Sep 28 2006
Democrat Disaster
In earlier post I linked to a drooling mad NY Times editorial where the Times goes off half crazed about the concept of declaring terrorists enemy combatants in a war and all that goes with that. I have been smiling all day because the Dems have decided to side with the terrorists and protect their rights in the middle of a life and death struggle. Nothing can kill an election like rooting for more chances for more 9-11s. And those Democrats dumb enough (or deranged enough by Bush Derangement Syndrome – BDS) are in for a media blitz the likes we have never seen.
The ability to separate Iraq from the war on terror was critical to the dems succeeding, but they violated their own rule here. The Bill that is now passed passing in the Senate (65-34) as I write this (and run out the door) is one directed ONLY at terrorists. Americans are not effected by this bill. We will not see any of our rights impacted (unless one of us decides to join our enemy). So the idea this threatens us and not terrorists is laughable. But everytime this Bill is brought up the Dems are going to say we need to be out of Iraq – where we have killed 4,000 terrorists according to Al Qaeda. The Dems are going to say we need to back away, but not to worry, we opposed being too harsh on them if they come here and try and kill Americans.
The Dems will now have ads placed against them rightfully claiming they hesitated to call our enemies our enemies. They will have ads saying the Dems could not muster the will to aggressively question people attempting to kill us in suicide attacks (like someone on a suicide attack run cares about the Geneva Conventions??). The Dems will now face ads where they want Americans to pay for lawyering up the terrorists (“Bin Laden, you have a right to an attorney, if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you”).
The final kicker is in NY. I don’t have time to link but Apparently a Democrat prosecutor has leaked private phone conversations of a Rep woman candidate for state wide office to the media. So apparently it is OK for the government to listen in on phone call regarding a marital problem – and then publicize it during an election – but we cannot listen in on terrorists because that is a threat to privacy!???? Did someone slip dumb-dumb pills into the DNC water?? Gimme a break! Since when is it OK to monitor a political opponent and not an enemy combatant (but we cannot call them an ‘enemy combatant’!). We could weaken our protections so no more Democrats can run loose and monitor political opponents and leak classified material. Or we can just make sure the Dems never, ever, return to political power. At least with the latter solution we know people will still be trying to stop the terrorists instead of leaking personal details to the public.
Can someone (maybe Ken), tell me what does it mean when the Dems say we need to fight this war smarter, and we need a new direction. In action what does it mean.
Well, AJ…the usual list of suspects voted “against” the detainee treatment and trial bill, but also a “possibly” DUMB? Hillary Clinton?
Now what is a potential candidate for Commander-in-chief doing voting for the other side? Just how in the HELL will she explain her vote to her constituents in New York? Will she even bother? Up to this point, she’s gotten a free pass (hell Billary has gotten one free ride after another for more than 20 years) Courtesy of the taxpayers of the US and the State of Arkansas.
Can’t wait for the debate between John Spencer and Hillary on October 20th. Hope it hasn’t been cancelled. Spencer should show absolutely NO mercy!! Let her have it!
Carol
Very good point on Pirro AJ–Don’t tap terrorists’ lines, tap Republicans’
Senate Passes Detainee Bill 65-34…
The Senate has passed the bill governing detention and questioning of terrorists. The bill could reach the president for signature by tomorrow.
The 65-34 vote means the bill could reach the president's desk by week's end. The House pa…
Must have been a good point Clarice – Glenn Reynolds linked (only my third one ever).
The insanity of all this is just amazing. I am not sure how the dems put themselves into such a losing position.
Congratulations!
Many Thanks
Pirro was caught on a Federal wiretap (warrant approved) aimed at Bernie Kerik. The flap is that Dems illegally released Fed Grand Jury testimony, that included a conversation Pirro had with Kerik about possibly recording Mr. Pirro’s conversations with his mistress. The recordings never took place, but the secret GJ testimony was leaked by the Dems. Ms. Pirro was on O’Reilly tonight and wants Gonzales to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the leak.
Opine6,
Thanks immensely for the clarifications!
