Democide, Again?

The speculation about the confirmation process of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton this time is not centering around whether or not he'll be confirmed - according to Byron York's Hill sources, he will be - but whether the Democrats will attempt a filibuster anyway, and, even after it fails, continue to suicidally rant and rave about the Bush Administration's (partial) refusal to be the craven, seditious, dhimmized, cheese-eating surrender monkeys which they have raised to the level of pagan religious rite.

The answer to this appears, also, to be, "Yep, they're gonna":

Republicans say they welcome the fight. “If they want to have a long discussion about security and spend the remaining Senate days after August talking about our issues, and not theirs, that’s a strategic error,” says one Republican. “If they are dumb enough to enter into that debate, then we’ll do it,” says another.

As it turns out, many Democrats do, indeed, want to enter into that debate. “I don’t buy the suggestion that we’re going to run away from this debate,” says Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. “That’s ridiculous. The reality is, Bush’s record on national security has actually made the country less safe. Bin laden is on the loose, terrorist acts are increasing around the world, Iran and North Korea are developing nuclear weapons….This is a debate that, should we choose to, we’d be more than willing to have.”

Astonishing, isn't it? "Bin Laden is on the loose" because, nine years ago, Bill Clinton refused to take him into custody because he didn't think there was enough of a case on which to indict him. Terrorist acts are increasing around the world because Islamists, whether Sunni or Shia, are following the dictates of the Koran and waging jihad against all non-Muslims, not because George Bush hasn't gotten a prayer rug and bowed toward Mecca six times a day. And North Korea has nuclear weapons because Bill Clinton gave them the means, and Iran got theirs from the Russians and...North Korea.

The Dems really want to flaunt their biggest weakness before the entire nation - again - right before another mid-term election - again - because they still think that national security and foreign policy is their biggest strength. And they believe that because they still believe all the lying pacifist propaganda that spews forth daily from their wholly-owned media arm.

This should prove - again - that the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is anything but hyperbole. And that the condition may well be incurable, at least before 2008.

UPDATE 8/7: Jed Babbin, Hugh Hewitt, and Cap'n Ed all concur that Ned Lamont will personify this political insanity, and that it will be disastrous for the Democrats in November. And Bill Kristol is even suggesting that "responsible" Democrats (i.e. those with national ambitions) may have to leave the party outright in their own individual political interests if the extreme Left's maximally public Lieberman purge is successful.

Writes Mr. Morrissey:

So why Lieberman? Why doesn't the Connecticut base attack Chris Dodd with the same fervor, who joined Lieberman in supporting the war? One has to look at the evidence and conclude that the Left wants to torpedo the most effective agent for compromise on the Democratic side, and that should give Americans an indication of the goals of the anti-Lieberman movement. They don't want to work together with anyone. They want to rule, and rule outright, and they don't care who they smear to get their way.

It harkens back to one of my pet sayings: Republicans want power too little, and Democrats want power too much. And, all things being equal, the latter is still more off-putting to the "broad middle" than the former. Which may be why Lieberman has surged in the past few days.