of a criminal hacker are false.

The funny thing is that something similar – not NEARLY as despicable, but in a couple of ways similar – just happened to a Republican.  His name was Chris Lee.  And he resigned.  He resigned so fast it was unreal.  And yet that didn’t stop the Democrats and the media that serves as their propagandists from re-using the infamous photo over and over.

Democrats just won the special election for his district.  They were triumphant and exhilerated.  It was a great victory for them.  They flat-out mocked Republicans.

If they have any integrity as a party, they will take the dose of their own medicine.

Anthony Weiner made Chris Lee look like a saint.  Not only does he have the same barechested photos exposed that Lee had, but there are numerous women who have come forward stating that he has engaged them in sexually explicit dialogue.  One woman was only 21.  Another has some 200 messages or “tweets” from Weiner.  Weiner also used the official line from his office (official resources alert) to have phone sex with a woman for 30 minutes.  And if Weiner hasn’t actually committed physical sexual infidelity, it was only because he is a pathetic little creep, rather than from any lack of repeatedly trying.

But Democrats are above that, in the contemptible sense that they feel they are above the law and above any standard of integrity.

Chris Lee, unlike Anthony Weiner, never came out and angrily denied what was in fact true.  He never made false accusations claiming someone had committed a crime against him.  Unlike Weiner, he was only in fact caught with a SINGLE inappropriate photo.  But like Weiner, Chris Lee is a married man.  He had violated the standards of his party and his ethics.  He did the right thing and resigned.

Nancy Pelosi said she was going to drain the swamp.  She never even came close to doing so.  We’ve seen her Democrat minions keeping bribe money in their freezers and stay in office until voted out by the people rather than kicked out by the Democrats; we’ve seen powerful chairmen of committees engaged in gross fraud staying in office.  Now we’re seeing the sickest thing of all – Weinergate.

Republicans have a superior moral platform.  They are superior human beings.  They hold themselves and one another to a higher ethical standard.

If Rep. Anthony Weiner does NOT resign, the above statement will be accompanied with the grossest form of documented proof.

Anthony Weiner stood up in front of the American people and lied to them.  He proved that he is not worthy of any trust whatsoever.

He needs to resign.  And the Democrat Party has an obligation to do EVERYTHING within its power to ensure that he either resigns or is defeated.  Otherwise, the message is this: the Democrats are the party of cockroaches.  If you want to elect human beings with human values, elect REPUBLICANS.

If the media is in any way, shape or form honest, they will continue to pound Anthony Weiner and the entire Democrat Party with “Weinergate” until Weiner leaves office in disgrace.  Nothing else should matter until this man is gone.  That is how they have treated numerous Republicans scandals.

For the record, the hated and reviled Andrew Breitbart just demonstrated that he is more honest than the entire Democrat Party.  And additionally for the record, just previous to Anthonty Weiner admitting that he was a proven liar and fraud, Breitbart had the decency to point out that he actually had in his possession a photo (apparently of Weiner naked which revealed his face) that he didn’t want to release for the sake of Weiner’s family unless Weiner continued to attack him and force him to do so.

Also for the record, read the Ann Coulter article here demonstrating how the most socialist of socialists have been the worst male chauvenist pigs in history.  And then add “Anthony Weiner” to the list of leftwing pigs.

Judd Gregg Explodes On Slandering Media Bias That GOP Would Cut Education

It’s getting harder and harder to watch the mainstream media anymore without realizing that they are the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party.  Case in point:

GOP Senator Rips Into MSNBC Host For ‘Absurd,’ ‘Dishonest,’ Statements
By Kyle Drennen
01/28/2010

On the soon-to-be canceled ‘It’s the Economy’ program on MSNBC on Thursday, co-host Contessa Brewer grilled Republican New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg on his calls to reduce out-of-control government spending: “Which programs are you willing to cut? Are you willing to tell schools, no money for you?” Gregg shot back: “What an absurd statement to make. And what a dishonest statement to make.”