AJStrata
The Detainee Bill…
So let me get this straight. The Left and this blowhard believe if we just stopped fighting them, just stopped killing them, then all would be right in the world. Love, Peace, and Harmony will overtake this planet of ours….
Sigh….I mean what can yo…
Senate OKs Detainee Interrogation Bill…
Hat tip: Michelle Malkin:
I went out to eat tonight, so I’m late on the news! I guess I’ll just do a roundup.
The Senate Passes the Detainee Interrogation Bill. The NY Times:
The Senate on Thursday endorsed President Bush’s plan…
as I write this (and run out the door) is one directed ONLY at terrorists
no, it’s directed at anyone who is detained. the whole argument is how the hearings will be held to determine whether the detainee is a terrorist.
jeez, i understand gloating when your side wins, but at least get your facts straight.
Former Detainee Details American Torture Techniques …
Former Abu Ghraib detainee Mouayad Yasin Hassan has come forward recently to talk about his time in that controversial prison. Hassan was captured in Baghdad in 2004 and declared an enemy combatant by U.S. forces. Hassan claims that he was…
upyournoz,
Actually the bill doesn’t apply to US citizens. I do have my facts straight. Anyone can be detained. Geez, come up with some serious points.
Repeat after me: it’ll all be okay…
Bush’s Detainee Bill was okayed by the Senate yesterday evening by a 65-34 vote.
The Senate on Thursday endorsed President Bush’s plans to prosecute and interrogate terror suspects, all but sealing congressional approval for legislation tha…
I guess the whole “don’t wiretap terrorists; wiretap the Republicans” thing makes sense if you believe that the real enemy isn’t terrorists but Republicans (as the Democrats are seeming more and more to believe).
The “loyal opposition” grows more deeply DISLOYAL every week. You’d think they’d consider putting a sock in it for five weeks, seeing as how an election is coming up. Or have they been spewing their crap for so long at this point that it has just become an unthinking habit?
Heh. I posted before I read Opine6’s clarification. Same diff, though — Dems want to protect the privacy of terrorists but violate that of their Republican opponents. (I guess Republicans don’t count as citizens whose rights are supposedly in danger of being violated by Bush’s supposed mania for wiretapping people willy-nilly.)
Actually the bill doesn’t apply to US citizens. I do have my facts straight. Anyone can be detained. Geez, come up with some serious points.
i think you’ve lost track of my point. let’s review:
Strata: “[the bill] one directed ONLY at terrorists”
upyernoz: “no, it’s directed at anyone who is detained. the whole argument is how the hearings will be held to determine whether the detainee is a terrorist.”
Strata: “the bill doesn’t apply to US citizens”
you’re right that it doesn’t apply to u.s. citizens, but as you can see, that doesn’t address my point at all. you said that it only applies to terrorists. so unless you think all non-u.s. citizens are terrorists, then your last response was simply off point.
as i said, the bill doesn’t just apply to terrorists. the entire point of the bill is to set up procedures to determine who is a terrorist and who isn’t, because that’s what the supreme court required.
that’s what i meant by getting your facts straight
So, let’s hear from the republicans:
What limits in the ‘war on terror’ would you absolutely fight for as a matter of principle, if the Bush admin tried to exceed them?
Unlimited torture of prisoners? All the way down to actually ripping off body parts, using disease, chemicals, electricity, etc.?
Starvation all the way to killing them?
Rape of detainees by object, other prisoners, animals, etc.?
Torturing friends and family of prisoners in front of them?
Bombing their villages, killing masses if they won’t talk?
Having zero constraints on our forces having to prove they’re guilty of anything, indefinite imprisonment secret from courts?
I’d like to hear the list not of what you’ll ‘compromise’ to leave off the table, but what you absolutely will fight for on principle.
Of course, if you list *anything*, you are subject to the same attacks that you are coddling the terrorists and/or endangering America.
Craig234,
Well, if you were paying attention the Bill amends the War Crimes Act and defines what is off limits. I would have added it was torture to listen to liberal dribble for more than thirty minutes a day – but that is just me.
AJStrata