Al Zawahiri and Democrats joined at the hip?
By Sher Zieve
With all of the Democrats' feigned flak over former Rep. Foley's salacious and indefensible instant messages, this week, they have quite effectively moved the political debate over real issues to that of a sick individual. I write "feigned flak" as one of the Democrats' own, former Rep. Gerry Studds, actually followed through with his prurient perversions. Foley is to blame for his behaviors. But, Foley resigned. Studds did not.
This Democrat strategy has been most effective. Democrats and their willing, able and even gleeful mainstream press have been able to divert and devolve the real upcoming November campaign issues into a second-rate sex scandal. Kudos to the Democrat machine!
However, the most salient question regarding the looming elections is: "Which US political party will best protect our country from its termination?" As the Republican Party is currently the only one willing to fight for the United States and protect it from Islamic terrorists, the answer is rather simple. Democrats do not want to fight terrorism and their leaders have said so over—and over again. And the words of the US Democrat leadership have reverberated worldwide, to the extent that these same words and similar ones are being used by the terrorists on a regular basis. Let's take a look—shall we?
Osama bin Laden's deputy in al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, commented recently that President Bush is a "murderer and spiller of Muslim blood" and a "deceitful charlatan". John Kerry, Al Gore and other prominent Democrats have consistently called President Bush a liar. Al Gore even ranted that President Bush "betrayed" the US. Democrats continue to regularly leak classified national security documents to their press, which gladly and immediately publishes them; the indication being that there may be NO US national secrets or security as long as a Republican is president is in office. Zawahiri follows US Democrats, with a videotape aimed at President Bush, when he asks: "Why are your troops retreating in secret from the south and east of Afghanistan?"
Question: Did Democrats leak this information to al-Qaeda? Considering all of the other Democrat security leaks, I have to wonder.
Otherwise, they would have brought forth the "damning Foley IMs" years ago. They have apparently had them for the last 3 years. Why did they hold onto them? As they were released just weeks before the November elections, I think the answer to that question is a clear and definitive one. Democrats can't win on issues of survival—so they work to win on sexual outrage—if not titillation. Remember how they backed President Clinton in both his Lewinsky affair and alleged rape of Juanita Broaddrick?
Sher Zieve is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.