ZARQAWI DEAD, DEMOCRATS DEPRESSED

View the complete Deck of Weasels

Make no mistake: Democrats are depressed. They're down in the dumps because they have been counting on the war in Iraq to go badly so that they can use that to pick up enough seats in this fall's election to take back control of the House. With Zarqawi getting clipped yesterday [WARNING: Fox News photos of Zarqawi's dead body] , this throws a wrench in things. What is going to happen to their aspirations if this marks a turning point in Iraq and we defeat the insurgency? Worse than that .. what happens if Bush gets the opportunity to display the bloated and bloodied face of that slime Osama bin Laden between now and the election? You can bet the ranch that in that event there will be Democrats who will swear that it was all staged ... that Bush knew where Osama was all along, and just waited until the most opportune time to make his move.

Well ... at least the Democrats have that "culture of corruption" thing to run on. But wait! ... there's $90,000 in William Jefferson's freezer that says that won't work. Plus .. the Congressional Black Caucus is defending him? Corruption? Clean the green fuzz out of your own refrigerator first. Gas prices? People are actually starting to realize that there are market forces at work here that Bush has, and should have no control over. No, if the Bush Administration rights the ship in Iraq, the Democrats are done...and they know it.

So they responded accordingly yesterday. Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader and Speaker-in-waiting, said yesterday Zarqawi's death changes nothing. In fact, she responded with a quote that could have come right off an Islamic hate website: "Several hours after Zarqawi's death, 19 Iraqis were killed and 40 were wounded in a roadside bombing in Baghdad." Pelosi, along with most of her kook leftist buddies, are banking on American defeat in Iraq.

Some Democrats are so upset that Bush is getting some positive help from al-Zarqawi's death that they're actually claiming that the whole thing was nothing but a stunt. Congressman Pete Stark from California said that Bush had al-Zarqawi killed to cover for the deaths of civilians in Iraq and to boost his poll numbers. I guess we could laugh at Stark, if he wasn't so completely pathetic. If al-Zarqawi remains free Bush takes the heat for not being able to find him. If al-Zarqawi is killed, Bush takes the heat for trying to divert attention from his sagging poll numbers. This just goes to show the depths to which Democrats and the left will sink to feed their hatred of George Bush .. hatred fueled by the election of 2000.

And as for whether or not Zarqawi was an important hit....absolutely he was. This is the guy who ran Al-Qaeda's operations in Iraq. Yet here are Democrats...downplaying it as symbolic. They call rubbing out Zarqawi symbolism, yet whine about how Osama Bin Laden hasn't been caught. This despite the fact that Osama is sitting in a cave somewhere in Pakistan doing absolutely nothing. Which one is it, fellas? Make up your minds already.

Any more good news from Iraq, and Democrats may get really desperate. Maybe they'll strap on an AK-47 and join the insurgency.

JOHN MURTHA"S BACKWARDS LOGIC

By Greg Tinti

Here's some irony for you. John Murtha was the first person to run in front of the cameras, quote his "sources," and assign blame to Marines for the alleged incident in Haditha--saying that the Marines had murdered innocent civilians in "cold blood." No investigation necessary. Now, when U.S. troops have scored a major victory in Iraq, taking out the #1 terrorist there, the troops don't deserve the credit:

In a Thursday morning interview with CNN’s Carol Lin, Rep John Murtha (D-PA) said that he wasn’t sure US troops deserved credit for Zarqawi’s death. Instead, he reiterated that the US cannot win the Iraq war and that we should bring the troops home.

Lin said that this was "a very big day for this administration” and then asked Murtha: “Is it fair to say that this attack and the killing of Al-Zarqawi wouldn't have happened if US troops were not on the ground?"

Refusing to give President Bush or US troops credit, Murtha responded: "I'm not sure about that. I'm not sure they couldn't have done it from the outside. If it's as portrayed, it was a bomb that killed him from the air, so I'm not sure about that."

Lin continued: "Today was a winning strike, congressman. Is there a value to having US forces still in Iraq? What do you think would be a reasonable time-table? You once said six months." Instead of answering Lin's question, Murtha said: "We cannot win this. It's a civil war."

If this isn't proof of Murtha's agenda, I don't know what is.