[Q]But in the last 18 months, it has become clear that the extreme, Bush-hating wing of the Democrat Party has decided to either ignore or reject the fundamental realities of 21st century life.
And rather than distance themselves from the hate, the party's leaders have embraced it.
To try to gauge just how out of touch the Democrat leadership is on the war on terror, just close your eyes and try to imagine Ted Kennedy landing that Navy jet on the deck of that aircraft carrier.
I don't know about you, I certainly don't want to see Teddy Kennedy in a Navy flight suit anytime soon.
After their embarrassing behavior over the last 18 months, the Democrats now have no credibility on national security.
Just look at the record.
John Kerry says what we really need is ?regime change in Washington.?
After the Iraqi uprising at Firdos Square, House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi said she STILL opposed the war, and that "we could have brought down that statue for a lot less."
More recently, Howard Dean said he wasn't sure if the people in Iraq were better off under Saddam Hussein or not.
When criticized for these kinds of comments, the Democrats said we were questioning their patriotism.
Not so!
The Democrats' problem is not a lack of patriotism. It's a lack of seriousness.
They don't hate their country, they just refuse to lead it.
I will never call the Democrat Party unpatriotic, but I will call their current leadership unfit to face the serious challenges of the 21st century.
Just look at their rhetoric about the President's State of the Union speech.
Saddam Hussein ? it is universally accepted by the international intelligence community ? had weapons of mass destruction.
He was working to get more. He was a sponsor of terror and a threat to his neighbors.
He started two wars, tortured countless dissidents, and was so desperate to develop nuclear weapons that American presidents of both political parties urged his ouster.
His removal from power was an absolute good and Operation Iraqi Freedom was justified by any moral, political, legal, or humanitarian standard you apply to it.
No responsible leader could have permitted him to remain in Baghdad.
Yet the Democrats now spew more rhetoric about President Bush than they ever did about Saddam Hussein.
So unserious are the Democrats that they are now embarrassing themselves and their party over a single, irrelevant sentence in a 10-year old case for war that could run a hundred thousand pages long.
Howard Dean says the president intentionally misled the American people.
John Kerry hinted Operation Iraqi Freedom was about oil.
Dick Gephardt the other day said we were less safe and less secure than we were four years ago? when Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein ran free.
Blame-America-first liberals all over the country are repeating this nonsense.
But make no mistake: this isn't just campaign rhetoric we're talking about.
Let's be real clear:
If you take their comments to their logical conclusion, they're essentially calling our Commander in Chief, Benedict Arnold.
Ridiculous as it sounds, the logical extension of the Democrat leadership's assertion is that President Bush is an international war criminal.[/Q]
His statements begin with:
[Q]Good afternoon, or, as John Kerry might say: ?Bonjour!?[/Q]
This brought to us by Tom Delay.
And rather than distance themselves from the hate, the party's leaders have embraced it.
To try to gauge just how out of touch the Democrat leadership is on the war on terror, just close your eyes and try to imagine Ted Kennedy landing that Navy jet on the deck of that aircraft carrier.
I don't know about you, I certainly don't want to see Teddy Kennedy in a Navy flight suit anytime soon.
After their embarrassing behavior over the last 18 months, the Democrats now have no credibility on national security.
Just look at the record.
John Kerry says what we really need is ?regime change in Washington.?
After the Iraqi uprising at Firdos Square, House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi said she STILL opposed the war, and that "we could have brought down that statue for a lot less."
More recently, Howard Dean said he wasn't sure if the people in Iraq were better off under Saddam Hussein or not.
When criticized for these kinds of comments, the Democrats said we were questioning their patriotism.
Not so!
The Democrats' problem is not a lack of patriotism. It's a lack of seriousness.
They don't hate their country, they just refuse to lead it.
I will never call the Democrat Party unpatriotic, but I will call their current leadership unfit to face the serious challenges of the 21st century.
Just look at their rhetoric about the President's State of the Union speech.
Saddam Hussein ? it is universally accepted by the international intelligence community ? had weapons of mass destruction.
He was working to get more. He was a sponsor of terror and a threat to his neighbors.
He started two wars, tortured countless dissidents, and was so desperate to develop nuclear weapons that American presidents of both political parties urged his ouster.
His removal from power was an absolute good and Operation Iraqi Freedom was justified by any moral, political, legal, or humanitarian standard you apply to it.
No responsible leader could have permitted him to remain in Baghdad.
Yet the Democrats now spew more rhetoric about President Bush than they ever did about Saddam Hussein.
So unserious are the Democrats that they are now embarrassing themselves and their party over a single, irrelevant sentence in a 10-year old case for war that could run a hundred thousand pages long.
Howard Dean says the president intentionally misled the American people.
John Kerry hinted Operation Iraqi Freedom was about oil.
Dick Gephardt the other day said we were less safe and less secure than we were four years ago? when Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein ran free.
Blame-America-first liberals all over the country are repeating this nonsense.
But make no mistake: this isn't just campaign rhetoric we're talking about.
Let's be real clear:
If you take their comments to their logical conclusion, they're essentially calling our Commander in Chief, Benedict Arnold.
Ridiculous as it sounds, the logical extension of the Democrat leadership's assertion is that President Bush is an international war criminal.[/Q]
His statements begin with:
[Q]Good afternoon, or, as John Kerry might say: ?Bonjour!?[/Q]
This brought to us by Tom Delay.
frustrating. We get cutesie thirty-second sound bites for the evening news as a substitute for substantive political debate. No wonder half of us don't even bother to vote. This is sometimes blamed on apathy. Well, how do you get excited about this junk? I hate to sound cynical but I haven't liked many of the presidential campaigns of late on either side.
that reminds me on the last election campaign here..
