The mania of the Dems

Mark Steyn:

...

In theory, the administration ought to derive a political benefit from this: The president has "kept America safe." But, in practice, the placidity of the domestic front diminishes the chosen rationale of the conflict: if a "war on terror" has no terror, who says there's a war at all? That's the argument of the left – that it's all a racket cooked up by the Bushitlerburton fascists to impose on America a permanent national-security state in which, for dark sinister reasons of his own, Dick Cheney is free to monitor your out-of-state phone calls all day long.

Judging from the blithe expressions of commuters doing the shoeless shuffle through the security line at LAX and O'Hare, most Americans seem relatively content with a permanent national-security state. It's a curious paradox: airports on permanent Orange Alert, and a citizenry on permanent … well, I'm not sure there's a Homeland Security color code for "Gaily Insouciant," but, if there is, it's probably a bland limpid pastel of some kind. Of course, if tomorrow there's a big smoking hole where the Empire State Building used to be, we'll be back to: "The president should have known! This proves the failure of his policies over the last six years! We need another all-star commission filled with retired grandees!"

And that would be the relatively sane reaction. Have you seen that bumper sticker "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB"? If you haven't, go to a college town and cruise Main Street for a couple of minutes. It seems odd that a fascist regime that thinks nothing of killing thousands of people in a big landmark building in the center of the city hasn't quietly offed some of these dissident professors – or at least the guy with the sticker-printing contract. Fearlessly, Robert Fisk of Britain's Independent, the alleged dean of Middle East correspondents, has now crossed over to the truther side and written a piece headlined, "Even I Question The 'Truth' About 9/11." According to a poll in May, 35 percent of Democrats believe that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. Did Rumsfeld also know? Almost certainly. That's why he went to his office as normal that today, because he knew in advance that the plane would slice through the Pentagon but come to a halt on the far side of the photocopier. That's how well-planned it was, unlike Iraq.

Apparently, 39 percent of Democrats still believe Bush didn'tknow in advance – or, at any rate, so they said in May. But I'm confident half of them will have joined Rosie O'Donnell on the melted steely knoll before the Iowa caucuses. If Iraq is another Vietnam, 9/11 is another Kennedy assassination. Were Bali, Madrid and London also inside jobs by the Bush Gang? It's no wonder federal spending's out of control.

...

According to the Times, many of the bereaved are angry and determined that their loved one's death should have meaning. Yet the meaning they're after surely strikes our enemies not just as extremely odd but as one more reason why they'll win. You launch an act of war, and the victims respond with a lawsuit against their own countrymen.

...

According to the Times, many of the bereaved are angry and determined that their loved one's death should have meaning. Yet the meaning they're after surely strikes our enemies not just as extremely odd but as one more reason why they'll win. You launch an act of war, and the victims respond with a lawsuit against their own countrymen.

...

Sometimes we lawyers are hard to love. 15 years ago there were more lawyers in the city of Houston than there were in the state of Texas when I graduated from law school in 1971. I am sure the number of both has grown. It has also grown in the defense department and in the wrangling over war policy with the ACLU filing briefs whose chief beneficiary is our enemy although they don't think so. But, there are many volunteers to represent terrorist rights around the world and commit lawfare which makes it more difficult to defeat the people plotting mass murder against us all.

There is an explanation for the mania of the Democrats who want to believe that President Bush had something to do with the attacks on 9-11. At its heart , they do not have the heart for waging war period. To avoid waging war after such a murderous unprovoked attack, they have to delegitimize the war. They do it internally by denying the premise for the war. this has become a standard tactic for the anti war left.

In the Vietnam war they focused on the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and ignored more obvious causus belli as North Vietnam's violations of the Geneva Accords and their blatant invasion of South Vietnam. They also ignored the attacks on US forces in South Vietnam that preceded what ever happened in the Tonkin Gulf.

In Iraq, opponents of victory focused on the failure to find WMD, and ignored their own assertions that we should not fight there because Saddam would use his WMD and we would suffer over 10,000 dead before we even got to Baghdad. They now act like battle casualties of a third of that over a four year period is some calamity.

The thing to remember is that when Democrats get weird, its because they have to be in denial to support their weird policies.