The Tender-on-Terror Party

[dfc99bb]

The Tender-on-Terror Party

Less than a month after President Bush asked for it, he got it: Congress has approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which permits interrogation and war-crimes trials for al Qaeda terrorists.

For a measure of how far left the Democrats have moved five years after America joined the war on terror, consider this: More Senate Democrats voted against the act than against the 2002 authorization for military action in Iraq. The same was true, by an even more lopsided margin, in the House. Here are the numbers (note: all Democratic figures include left-wing Vermont independents):

-Final votes on the Iraq resolution: Senate 77-23
-Final votes on the Military Commission Act: Senate 65-34

-Republican Senate vote on Iraq: 48-1.
-Republican Senate vote on MCA: 53-1.
-Lone GOP dissenter in both cases: Lincoln Chafee. (Olympia Snowe of Maine did not vote on the MCA.)

-Democratic Senate vote on Iraq: 29-22.
-Democratic Senate vote on MCA: 12-33.

-Republican House vote on Iraq: 215-6.
-Republican House vote on MCA: 219-7.

-Democratic House vote on Iraq: 81-127.
-Democratic House vote on MCA: 34-161.

Many Democrats, including some who backed the liberation of Iraq, have long claimed that this effort was a distraction from the war on al Qaeda. But these figures make quite clear that today they are even less committed to that war than they were to Iraq four years ago. Large majorities of Democrats--73% in the Senate and 83% in the House--opposed a bill that met the exacting standards of John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner. Democrats might as well adopt a new slogan for their approach to terror: "Try a little tenderness."

The New York Times tries to spin this as a sign of political strength:

*** QUOTE ***

The Democratic vote in the Senate on Thursday against legislation governing the treatment of terrorism suspects showed that party leaders believe that President Bush's power to wield national security as a political issue is seriously diminished.

The most vivid example of the Democratic assessment came from the party's many presidential hopefuls in the Senate. All of them voted against the bill, apparently calculating that Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq has undercut the traditional Republican strength on national security and will insulate them from what are certain to be strong attacks from Republicans not only this year but also in 2008.

*** END QUOTE ***

This analysis is so laughably insular, it is worthy of the Times editorial page. To see why, consider two of the Democrats who voted for the act: Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. Menendez is the most vulnerable Democratic senator up this year; Stabenow is either the second or third most vulnerable. (Her competition for the No. 2 slot is Washington's Maria Cantwell, who voted "no.")

Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Evan Bayh and Barack Obama voted "no" from a position of weakness, not strength. They can anticipate that if they run for president in 2008, they will have to pander to their party's far-left antiwar base, picking off enough of their votes to deny the nomination to Russ Feingold, the sincere antiwar candidate.

At this point, Democratic presidential candidates can't afford to think about how to win a general election--how, that is, to extend their appeal beyond their own party. Menendez and Stabenow, by contrast, can't afford not to, since they face the general electorate in a scant 6 1/2 weeks. So they are tough on terrorists, at least till Nov. 8.

Copyright 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

[remicks]

*****

"Two party system".
What a joke.

*****

[paul]

remicks, you are so right. Want a list of the sellouts:

Tom Carper (Del.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Frank Lautenberg (N.J.)
Bob Menendez (N.J)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Pryor (Ark.)
Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Ken Salazar (Co.)
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)
Joe Lieberman (Conn.)

This is the usual gang who usually sellout the party in the senate. This is a list of the dem senators who voted to say, fuck the geneva conventions.

Well, if you accept what repubs believe, bush is god's boy. Fuck the constitution, rule of law, and international treaties. If bush says it's so then god says so. Of course if the devil get's one in and oh, i don't know Hillary becomes president, everyone of these laws the repubs passed for bush will have to go. Everyone knows she's a bitch who is satan's spawn.
By the way, the Iraqis sure love being liberated from electricity and there infrastructure. Bush did god's work by replacing Saddam with a civil war and terrorists including Al Queida who Saddam never wanted any part of. Now Iraqis are free to join 'em. If them Iraqis capture our guys then they can tell our captives bush freed us to interprate the Geneva Conventions any way we wanted!

[Videoskooter]

Paul, I know you clicked on the Borat-link in the other thread. Did U listen carefully? No? Click again! There's 1 little line in it that must make you fall off your chair :-o

Strange that I as a Belgio noticed it and the Inglese didn't:-o

[paul]

Was it the line about bush being a terror or something?

[Videoskooter]

Tip: the Rodeo-sequence. Listen carefully what he says to the audience :D

[paul]

Well, is it "we support your war of terror"?

[Videoskooter]

:lol: "Iye suppooort yar war OF terroor" :lol:

Isn' t this great. Some people can't say anything and this guy creates a character and gets away with everything!