Democrats Behave Like Sunni Insurgents

Don’t look at me, I didn’t say it. But Michael Reagan sure did in his latest column at Human Events:

I’ve been wondering why there is something familiar about the behavior of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, and suddenly it dawned on me that we have our own similar insurgency right here at home — it is called the Democrat Party.

Think about it. Both are operating under the same motivation — an unrequited lust for lost power. And both will do just about anything to retrieve it.

Remember, under Saddam Hussein’s long rule, his fellow Sunnis — a distinct minority in a nation with a vast Shiite majority — were the kings of the hill — and incredibly cruel monarchs to boot.

Saddam may have ordered the atrocities, but it was the Sunnis who carried them out, torturing, beheading and otherwise brutalizing the Shia and the Kurds and looting the nation’s treasure.

They were very well compensated for their services — and since being ousted by the U.S. invasion and the deposing of their benefactor they have been unable to accept their current powerlessness. They are, as the liberals like to say, “in denial.” They just can’t live with their loss of authority and act as if they can somehow regain what they lost by mounting an insurgency against the new Iraqi government.

It’s a case of “anything goes,” as demonstrated by their recent idol, the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Killing their fellow Iraqis — including women and children — by the hundreds, destroying the infrastructure, and depriving their fellow Iraqis of electricity, water and income from oil are all acceptable methods of expressing their lust for power.

What it all comes down to is a willingness to tear down their own house if they can’t assert absolute ownership of the premises. It’s what is known as a “rule or ruin” strategy.

Here in America we have a similar situation — a political party that for years dominated Capitol Hill. They ruled the roost for so long that they began to believe they had some divine right to control the House and Senate.

Read the rest if you so choose, but I imagine you get the drift. What’s interesting though is that Reagan mysteriously omits all that bombing and murdering stuff that kind of defines the Sunni insurgents and is conspicuously absent among the Democrat “insurgency” here at home. I’d say that’s a rather important distinction, wouldn’t you?

Regardless, I don’t think Reagan was concerned with being subtle when he wrote this column. It’s yet another example of rhetoric on crack so vicious that it makes the rest of us reasonable conservatives look bad by association. And to be frank, it screams of, “Gimme gimme gimme some of Ann’s spotlight!” This crap needs to stop.

FILED UNDER: General, , , , ,
Greg Tinti
About Greg Tinti
Greg started the blog The Political Pit Bull in August 2005. He was OTB's Breaking News Editor from June through August 2006 before deciding to return to his own blog. His blogging career eventually ended altogether. He has a B.A. in Anthropology from The George Washington University,

Comments

  1. Misneach says:

    It’s a good thing that the strategy of “divide and conquor” that worked so well in Ireland for 200 years is working today in Iraq, and in the minds of American Newsviewers. Glad to hear that you blame Sunni muslims, you’ve been well trained.

  2. Alan Kellogg says:

    In other words, Misneach, you’re still ticked off that the 2000 Democratic candidate for the office of The President of the United States, Albert Gore. did such a wonderful job of getting the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, elected.

  3. I’ll grant you the democrats haven’t resorted to beheadings on the internet (but if they start now, we know who will have put that bee in their bonnet). But the rest of it does ring fairly true. Now given that a recent poll of democrats had a majority saying the democratic congressional mission should be to cut the best deal possible and only a few percent said obstructionism was the way to go, the question is will the democrats be like the Sunni’s and recognize that elections have meaning and start taking the political process seriously?

  4. lily says:

    Thank you. You are correct that this kind of vicious, intellectually dishonest discourse does have the unfortunate side effect of making all conservatives look bad. Wish more conservatives would object to right-wing hate mongering.

    The Democrats have been remarkably restrained. There has been very little ( I can’t think of any) swift-boat liar type ads, there are no Democrats convicted of election fraud and certainly no convicts hired to train activists for the party, there is no equivalent of Karl Rove, and Wade whatshisname and Micheal Moore combined don’t constitute one Michelle Malkin, let alone her plus Coulter, O’Reilly, Limbaugh Hannity, and most of the Republicans in Congress.
    Yes we are going to fight hard to get power back into the hands of reasonable, responsible people who believe in the rule of law and value civil discourse. And we aren’t doing it by imitating Republican party campaign tactics or the verbalizations of “conservative” pundits and politicians. I’m putting quotes on “conservative” because you are right–hate and fear mongering, lies, jingoism,slander and out of control vitriol are not the defining attributes of conservatism.

  5. ken says:

    “Iâ??m putting quotes on â??conservativeâ?? because you are rightâ??hate and fear mongering, lies, jingoism,slander and out of control vitriol are not the defining attributes of conservatism.”

    lilly, you utterly nieve about the defining attributes of conservatism.

    Can you find a single conservative who has not wholeheartedly supported politicians who ran campaigns for office exactly that way? And if they support their campaigns I would say they obviously endorse the message.

    Whatever you may imagine a conservative to be and what the conservatives actually are, are two different things. One is real, the other is imagined.

    Tinti, Joyner and others may say now that they do not approve of this behavior but come election time they will endorse candidates who employ them with all their hearts. So another charactoristic of conservatives you missed is hypocracy.

  6. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Lily, I guess you mean reasonable like calling the President of the United States a liar? I mean the current President, not the one guilty of perjury. Log on to the Daily Kos for examples of the reasoned thinking of the left. Report your findings.

  7. Bithead says:

    Whatâ??s interesting though is that Reagan mysteriously omits all that bombing and murdering stuff that kind of defines the Sunni insurgents and is conspicuously absent among the Democrat â??insurgencyâ?? here at home. Iâ??d say thatâ??s a rather important distinction, wouldnâ??t you?

    Clearly, you’ve never been witness to Seattle, when the World Bank is meeting.

  8. Lily,

    Do a google search on “east st louis election guilty”, it may help you reconsider your statement that there are “no democrats convicted of election fraud”. And this is the old fashioned type of election fraud, paying money to buy votes. But the cockles of your liberal heart will be warmed to know that the price for buying votes for a racist is double.

    You might also want to check on a news story run by CBS when you think there are no “swift-boat liar type ads”, though technically not an ad, this was only because the leftist who ran the piece gave the air time away, rather than charge the democrats.

  9. Anderson says:

    I guess you mean reasonable like calling the President of the United States a liar?

    Oh, so it’s unreasonable to call Bush a liar?

    USAToday, 11/7/05: “President Bush strongly defended U.S. interrogation practices for detainees held in the war on terrorism Monday, insisting, ‘We do not torture.'”

    ABC News, 11/18/05:

    Harsh interrogation techniques authorized by top officials of the CIA have led to questionable confessions and the death of a detainee since the techniques were first authorized in mid-March 2002, ABC News has been told by former and current intelligence officers and supervisors. * * *

    Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

    According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda’s toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

    Somebody’s lying, aren’t they? But if I think the liar is the President, I’m being “unreasonable”?

    You say, “reason”; I say “moronic blind faith.” Let’s call the whole thing off?

  10. lily says:

    I read OKs daily and the posts (I can’t say about the comments since I don’t read them) are never in the slander/ defamation league a la Malkin et al. Have the St. Louis Democrats hired their convict to train election volunteers? Did their convict make multiple calls to party leaders during the planning stages of the crime? No. And the CBS story was not part of a leftist plot.
    Bush has been guilty of lack of truthfulness on many occasions–perhaps from sloppy thinking, slanting and framing suggestion from Rove, whatever. The most blatant lie was his claim that Saddam was trying to make nuclear weapons. He made that claim during his State of the Union address after he had been told by Tenet that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to support the claim. It isn’t slander to point out when a politician is really playing games with the facts.