As Paul Krugman would say, we are seeing The Great Unraveling. The Democrats prove once again that they are the party of the rear view mirror. What are the offering the American people? Vietnam and Watergate analogies and arguments about decisions that they went along with in huge numbers three years ago?
Color me crazy, but don’t we have a few things on our plate already? How about dealing with the situation on the ground in Iraq instead of calling for immediate withdrawal and defeat. How about working towards a winning solution instead of acting like children, advancing conspiracy theories being bandied about by the lunatic fringe in your party?
I’m actually embarrassed for them.
Let’s remember that Democrats looked at the same evidence as the administration and still voted for the war. Let’s talk about how the Democrats wanted to remove Saddam long before 9-11. Do I need to go and find the laundry list of quotes from leading Democrats about the dangers of Saddam’s regime?
This is so transparent, so pathetic.
WASHINGTON (AP) – Democrats forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session Tuesday, questioning intelligence that President Bush used in the run-up to the war in Iraq and accusing Republicans of ignoring the issue.
“The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions,” Reid said before invoking Senate rules that led to the closed session.
Is that so Harry Reid? Outside of the moonbats at Kos, MoveOn.org and Times Select, who is claiming that? It is certainly not the recently sainted prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Here he is, less than one week ago, basically preemptively calling people like Harry Reid disengenious partisans.
QUESTION: A lot of Americans, people who are opposed to the war, critics of the administration, have looked to your investigation with hope in some ways and might see this indictment as a vindication of their argument that the administration took the country to war on false premises. Does this indictment do that?
FITZGERALD: This indictment is not about the war. This indictment’s not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel.
This is simply an indictment that says, in a national security investigation about the compromise of a CIA officer’s identity that may have taken place in the context of a very heated debate over the war, whether some person — a person, Mr. Libby — lied or not.
The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction.
And I think anyone’s who’s concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn’t look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.
So what does this say about todayâ??s stunt? Just the latest example of the Democrats overreaching and hurting nobody but themselves. Can you image this group of clowns leading the war on terror?
For all the talk of troubles within the Republican Party, they have nowhere near the problems of the pathetic Democrats at this point. Once again, the republicans should be thanking their lucky stars that their opposition party is so pathetic. Image how bad a shape the GOP could be in if they had a legimate opposition party?
As usual, Michelle Malkin has a great round-up of links