Let me put this bluntly… It is clear to me that a number of leaders in the Democratic Party have become little more than lying, backstabbing traitors to this country. The term “deeply disappointing” does not even scratch the surface when it comes to their conduct.

Okay, now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, lets talk about the litany of outrages perpretrated by the party of self-interest, AKA, the “Democratic” Party.

We all know the facts. After 9/11, we had oodles of Democrats urging the President to deal with Iraq. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Jay Rockefeller, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and former president Bill Clinton.

I think Bill Clinton set the tone regarding the Democrat’s change of heart with his recent statements regarding the war. And these statements were made on FOREIGN SOIL NO LESS! Here is a direct quote as noted by the Jerusalem Post:

It was a big mistake. The American government made several errors … one of which is how easy it would be to get rid of Saddam and how hard it would be to unite the country.

What is a bit more confusing is the fact that our former President THEN goes on to equivocate, perhaps realizing that he had just said something stupid, by saying that we had also done some good things in Iraq as well. For example, Clinton cited the the removal of Saddam, the ratification of a new constitution, and the holding of parliamentary elections.

Okay, so now I’m confused. Was removing Saddam a good thing or a bad thing? Have efforts aimed at helping Iraqis build their own democracy been worthwhile or a “mistake”?

This reminds me of recent comments by John Kerry, basically pulling his old “I did for the $87 billion dollars… before I voted against it” shtick:

George Bush won’t accept responsibility for his mistakes. Along with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, he has made horrible mistakes at almost every step: failed diplomacy; not going in with enough troops; not giving our forces the equipment they need; not having a plan for peace. . . .

We also need to show Iraq and the world that we will not stay there forever. We’ve reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals.

So which is it? Do we not have enough troops, or do we have too many? We certainly had enough troops to remove Saddam. His regime fell apart immediately. We’ve had enough troops to date to help secure the country and foster the democratic process, to protect citizens during their elections, and to train their new forces to eventually take over the job of national security.

These guys can’t even show consistency in the same sentence! How then, can they lead an entire country?

And just so I give context to some of the comments made by other DNC leaders I’ve listed above, here is what Paul Mirengoff of Powerline Blog - one of my favs - posted recently regarding past statements made by some of these folks:

Bush is absolutely correct that most Democrats were as concerned as he was (and as any sensible person would be) about Saddam’s ties to terrorism and, hence, the danger of Saddam possessing WMD in a post 9/11 environment. Carl Levin stated on Dec. 12, 2001, “The war on terrorism will not be finished as long as [Saddam] is in power.” Jay Rockefeller said in Oct. 2002, “I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat.” Hillary Clinton stated that same month that Saddam “has also given aid and comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.” And John Kerry said, soon after we attacked Afghanistan, that “this doesn’t end with Afghanistan by any imagination. . .It is absolutely vital that we continue for instance [after] Saddam Hussein.” (All quotations via Wes Pruden) Like President Bush, they understood the risk that possession of WMD by Saddam would pose after 9/11. Like President Bush, they believed that Saddam possessed WMD. The first proposition was mainly a matter of common sense. The second was what our intelligence said.

Please note the “imminent threat” comment made by Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. That quote would later be falsely attributed to President Bush, who actually said during his 2003 SOU speech that Saddam was NOT an imminent threat, but rather, if we waited until he became one, we would have waited too long.

Rockefeller is one of those backstabbing Dems who is willing to attribute his own statements to the President in order to make the President look bad. Wow, these guys are sleazy!

Just recently, Rockefeller made an even more startling statement regarding his role in the runup to the Iraq war while appearing on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace:

WALLACE: Now, the president never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn’t it Jay Rockefeller?

ROCKEFELLER: No. I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I’ll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11..

Do you understand what Rockefeller has admitted to here? He let slip the fact that he informed Saudi Arabia and Syria, both of whom are questionable allies at best an inside scoop on what our President was planning. And Syria was very friendly with the Saddam regime!!

What the HELL did Rockefeller think he was doing? Does he not understand that, had he kept his mouth shut at the time, we might not be fighting the kind of insurgency that now exists in Iraq?

And this happened more than a year BEFORE we invaded! More than enough time for the word to have gotten back to Saddam and for him to have prepared for the attack.

Unbelievable!

We need to make sure that this kind of behaviour is exposed for everyone to see. I think only then are we going to be truly safe as a country.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com