Replies

"Democrats can not afford to have an Al Qaeda/Iraq or a 9/11-Iraq link verified. Their entire objection to the war is based on that. Ever notice how belligerent they get when the slightest suggestion about Iraq and 9/11 or Al Qaeda is mentioned? This would completely blow them out of the water."

On the contrary. If Democrats give up their current strategy of complete capitulation to the terrorists, it would **save** the Democratic Party from losing every national election for decades to come.

Should the Democrats ever have an "Ah Ha!" moment that causes them to say that open war is justified and demanded, the current political equation will turn on a dime.

Senator Kerry, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Clinton all marching in to a press conference to demand full scale war due to Iraq's (and others) proven links to 9/11 would change national politics in a heartbeat.

Traditionally, the Left always advocates violence eventually, anyway (think: Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Castro, Che Gueverra, Kim Il Sung, etc.). Their anti-war posturing nonsense is merely due to vestigial political baggage from long-duped political converts...an act at best, believed by few of their own diehards (certainly not by the Black Bloc, the anarchists, Animal Liberation Front, Weather Underground, Black Panthers, ACT UP, or Earth First).

At some point Democrats may get so tired of losing elections that they re-visit the politics of their uber-hero FDR, who certainly didn't eschew violence. When/if that point is reached, the Left's Cindy Sheehan-style useful idiots will cease being useful and will be cut loose or devoured by the Left's new war dogs.

You offer a logical explanation as to why the Democrat Party should turn on a dime if this info comes out. Well, it is out now in the blogosphere, but with Senator Spector trying to take his hearing before Representative Weldon can take his, this will become public shortly.

There's nothing wrong with your logic. Only with your assumption that sheer necessity will make the Democrats change. The civics book assumption is that all parties exist for the purpose of winning the next election. But, if that were true, the Democrats would never have nominated McGovern, Dukakis, and Carter (the second time). But they did, and lost ignominiously.

Internal dynamics sometimes cause parties to run off a cliff, even when some of the cows see it coming and bleat in advance. In addition to this defect, the other is the Clinton factor. At present, Clinton (her) owns the Democrat Party and its nomination. Revelations that Clinton (him) deliberately squashed investigations that might have prevented 9/11 will also savage her. So, as long as she's in control, the lies must and will continue.

When and if the Democrats dumb and denounce both of the Clintons, your scenario might work out. Until then, it is logical but will not happen.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "This is a Court. Tuck in Your Shirt."

I don't think I agree. The democrats are not trusted with national security and that comes from decades of being anti-military, anti-weapon production and spending, anti-nuke, anti-anything related to military. They fought Ronald Reagan at every turn and they have earned that reputation. They simply do not have the credibility in national security issues to march to a press conference and change national politics 'in a heartbeat'. The public would be skeptical to say the least. A tiger will always be a tiger, or in this case a dove will always be a dove. Even if the public would be willing to listen, a big if, the democrats are too far under the sheets in bed with the far left to be able to make such a sharp turn to the right.