Want a civics lesson?

You might as well read it, because we all know that the people who actually NEED to read it won't.

The attacks of September 11, 2001 elicited certain responses from those Congressmen -- and Senators. They voted, not once but twice, to authorize the President to use force in resisting the forces of Islamofascism, then further to fund the effort.

The objections raised by Democrat partisan hacks -- including some who hold seats in Congress, as well as Federal judgeships -- amount to sedition at best and treason at its blackest. Though they might have raised their objections in the debate -- some certainly did -- they voted as they knew their consituents, the American people, willed it.

Now they want to go back on their word and they put forth the weakest, most specious, most false reasons -- reasons that anyone who has actually been paying attention can give the lie in the moment of their utterance.

The matter has been decided. Further argument amounts to sedition, sabotage -- to betrayal of the polity which put them in power.

This sorta-kinda segues into the next topic that's on my mind, which is Slick Willy Cinton's temper-tantrum on national TV. I don't know what was funnier, his accusing Chris Wallace of attempting a "right-wing hit job" on him, or his insistence that he tried to get bin Laden, despite every scrap of evidence we have that says exactly the opposite. "I did everything I could to get bin Laden! I did not have sex with that woman!" You could put both video clips side by side and run them together to get a stereo effect there. And in both cases, Clinton is flat out lying. Not that we've come to expect anything different out of him.

There are a few bloggers out there who make the point that after five years of debate on this subject by damn near everybody, the only thing we can be certain of is that it won't make a scrap of difference in what happened. Which is true. In terms of stopping terrorist attacks, assigning blame to what happened on September 11th won't do much good. However, there's much more here than just finger pointing, because Clinton's behavior and lack of honesty is not just some historical footnote; it is the current modus operandi of the Dimocrat party.

Look, Clinton isn't the worst president we've ever had, OK? But he sure wasn't the best, and when it comes to fighting terrorism he was an abject failure. Now, if the Dimocrats could be honest about that fact, then we could change the tactics and behaviors that allowed September 11th to happen. But when you have an entire political party howling "IT WAS NOT CLINTON'S FAULT! IT WAS BUSH'S FAULT!" then you can't do a damn thing. Clinton and his syncophants are on a barnstorming tour in an attempt to rewrite history and whitewash his fecklessness and malfeasance in fighting terrorism, as if his eight years of failure somehow disappear when compared to the eight months that President Bush had. And until the Dimocrats wake up and realize that Clinton was a miserable failure at fighting terrorism, we can't come together and fix the problems that allowed nineteen Islamonazi's to kill three thousand Americans. So Clinton's little finger-shaking and screeching fit is just one small part of a huge problem that is in effect paralyzing the government when it comes to fighting terrorism. It feeds the mental derangement that we see on the Left today. And so in that context, yes, it is a big deal. So long as Bubbah is going around denying any responsibility, he will have the rest of the Dimocrats behind him nodding their heads and saying "Yep! Yep! It was all Bushitler's fault! Yep!".

The Dimocrats are a party desperately in need of an enema. Starting with their denier in chief. But they'll never do it. And that, my friends, is a problem for anyone who wants to see a sane political party to keep the Republicans honest.

OK, so the BabyTrollBlog post didn't segue into my topic at all. Whaddyagonnado? Stop paying me?