Popularity Over Principle

What does it say about Democrats that they would consider a victory in Iraq to be a possibly fatal political blow? 

Is there anyone who hasn't heard Tokyo Reid's broadcasts to our troops that the war is lost? That they are dying in vain? That the only hope for them individually is to flee?

So is Harry a traitor?

Does the question even need to be asked?

Except, what's happened to other traitors under a Bush administration?

Is Nancy Pelosi be facing indictment? On the contrary, it's the Administration itself that's been under investigative assault, and for the most trivial of matters imaginable.

Now Harry knows he's can say what he did without fear of consequences. That Bush and Company will do what they always have - nothing. They'll leave any confrontation to talk radio hosts. They'll keep on keepin' on the same way they have with the war itself - as if they were flies on the wall.

And how appropriate is that metaphor for all it implies?

The Democrats are what they are and do what they do because it's what their constituents want. Some of those people are doubtless sincere, if horribly misguided. Others are guilty of treason. They'll protest that they are good and patriotic Americans, but they reject what America "stands for."

It's akin to Catholics who reject Church teaching but still believe they're Catholics. Except that the consequences of what the left espouses are infinitely more serious. Most Catholics who renounce certain Catholic teachings are not gleefully and actively working to bring the Church down.

But will George Bush give Harry hell? Whether it's because Bush is a humble and forgiving man who is confident that his position will somehow win out as the American people realize the implications of Democrat positions, strategies, actions and speech,  or whether it's, as I believe, something more cynical such as that Bush has what he wanted - the Presidency, and as a result, why rock the boat now, the fact is, you go to sleep at night knowing that the President isn't going to take on anybody, much less initiate any criminal investigations.

Everything I see has Bush & Co. merely playing for time - Rice, Gonzalez, and others just running out the clock. Except that the longer the clock runs, the more likely bad things are likely to happen both domestically and internationally (itemization available on request).

So we squeal as Dems say and do the most outrageous and heretofore unimaginable things, but we know that because of the lack of leadership and the equally heretofore unimaginable wimpiness of "With us or against us" guy, were all Elizabeth Hasselbecks.

I'm still for Rudy though I won't personally be voting for him. I mean, Rudy seems most likely to be the one candidate with backbone if you concede that Tom Tancredo has no chance, but because of our experience with with Bush, it remains to be seen whether Rudy will be the same guy when he actually occupies the Wite House.

Perhaps we should paint it black.