Why Dems Can't Be Trusted With National Security

Clarice Feldman has a good piece on the breaking NIE story I'd encourage you to see. But what shouldn't be lost in all this is one over looked sentence from Michael Barone buried within the growing coverage of the House Intelligence Committee .

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is said to be determined to replace her (Jane Harman) with Alcee Hastings, the former federal judge who was impeached by the House for bribery and convicted and removed from office by the Senate.

It is incomprehensible that a party would even consider putting an individual with that history atop the House Intelligence Committee, yet desire to be seen as capable of defending America from her enemies.

See Clarice's piece at American Thinker for more.

Update: Then for an interesting and well-reasoned view of the American Left, see Dr. Sanity here.

Comments

[clarice]

Thanks, Dan.

[WWU Vet (I served, did you?)]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15361479/

[M.A.]

Well, Democrats are the only serious national-security party around. Most of the people who opposed the Iraq war are Democrats, and you can't be in favor of upholding America's national interests unless you are willing to oppose the Iraq war, which was exactly contrary to America's interests. So the people who oppose America's national security interests tend to be Republicans. So your whole premise is skewed. More here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_10/009859.php