Gregg called out Brewer for her unfair framing of the issue: “…nobody’s saying no money for schools….On it’s face you’re being fundamentally dishonest when you make that type of statement.” He went to explain the kinds of budget cuts he would make: “I would freeze discretionary spending, a real freeze, not a – not a freeze plus inflation. I would eliminate the T.A.R.P. money….I would end the stimulus spending effective in June of this year, if not sooner….reform our entitlement programs….I’ve made very specific proposals and I’m willing to stand by them.”

Gregg was far from finished, he described the big government mentality shared by the Obama administration and the liberal media: “The problem is that this administration’s view of governance is that economic prosperity is created by growing the government dramatically. And then it gets misrepresented by people like yourself who say they’re going to – that if you do any of this stuff you’re going to end up not funding education.”

Brewer attempted to deny suggesting that Gregg wanted to cut funding for schools: “That’s not what I said.” Gregg continued undeterred: “I mean that statement alone is the most irresponsible statement I’ve heard from a reporter, probably in a month….And there are a lot of irresponsible statements made by reporters and that was the most irresponsible I’ve heard.”

Fellow co-host Melissa Francis ran to Brewer’s defense: “Senator, with respect, that’s not what she said, she was asking you what you would like to cut specifically.” Gregg replied: “That’s exactly what she said, go back and read your transcript.”

Brewer then attempted to end the interview: “We appreciate your time today-” Gregg kept going: “You can’t be duplicitous about this. You can’t make a representation and then claim you didn’t make it. You know, it just shouldn’t work that way. You’ve got to have some integrity on your side of this camera, too.”

Gregg reiterated: “…you’re suggesting we should have a zero – zero in education. Well, of course, nobody’s suggesting that. Nobody’s even implying that. But in your introduction to me, you said that, that education funding would be cut.” Brewer again denied making that exact  implication: “No, I didn’t.” She then concluded the interview: “Senator, I’m sorry for any mis-communication that we’ve had. And as always, we appreciate your time, we appreciate you sharing your particular perspective on what should be done to take America into a prosperous future. Thank you.”

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

2:33PM

CONTESSA BREWER: Let’s bring in now Republican Judd Gregg, the Senator of New Hampshire, the top Republican now on the Budget Committee and a member of the Senate Banking Committee. What do you think about the money the President is proposing to spend on jobs and what [National Urban League President] Mark [Morial] was just saying that it has to go hand in hand with other programs that integrate job training, vocational skills, and certainly educating very young people.

JUDD GREGG: Well, we’re running a 3 point – a $1.3 trillion deficit this year. The government’s going to spend over $3 trillion. All of that deficit goes into the debt, which has to be paid by our children and our children’s children. I think somebody’s got to ask a more fundamental question, how are you going to get the economy going if you run up the debt to a point where we can’t afford our government? That, I think, is a much more fundamental question.

If you want to do something to energize this economy, I think you put in place some plans which control the rate of government, so the people can have confidence that we as a nation are not going to go into some form of fiscal bankruptcy in five to seven years. And that will cause people to be willing to invest, to be willing to take risks, and to be willing to create jobs. Jobs are not created by the government. You know, long-term good jobs are created by a vibrant economy. And you don’t get a vibrant economy when the government and the size of the government and the debt of the government is overwhelming the capacity of the economy to function well.

MELISSA FRANCIS: That’s good in theory, Senator. How would you practically-

GREGG: It’s not theory. It’s not theory.

FRANCIS: How would you – well, tell me-

GREGG: Don’t tell me that it’s good in theory.

FRANCIS: Well, tell me how to put it to work. Tell me – tell me very practically-

GREGG: No, you don’t tell me it’s good in theory. What are you – how do you get off saying something like that? Good in theory?

FRANCIS: Because it is good in theory. It is, it’s fantastic.

GREGG: Oh, of course.

FRANCIS: So tell me how to practically – here’s your opportunity, Senator, let me finish, to tell us how to practically put it to work. I’m all for small government.

GREGG: Well, you stop – you stop the spending spree. You stop growing government so fast that you can’t afford to pay for it. You don’t increase the size of the government from 20% of GDP to 25% of GDP in two years. You don’t add a trillion dollars of new debt to the – to our kid’s back every year for the next ten years. You don’t pass a budget – the President doesn’t send up a budget which increases – doubles the debt in five years, triples it in ten years. You don’t say that you’re for fiscal responsibility and then propose a whole panoply of new programs which you can’t pay for. That’s not theory, that’s reality. That’s what we’re facing as a nation.

