Hugh Hewitt writes:

“Any vote for any Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability.”

Other conservatives have taken slight issue with that statement, see here. My readers know my take which is simply if Democrats win back power in November, then our safety from terrorism will be at a distinct disadvantage.

Now is that unfair? Not at all, because I didn’t create that perception, Democrats did.

Fact is that the current crop of Demcratic leadership has a lot to do with that characterization. For instance looking at the last five years the Democrats have seemingly been more on the side of terrorist more than on the side of the US. Sometimes even admitting to attempting to sabotaging our efforts in the GWOT such as when Senator Rockefeller went to Syria (as he put it) alone to tell them and others he deemed ‘necessary’ that we were going to invade Iraq. In other cases - such as Rockefeller and Senator Durbin, who were involved in outright leaks classified information.

On issue after issue of National Security, they have at least appeared to be either depressed and scolding when we thwarted an attack, or criticizing the very tools that were instrumental in foiling those attacks.

Now is every Democrat actually a friend of Al Qaeda? No, not at all. After September 11th, all politicans from both sides of the isle stood on the Capitol steps in unity, but soon after that the Democrats went back to what they do so well - partisan politicking.

Appearances are everything, and when in the hate of an incumbant, and in the fear that you will never regain power you create a distinction between terrorist and sympathizer, that creates a picture that you are NOT on our side, then who’s fault is that?