This morning on Fox News Sunday, Hillary Clinton trotted out the old lie that Democrats have their patriotism questioned when they disagree with Republicans on the war. As we noted back in 2005, it is in fact the other way around - the Democrats have often questioned the patriotism of Republicans who disagree with Democratic positions, but examples of the inverse are hard to find.

The rest of her performance was skillful, pre-packaged spin in response to every question, while hauling out practically every worn out nutroots blog cliché - the Republicans question Democrats' patriotism ... body armor ... keep the troops safe by bringing them home (but not really) ... restore America's tarnished image in the world ... 47 million uninsured ... Max Cleland ... the Bush Administration has ignored diplomacy ... no-bid contracts ... no military solution ...

It all just requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

A report from Yahoo News notes some more garbled thinking from the Democratic leadership (using the term very loosely) in their continued bid to force a U.S. surrender in Iraq. What caught our eye in this one was a line about another effort to roll back the effort that has finally brought success this year -

A separate proposal by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., seeks to restrict the troops' mission to fighting terrorists and training the Iraqi security force.

The idea that the battle is going to be neatly compartmentalized is ridiculous on its face. If their thinking wasn't so dangerous it would be a joke.

On Meet the Press Sunday, Senator McCain ably mocked the ludicrous idea of separating the battle against terrorists in Iraq from battles against "non-terrorists" -

SEN. McCAIN: But the fact is, but the fact is when, when, when Senator Kerry says that we will just take care of al-Qaeda, then you go into a place where they’re fighting. “Excuse me, sir. Are you al-Qaeda or Sunni or Shia?” Please.

Perhaps Senator Levin has this covered in his proposed bill. He could call for terrorists to identify themselves in some way - maybe with colorful hats

or maybe "I'm with al Qaeda" t-shirts.

The Democrats are really tying themselves in knots trying to justify their defeatism and double standards ... "Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, but we want our troops in Iraq to focus on counter-terrorism ... while we complain there are too few troops to fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we call for fewer troops to fight terrorists in Iraq, which has nothing to do with the war on terror ... sure, they call themselves al Qaeda in Iraq and claim allegiance to Osama bin Ladin, but they're not really al Qaeda ... WE'RE GOING TO END THE WAR AND BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW! ... But of course we're going to leave a substantial number of troops in Iraq to fight terrorists ... even though the real war on terror is only in Afghanistan ..."

They obviously count on the average voter not paying close attention or trying to keep it all straight. Unfortunately, they seem quite able to get away with it so far.

Well, liberal Democrats certainly have loose standards for what constitutes "slamming". How nice of CNN to go to bat for their colleagues in Congress.

The headline at cnn.com reads "Dems join GOP in slamming ad attacking Petraeus".

The story says of Senate majority leader Harry Reid:

When asked early Monday if this was the right message for his party to send, the Nevada Democrat curtly answered, "No."

"No."

Wow, what a powerful, heartfelt, and eloquent statement!

An unnamed "senior Democratic leadership aide" went so much further:

In a separate conversation, a senior Democratic leadership aide called the ad an "unnecessary distraction" and said Democrats are prepared to focus on "Petraeus executing a mismanaged mission."

Note there's no "slamming" or even condemnation of the slanderous moveon.org ad at all. It's just strategically unhelpful to the Democrats at this point.

Surprisingly, Senator John Kerry made a pretty reasonable statement against the ad -

Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, called the ad "over the top."

"I don't like any kind of characterizations in our politics that call into question any active duty, distinguished general who I think under any circumstances serves with the best interests of our country," said Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate and a decorated veteran.

"I think there are a lot of legitimate questions that need to be asked, a lot of probing that ought to take place; there's a lot of legitimate accountability that needs to be achieved. It ought to be done without casting any aspersions on anyone's character or motives," he added.

- but that hardly constitutes a "slam" against the ad or the disgusting hate group that produced it.

Update: via Michelle Malkin, a telling quote -

"'No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV,' noted one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition on anonymity. 'The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.'"

On the plus side, sort of, at least they haven't started spitting on the troops yet this time.

Via Yahoo News:

CORAL GABLES, Fla. - Democratic presidential candidates were meeting Sunday night for the first debate broadcast entirely in Spanish, the clearest sign yet of the growing influence of Hispanic voters.

Well, not entirely. The Spanish component of the debate, as far as the candidates are concerned, is a bit of a sham:

Anchors Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas will pose questions in Spanish and the candidates will wear earpieces to hear simultaneous translations into English. Similarly, their English answers will be translated into Spanish for the live, 90-minute broadcast.

Most Hispanic citizens of the United States speak English, so there's really no point to this debate as far as reaching citizens who vote goes. What it really boils down to is rank pandering to ethnic separatism, a Democratic Party staple. That isn't healthy for America, but it may gain the Democrats a few votes, which is infinitely more important to Democrats.

We strongly believe that Republicans should make real efforts to reach out to Hispanic American voters, but not by pandering to them as the Democrats certainly will tonight. Most Hispanic Americans want what other Americans want, to have a good job, to be successful, to make a better life for their kids, etc. The way to success in America, and for America, is learning English, assimilation, free enterprise, low taxes and regulation, traditional American values - not the grievance-mongering, pushing victim group status and ethnic separatism, and welfare state-ism the Democrats offer.

Mario Cuomo, who for some inexplicable reason seems to have a reputation among Democrats as some kind of intellectual, has an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times Monday morning that, don't laugh, tries to make a sort of strict constructionist case against the liberation of Iraq.

The glaring factual errors begin in the first partagraph:

"Meanwhile, President Bush continues to insist that as commander in chief, he has the constitutional power to go to war and decide when to end it, unilaterally."

But this is quite simply and obviously a lie. President Bush does not now and has never insisted such a thing. He did in fact receive authorization from Congress to invade Iraq.

Here's the nut of Cuomo's argument:

"The war happened because when Bush first indicated his intention to go to war against Iraq, Congress refused to insist on enforcement of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. For more than 200 years, this article has spelled out that Congress -- not the president -- shall have 'the power to declare war.'"

Many consider the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" in 2002 to be equivalent to a declaration of war. It's debatable whether the Constitution requires the words "declaration of war" to be used for it to count, but the fact remains the president sought and received authorization from Congress.

It's interesting how suddenly the "living, breathing Constitution" crowd becomes interested in exact wording when something they don't like happens.

Incidentally, we don't recall any similar article from Cuomo in the 1990s, and can't imagine him writing one then.

But here's where Cuomo drifts from his usual foolish talk into daftness:

"Nor were the feeble, post-factum congressional resolutions of support of the Iraq invasion -- in 2001 and 2002 -- adequate substitutes for the formal declaration of war demanded by the founding fathers."

The Iraq invasion began in March 2003. So how could there have possibly been "post-factum" resolutions of support substituting for a declaration of war in 2001 or 2002? What in the world is the man talking about there?

The president received legal authorization for the invasion of Iraq from Congress before the war. Isn't there one fact-checker or editor left at the Los Angeles Times, or did they all get laid off already?