BREWER: So when – when-

GREGG: The reality of a fiscal meltdown of our country which is going to have a massive impact on people’s lives and especially cost a lot of jobs in this country.

BREWER: So my partner, Melissa, Senator Gregg, is really asking for specifics. If you don’t believe that we should have a $1.3 trillion budget, which programs are you willing to cut? Are you willing to tell schools, no money for you? Do you – and do you side then, with those who say – I mean, you look back at the Great Depression, economists say we landed back into real problems in 1937 when people got onto cutting a deficit and a lot of government spending was pulled back before it should have been.

GREGG: Well, first off nobody’s saying no money for schools. What an absurd statement to make.

BREWER: Well, I’m asking-

GREGG: And what a dishonest statement to make.

BREWER: What we both are-

GREGG: On it’s face you’re being fundamentally dishonest when you make that type of statement.

BREWER: Senator Gregg, what we’re both asking, is which programs you expect to cut?

FRANCIS: Tell us what to cut.

GREGG: I mean do you know how much money we’re spending at the federal government on education this year?

BREWER: Which – Senator, you’re going to be asked to cut certain programs if you’re on the Senate Banking Committee, which programs would you cut?

FRANCIS: Just tell us, what do you want to cut?

GREGG: Oh I have no problem telling you, I would freeze discretionary spending, a real freeze, not a – not a freeze plus inflation. I would eliminate the T.A.R.P. money, which would get us close to $400 billion. I would end the stimulus spending effective in June of this year, if not sooner, so that we can recover all the money that’s going to be spent outside the window of this recession. And we shouldn’t be spending it and adding it to the debt. I would take a major effort to reform our entitlement programs, in fact yesterday, or the day before yesterday, we had a vote to try to do that under a bill which I proposed with Senator Conrad. I’ve made very specific proposals and I’m willing to stand by them. The problem is that this administration’s view of governance is that economic prosperity is created by growing the government dramatically. And then it gets misrepresented by people like yourself who say they’re going to – that if you do any of this stuff you’re going to end up not funding education.

BREWER: That’s not what I said

GREGG: I mean that statement alone is the most irresponsible statement I’ve heard from a reporter, probably in a month.

BREWER: It wasn’t a statement, it was a question.

GREGG: And there are a lot of irresponsible statements made by reporters and that was the most irresponsible I’ve heard.

FRANCIS: Senator, with respect, that’s not what she said, she was asking you what you would like to cut specifically.

GREGG: No, that’s what she said.

FRANCIS: And I think you answered the question.

BREWER: We appreciate your time-

GREGG: That’s exactly what she said, go back and read your transcript.

BREWER: We appreciate your time today-

GREGG: You can’t be duplicitous about this. You can’t make a representation and then claim you didn’t make it. You know, it just shouldn’t work that way. You’ve got to have some integrity on your side of this camera, too.

FRANCIS: She asked you what you would like to cut. She asked you if you’d like to cut schools. You said no. It was a question and answer.

GREGG: No, you’re suggesting we should have a zero – zero in education. Well, of course, nobody’s suggesting that. Nobody’s even implying that. But in your introduction to me, you said that, that education funding would be cut.

BREWER: No, I didn’t.

GREGG: Well, education funding isn’t going to be cut. Yes you did.

BREWER: Senator, I’m sorry for any mis-communication that we’ve had. And as always, we appreciate your time, we appreciate you sharing your particular perspective on what should be done to take America into a prosperous future. Thank you.

GREGG: Thank you.

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.

For the record, Contessa Brewer, you did.  Your words:

“Which programs are you willing to cut? Are you willing to tell schools, no money for you?”

The video of this all-too-common demonstration of rampant leftwing media bias is available at Newsbusters.

I hope Judd Gregg confronting the liar and calling Contessa Brewer out for the propagandist she is marks a new rule for dealing with the leftwing media.

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

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.