Of whom do I speak?  Most Democrats, of course, especially those of the liberal and vocal variety.

Atty. Gen. Gonzales is being raked over the coals on a number of issues all starting with the firing of seven U.S. Attorneys.  You all know the story and the “outrage” being expressed by the likes of Diane Feinstein that these firings were “politically motivated.”  D’uh.  U.S. Attorneys are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the current President, but you have all heard that countless times by now.

What continues to torque my skivvies whenever this story bubbles up again is that there is NEVER any mention, much less commentary, about the fact that in 1993, shortly after taking office, President Clinton fired all 93 then sitting U.S. Attorneys. Oops.  But that wasn’t political, was it?

Speaking of politically motivated outrage, the commutation of Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s sentence is being spun as one of the most reprehensible Constitutional end-runs in history (forgetting the fact that it is the Constitution, itslef, that gives any President the power to commute sentences and grant pardons).  Hillary Clinton has said:

“Today’s decision [to commute Libby’s sentence]is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration’s politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House’s efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.”

But since the Dems are talking major outrage here over the exercise of a Presidential prerogative,  let us take a look at the list of pardons (396 total) and commutations of sentences (stopped counting at 60) issued by the good President Clinton.

The point here isn’t to dispute that Clinton did not have the power and right (he did), but that there was no major political outcry by Republicans.

[By the way, Hillary is a two-faced, hypocritcal beeyatch.]

The execrable political hack John Kerry has taken a page from the playbook of the much more nuanced and, quite frankly, likable political hack, Bill Clinton when going on record as saying that there was no “bloodbath” after we abandoned Vietnam and that survivors of the “re-education camps” are doing rather remarkably well these days.

As the American public educates itself up, over and around the news blockade placed by the MSM, it has become necessary for the cut and run Dems to explain that the cuttin’ and runnin’ they brought about in Vietnam did not result in anything particularly ugly or nasty, lest we realize the same will be in store if the Dems have their way on Iraq.

At least 165,000 people perished in these re-education camps, but to his credit Kerry did specifically note he was talking about some of the “survivors.”  Out of curiosity, how are the non-survivors doing, John?  Perhaps you can look into how survivors of the Nazi concentration camps were doing 30 or so years later and maybe we would realize that Auschwitz and Birkenau weren’t on balance all that bad.

Were the millions who tried to escape Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and either perished or ended up in refugee camps (“boat people”)  better off after we bailed on Vietnam?  How better off are the survivors of the Khmer Rouge’s “killing fields”?  Were the 1.7 t0 2.3 million that were murdered (including women and young children) and dumped into mass graves better off?  Not so much, I’d say.

But I suppose it depends upon what your definition of “bloodbath” is.

Liberal Democrats remain one of the stupidest species on the planet.  Recently they tried to attach an amendment to a defense authorization bill that would have brought all of the Guantanamo Bay detainees to the U.S.

Fortunately, that bill never got to a vote but, get this, a Republican alternative prohibiting such a move overwhelmingly passed the Senate the following week and every Democrat sponsor of the original amendment voted for the Republican alternative. So not only are they stupid, but cowards as well, not having the backbone to stand up for their principles.  But of course the only principle exhibited by liberal Dems these days is that of doing and saying whatever it takes to get elected even if that means adopting ridiculous far-left positions in order to keep your lunatic, but ever vocal, fringe happy.

Imagine what most Americans would conclude if asked whether it was a good idea to move the terrorists we house at Gitmo to prisons on American soil.  I think I can safely say that the answer would be a resounding “What are you, crazy!” except for perhaps in an enclave or two in upper Manhattan and in the Bay area.

The good sense of the vast majority of the Americans would cause them to rebel against the notion of having these types of people voluntarily moved amongst us.

The Democrats are so remarkably beholden to their left wing nutroot base that they again place political considerations ahead of the security of our nation.

