The headlines are all over the papers, and you’d have to have your head firmly implanted into your anus to miss them. They’re screaming because people like Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid want Karl Rove to resign. Why? Because he said the following:

“But perhaps the most important difference,” he said, is “in the area of national security. Conservatives saw the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.”

Straight up and down the party line, the Democrats are furious over this quote, and right they should be because it exposes them for what they are. Handwringing blame-america-first losers (surely you know the term loser; it’s what the great Harry Reid used to describe George W. Bush to a room full of students).

Well, see we have two ways to approach this quote.

On one hand, we could use the Downing Street attack. This attack, simply put, means that we don’t say whether or not the accusation is true, we only say that it must be true because no Democrats have denied it. What, you say? They have?

Well? Prove it. All I’ve heard from the Democrats since this quote came out is the perpetual insistence that Karl Rove resign (a standard operation for Democrats; everyone must resign except for the former head of the KKK and Hillary “Gandhi is a Gas Station Owner” Clinton). Not once have they shot back with a defense other than “Rove is a bastard for saying it.” You would think something that was so obviously untrue would be easy to disprove. All we’d have to do is examine the war voting records and quotations of the likes of the Democrat party to find this untruth.

Instead of actually defending themselves by proving where the quote is wrong, they’ve been defending themselves by saying the person making the accusation should resign. When conservatives suggested that the “Downing Street Memos” were not 100% what they claimed to be and that their sourcing was questionable (considering every single report based on them was based on a fabrication by a reporter), we were told that we were too busy discrediting the source and that we should be more interested in addressing the charges.

Well, Democrats, here’s your big chance. Address the charge and not its source.

Of course, we also have the “Dan Rather” method. Surely you know this one also. In the Dan Rather method, the truth of any accusation is based, not on its veracity, but on its seriousness. For example, Bush’s National Guard record, which is capped with an honorable discharge, is irrelevant because a memo that Dan’s friends at the DNC made up for him that states that he was a bastard in the Texas ANG and a bad soldier who was given favors.

Or the “Koran” memos. They weren’t true, they never were true, and they never will be true. So untrue were they that Newsweek refused to stand behind them after a week of begging us to accept their truth.

But what the Dan Rather and Koran memos have in common is that Democrats (and pundits alike) suggested that the seriousness of the charges warranted their investigation and exploration. Not their content, and certainly not the veracity of their sourcing. In the liberal world, the sourcing of an attack is irrelevant, and the content of such attack is unimportant, except to the degree that the charge is serious. If a charge is really really serious, true or not, it must therefore be investigated, defended and so on.

All we’ve heard coming out of the mouths of Howard Dean and the left hemisphere of the blogosphere this weekend is how Rove is out of control for saying what he did, and he’s trying to smear Democrats and so on and so forth. You would think such a blatant attempt at putting together a false smear would be easy to disassemble given a small amount of time. I mean, Democrats could trot out their record on their response to 9/11. How they’ve supported our troops while they’re in combat. How they’ve made public declarations supporting them. How they’ve understood that our military has, through much cost to itself, not just carpet bombed Afghanistan and Iraq, which would’ve saved thousands of American servicemen and women’s lives.

Surely such a blatant falsehood would be extremely easy to disprove if their record were as good as they want us to believe it is. I would think that instead of beating Karl Rove over the head and asking for his resignation, they would be lining up to tout their record.

Were it good in the first place.

But due to the seriousness of the charges, and their non-denial of them, I’d have to conclude based on prevalent Democrat methodology, that the charges are indeed true. The good news is once you reach a conclusion based on Democrat methodology, all you have to do is call counter-evidence insufficient, partisan, or a lie, so don’t bother defending the Democrats here.

Democrat methodology is impenetrable.