If you haven’t had your fill of “comic jihad” or “cartoonistan” yet and are wondering where to find some fresh commentary and perspectives, check out the latest winning posts from the Watcher’s Council (or the complete list of nominees).

AJ Strata at the Strata-Sphere composed the winning Council post this week with a satirical 2006 Democrat Contract With Al Qaeda … at least I think it was meant to be satirical, though with the behavior of some of the

We have from the Democrats; A Contract WITH Al Queda
With Dub and the Reps; A Contract ON Al Queda.

Decisions, decisions…

Epiphany: after hearing an EIB broadcast regarding terrorists and their perceived “rights”, AJ Strata arrived at a stunning idea. Why not officially enunciate the Democratic position on Al Qaeda with the same clarity of vision and purpose that the GO…

You’re a genius Frank. Golly, you’ve eviscerated the whole article. Or not.

Son, if you’re going to dump on something, do your homework first, otherwise you just end up looking like an idiot.

Like now.

You don’t know, or likely care, but before 1994, Congress passed a whole host of legislation, like minimum wage laws, maximum hours per week laws and other “labor-friendly” laws it excluded itself from following. Work for Ford, you’re protected. Work for Congress, no such luck.

The Contract with America promised to apply these laws- which Democrats assured us were utterly necessary, then excluded themselves from- to Congress.

Frank, buddy, the reason why the Executive wasn’t mentioned is because the Executive branch already had to follow those laws. The only people who didn’t, was Congress.

Feel embarrassed? You should.

“SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;”

“Time will tell if the political pressure leading to the current investigation will lead to a sincere “audit” of the apparent disregard for the law by the Bush administration.”

I’m afraid you got me here. I’d like to refute this, but it’s total gibberish. It makes no sense.

Cw/A promised to cut down on fraud and waste by launching an audit of the nation’s finances. What this has to do with “auditing the Bush administration’s disregard for the law” is unclear.

You’ve made no case that Bush has disregarded laws, you’ve not explained what an “audit” of such actions would be, and you haven’t explained why this comment applies at all to the 1994 Republican Congress.

It’s obvious that you had no substantive point with this post, you just wanted to whine, so you could feel better about hating Bush.

“Rather try to fit any oversight into the talking point of “Democrats = soft on terror”?”

So, and let me get this straight, banning eLint operations against Al Qaeda agents operating within our borders is “oversight” not “being soft on terror.”

Denying the government the ability to use the same tools against terrorists that it has used for 30 years against drug lords and Mafia dons is “oversight” not “being soft on terror.”

Allowing free, unmonitored traffic across our borders is “oversight” not “being soft on terror.”

These are curious positions, Frank, as none- not one- actually involves any oversight at all. Oversight is when you monitor actions. You just want to forbid them.

So you tell me, Frank, why it’s a good idea to forbid the government from surveilling Al Qaeda, from gathering intel, from protecting our borders. Hmm?

All of your positions bid fair to cripple our abilities to fight this war. That sounds like “soft on terror” to me.

Have a nice day.

About time someone said it! Great article, and one which stays in my all tiime10 best. I read almost everything Ican, and publish when and where I can. My only regret is that I did not writte the artice you wrote! Terrific. Keep it up.

Jerry D.

FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;

Apparently the executive is exempt from this clause?

SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;

Time will tell if the political pressure leading to the current investigation will lead to a sincere “audit” of the apparent disregard for the law by the Bush administration. But you’re not concered with the law, are you? Rather try to fit any oversight into the talking point of “Democrats = soft on terror”?