Post 9-11, we had a Republican President with new popularity leading the nation after an unprecedented attack on American soil.

The Democrats wanted to make sure at all costs that another attack didn’t happen, because they would lose big time if it appeared that the Democrats in Congress had obstructed the President in any way that allowed a second attack.

Indeed, they might have wanted to be even “more Catholic than the Pope” on this matter to insulate themselves fully from further Republican inroads.

It was only after the popular mood turned against Bush that they started with this revisionism, in part partisan puposes to pile on the President – and in part to suck up to their lefty base.

And now that they’ve taken over Congress and the White House, they’re going the whole proscription route – because they’re now going all in for permanent one-party control, using this issue as one of their wedges – and therefore don’t expect to be called on it, even if their actions result in another attack on American soil.

Indeed, not that Democrats actively will seek such an attack* but they will be prepared with the media cover to oppotunistically use such an attack to further solidify power.

*If I don’t buy the “truther” government conspiracy theories about the Bush administration, I really have no business projecting that same kind of paranoia onto the Democratic party of today. Besides, the Democrats appear to be well on their way to achieving one party control just by pursuing their current course.

And Occams razor says that a future attack will more likely result from government incompetence and bad policy (like the 9-11 attack) rather than by a seamless conspiracy by these same incompetents who can’t keep any government secrets from leaking.

I essentially was arguing for CYA as the prime motive.

Stupidity certain trumps most alternatives, but CYA is such a primal instinct that I would put it on the short list with stupidity.

It is significant thatPelosi was not alone, but she was part of the pack – just about all the key Democrats were in favor of aggressive measures then – and now are switching sides. That favors CYA.

On the other hand, Pelosi was about the only one who led with her chin in what she said about her having always been opposed. That favors stupdity.

Hard to definitely choose. But the fact that these are the top two choices for Nancy (and for most of our leaders, R or D) is rather depressing in terms of our country’s future, for what it says about our nation’s current leadership in Washington.