Half-Wit Response

Well, this was to be expected, but the sheer ignorance of the Democratic leadership in general, and Nancy Pelosi in particular, is still somewhat breathtaking. In her response to Bush’s excellent speech, she said:

"The President's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments," House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said. "He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."

Why on earth would the Democrats choose such a dim bulb to be their leader in the House? She is upset that Bush mentioned 9/11 in a speech about the War on Terror? To borrow an expression used frequently by my teenagers…DUH!

Then there’s her brilliant counterpart in the Senate:

"The President's numerous references to September 11 did not provide a way forward in Iraq," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said. "They only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al-Qaida remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America."

Bush’s comments very clearly showed his resolve and what he expects to do in Iraq, just like he has been saying since this whole thing started. It’s not his fault that the Democrats do not grasp what we’re fighting for, or more accurately, do not CARE what we’re fighting for, as long as they can find some opportunities to trash the President and our military.

Of course they don’t want the public to be reminded about 9/11. That might strengthen public resolve and therefore our mission in Iraq, and THAT could lead to victory for America and therefore reflect positively on her President. Can’t have that, can we? Wouldn't it be refreshing to have someone on the Left actually stand up and support the President and our troops in a time of war? Wishful thinking, I know.

Honestly, these people make me nauseous. I agree with Jim, if I had to listen to them for more than a minute or two I might have to take up drinking.

JAS ADDS: Sorry to butt in again, Jen, but I just can't he'p it.

Let's take Crazy Nancy first:

"The President's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments..."

No, they put his arguments, and the war, in its proper context. Which you can tell by her ensuing sentence:

"He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."

If there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq, she wouldn't be so desperate to detach one from the other. [Andrew McCarthy and Brother Hinderaker do the Saddam-al Qaeda connection rundown yet again] And what's this "sacred ground" shinola? Can't be very "sacred" to her ideological fellow travelers in Gotham who are intent on constructing that "Blame America first" museum where the towers once stood. Pity no reporter asked her about that.

As to Dirty Harry....

"The President's numerous references to September 11 did not provide a way forward in Iraq..."

Remembering Pearl Harbor didn't provide a quicker way up Monte Cassino or Mt. Suribachi in World War II, either. But Pearl Harbor is what got us into that war, just as 9/11 got us into this one.

"They only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al-Qaida remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America."

And which party is it, Senator Reid, that wants to close down Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay and turn loose bin Laden's minions who are characterized by the following?

Many of the orange jumpsuit-clad detainees fight their captors at every opportunity, openly bragging of their desire to kill Americans. One has promised that, if released, he would find MPs in their homes through the internet, break into their houses at night, and “cut the throats of them and their families like sheep.” Others claim authority and vindication to kill women, children, and other innocents who oppose their jihadist mission authorized by the Koran (the same one that hangs in every cell from a specially-designed holder intended to protect it from a touching the cell floor – all provided at U.S. taxpayer expense). One detainee was heard to tell another: “One day I will enjoy sucking American blood, although their blood is bitter, undrinkable….” These recalcitrant detainees are known euphemistically as being “non-compliant.” They attack guards whenever the soldiers enter their cells, trying to reach up under protective facemasks to gouge eyes and tear mouths. They make weapons and try to stab the guards or grab and break limbs as the guards pass them food.

These are the animals, Senator, for whose well-being and "dignity" the black hearts of you and your party so cynically bleed, and whose apocalyptic wrath you would unleash on the American civilian population in the name of "restoring a good name" to a US of A whose reputation was just fine until you and your co-horts went into maximum overdrive to systematically trash it, to the gleeful delight of our Islamist enemies. Probably the only Muslim entity that wasn't thrilled with your quislingism was al-Jazeera, and only because the American press is threatening to put them out of the enemy propaganda business.

I don't call these people half-witted (though their malevolently obsolete ideology makes that a default condition); I call them disloyal. I call them political mercenaries who have functionally seceded from the Union and will passively ally themselves with any enemy who can ancillarily tow them back to power over it.

Mark this down well: libs want Gitmo closed to enhance the chances of another mass terrorist attack on our soil, so that they can convincingly claim the GWOT is pointless and counterproductive and should be abandoned, and on that platform take back power in 2006 and/or 2008.

The path to a left-wing Democrat resurgence is soaked in American blood. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the logic of their own rhetoric leads to no other rational conclusion.

UPDATE: Cap'n Morrissey shoots some newspaper editorial skeet.