Case in point.  Recall the “Flying Imams” and the “Fort Dix Six.”  The latter were the group plotting to kill soldiers at Fort Dix and were thwarted by the Circuit City clerk who viewed their jihadist video and reported it to the authorities.  The former were removed from a U.S. Airways flight after their behavior was reported to the flight crew.

The imams have filed a pending discrimination lawsuit against the passengers who reported them.  In response, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has introduced an amendment to a security bill that would protect citizens from being sued for reporting suspicious activity.

However, this amendment is being held up by the Democrats in Congress, specifically Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, because it will encourage racial profiling.  Of course, if we’re open to being sued for money damages if we report suspicious behavior to the authorities, it will discourage actions like those that resulted in the apprehension of the Fort Dix Six.

Pelosi, Reid and the lot of them are very simply partisan hack idiots who cannot be trusted to protect this country from attack.

In the past five months, how have conditions in Iraq changed?

DP: Well, obviously, we have been surging our forces during that time. We have added five Army brigade combat teams, two Marine battalions, and a Marine expeditionary unit, and some enablers, as they’re called. And over the last month, that surge of forces has turned into a surge of offensive operations. And we have achieved what we believe is a reasonable degree of tactical momentum on the ground, gains against the principal near-term threat, al Qaeda-Iraq, and also gains against what is another near-term threat, and also potentially the long term threat, Shia militia extremists as well. As you may have heard, that today, we announced the capture of the senior Iraqi leader of al Qaeda-Iraq, and that follows in recent weeks the detention of some four different emirs, as they’re called, the different area leaders of al Qaeda, six different foreign fighter facilitators, and a couple dozen other leaders, in addition to killing or capturing hundreds of other al Qaeda-Iraq operatives.

Now you’re due to make a report back in September, I don’t know if it’s early, mid or late September, General Petraeus, is that enough time to really get a fix on how the surge is progressing?

DP: Well, I have always said that we will have a sense by that time of basically, of how things are going, have we been able to achieve progress on the ground, where have their been shortfalls, and so forth. And I think that is a reasonable amount of time to have had all the forces on the ground, again, for about three months, to have that kind of sense. But that’s all it is going to be. But we do intend, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the ambassador here, and I, do very much intend to provide as comprehensive and as forthright an assessment as we can at that time of the progress that has been achieved, and where we’ve fallen short.

General, what about the losses on the enemy? You mentioned that hundreds of al Qaeda fighters have been killed in the last couple of months, but are they suffering losses in the thousands every month? Or is it hundred, two hundred? What kind of force reduction’s going on there?

DP: Yeah, as you know, we try to avoid body counting, but inevitably, obviously, it is something we keep track of, because we’re trying to have some sense of the damage that we are doing to al Qaeda-Iraq, its affiliates, other Sunni insurgent groups, and also certainly to the Shia militia extremist elements. And the answer to that in a general sense is that they are losing many, many hundreds of their, of these different elements each month, certainly since the onset of the surge.

The Democrats would rather throw media event pajama parties than pay attention to what the commander on the ground in Iraq has to say about real progress being made there.  But as I said before, the last thing the Dems want is for any positive news to come out of Iraq because they are now so heavily invested in defeat.  They can’t afford to wait for September for fear that Gen. Petraeus will provide the American public with a not so gloomy assessment which would place them in the position of either admitting they were wrong or seeking to discredit the honorable General.

Our first elected Muslim Congressman has given a speech analogizing President Bush and 911 to Hitler and the Reichstag fire.  As you would expect, he’s of course a Democrat.

For the historically-challenged, the Reichstag was the German parliament and, in 1933, the building which housed it was substantially consumed by a suspicious fire at the time blamed on Communists.  Hitler’s National Socialist Party (”Nazis”) used this event to arrogate to Hitler as newly elected Chancellor the power to pass laws by decree.  It is suspected that the Nazis were complicit in that fire knowing that it could then be used by them for political purposes.

So President Bush was in some way complicit in 911 in order to put in place this totalitarian state in which we now live.  Quite obviously one need not be particularly intelligent or mentally stable to be elected to high public office in certain quarters of our fair land.