8/02/2004 09:41:22 PM|||Nathan Moore|||

Eliot Spitzer, the self-inflated attorney general of New York, has warned the GOP not to feature 9/11 at all during its convention at the end of this month. In fact, he forbids the GOP from using it...

"It would not be fair or right," the attorney general continued. "And we will not let you do it."

Why it's not fair or right is not quite clear. Mr. Spitzer cites inadequacies in the 9/11 Commission's report. However, it is not evident why a flawed system should undermine the accomplishments and leadership of those who guided us through those dark days.

I will go out on a limb here. I posit that Spitzer's problems are partisan. He is distraught that everyone, from the mayor and governor of New York, to the president and secretary of defense, were Republicans on that day. Consequently, any Democrats on the scene had to fall in line and at least pretend they were interested in the security of the United States for a few short months.

Now that time has passed. Democrats can pretend, as they delve deeper into the world of fantasy politics, that they are more concerned with security than George W. Bush.

Rudolph Guiliani said it best

"The Democrats haven't been careful, or stopped from talking about September 11 (and) the President's reaction to it ... It seems to me you can't have it both ways," said Giuliani, who was dispatched to Boston on the final day of the Democratic National Convention to be part of a response team of Republicans who countered Democratic criticism.

Dispatched only to keep the Dems from seizing onto something they hadn't lifted a finger to claim until political expediency demanded it. The paranoia continues

Democrats have long maintained that the Republicans picked Democrat-dominated Manhattan for their convention -- the first time it will ever be held there -- to capitalize on 9/11 and remind voters of a time when Bush's poll numbers were high. They worried the rebuilding of the twin towers was being delayed to allow Bush to be present for the groundbreaking.

Are they that insecure, or do they really have that little to offer? The question is irrelevant because the answer is the same. Is it somehow dishonest to point to real leadership, or is it more a partisan disgust for losing the 2000 election that has the Dems so on edge?

I vote for both. Since the groundbreaking was done on July 4, 2004, the Dems have nothing to worry about but the further emphasis on substance. I am sure they will find some way to spin this as "unfair". Once again, the proof shows that one party is serious, and one can't escape the failed legacy of its last White House occupant.

Politics ought never come before national security, unless of course it is used to destroy George W. Bush.

|||109150160276195272|||9/11 Off Limits?