Is it okay to question their patriotism now?

Question: which Democratic icon has now been honored with both a presidential box seat at the Democratic National Convention and a speaking part in a terrorist recruiting video?

Answer: You know who.

In his L.A. Times editorial yesterday, Donald Rumsfeld explicitly highlighted this conflict's information war:

...this is the first war of the 21st century — a war that, to a great extent, will be fought in the media on a global stage. We cannot allow the terrorists' lies and myths to be repeated without question or challenge...

This country needs honest debate about the best strategy for defeating the global scourge of extremist terror.

But the media's record of consistent fabrications are unhelpful, to say the least: Al Qaqaa, Plame-Armitrage-gate, forged Air National Guard memos, and Newsweek's fake Koran-flushing story are examples of utterly bogus stories that have dominated the mainstream press while a global war rages on.

Put simply, the media has ignored or underreported the real stories of this global conflict:

* In Thailand, bombs were set off in 23 banks simultaneously, reportedly an attack by Muslim separatists focused on overthrow of the government.

* In Darfur, the multi-year genocide continues unabated at the hands of the National Islamic Front (NIF), which is responsible for the murderous onslaught of African tribal populations.

* In addition to instigating terror attacks over the past two decades (including the murder of nearly 300 American servicemen), Hezbollah has set up shop in Venezuela.

* In Beslan, residents commemorated the second anniversary of a terrorist attack that killed 333 people (more than 150 of whom were children).

And the mainstream media -- not to mention the Pelosi and Reid gang -- couldn't care less.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid called Rumsfeld's utterly valid remarks, "reckless." But he couldn't quantify why said comments were reckless, nor answer any of the questions Rumsfeld posed.

Nancy Pelosi whined that Rumsfeld's factual observations and questions were "smears":

..."Secretary Rumsfeld's efforts to smear critics of the Bush Administration's Iraq policy are a pathetic attempt to shift the public's attention from his repeated failure to manage the conduct of the war competently... If Mr. Rumsfeld is so concerned with comparisons to World War II, he should explain why our troops have now been fighting in Iraq longer than it took our forces to defeat the Nazis in Europe...

Perhaps, genius, because these are two completely different and unrelated wars. So far, Pelosi has produced only similarly useless non-sequiters and politicized soundbites. She, and Reid, have completely avoided any discussion of strategy in prosecuting the war on terror (other than retreat and appeasement without regard to the consequences).

Pelosi has a horrid track record when it comes to combatting terrorism: opposing the vital Patriot act (which the Department of Justice indicates has disrupted over 150 terrorist acts and cells), praising the Hamdan decision that, "[grants] terrorists the same legal protections to which American citizens are entitled," and critquing the NSA international wiretap program (but only after the issue became politicized, months after being briefed on it).

Because of her willingness to blithely oppose tools -- which are generally praised by law enforcement as pivotal in prosecuting the war -- for pure political gain, yes, I question Pelosi's patriotism. As I do Harry Reid and the laughable Howard Dean.

This clique has opposed virtually every tool used to combat terror... that's every... single... tool... proposed by the administration. Given that 100% track record of opposing the President, I can only believe that their concerns are purely political, focused on regaining power, and certainly not in the best interests of America.

So, yes, I do question their patriotism. They have, for years, studiously avoided answering the critical questions of our time. Until and unless they can bring something to the table other than obstructionism, they are profoundly unqualified to take the reins of power in this country.