Why O' Why Won't Dems Defend Obama?

Giggle Alert! Doofus Crossing! Hmmmm:

Are Democrats so cowed by Republican attacks on Obama’s foreign policy that they’re unwilling to defend him?

It’s now been five days since the attempted bombing of Flight 253 in Detroit, and Congressional Democrats are still turning the other cheek to Republicans who are using the incident to attack Obama’s entire approach to national security.

At first, I thought this line of attack, pushed by Rep. Peter Hoekstra and Rep. Peter King, might fizzle out, but this is clearly not going away. Take South Carolina Republican Senator Jim DeMint’s comments to Fox News yesterday, which were featured in this morning’s lead POLITICO article on the Republican response:

“[S]oft talk about engagement, closing Gitmo, these things are not going to appease the terrorists,” he said. “They’re going to keep coming after us, and we can’t have politics as usual in Washington, and I’m afraid that’s what we’ve got right now with airport security.”

Once again, these are not just complaints about the Homeland Security bureaucracy; Republicans are calling Obama, and his strategy, weak on terrorism. While Democrats have shown a willingness to ding DeMint for putting a hold on Obama’s nominee to head the TSA, they have been completely silent in the face of these wider criticisms, even after the president articulated a defense of his foreign policy yesterday.

Yada, yada, yada. I don’t suppose anybody ever told His Verklemptness that you can’t defend the indefensible? After spending more political capitol than they process (see: Nelson, Ben) Democrats sure aren’t going to climb out on the ledge for Obama over this. Let’s face it, it took Obama three days to respond and then his response sucked. And, there is plenty of blame to go around, so it isn’t surprising that Democrats prefer to engage in a rousing game of “duck and cover.”

As far as Republicans calling Obama weak on terrorism, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

h/t Instapundit