Unclear on the Concept
sometimes rank opportunism is a virtue
By streiff Posted in Democrats — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The Washington Post complains that the democrat Congress is being too slovenly in its duty to grant extraordinary constitutional protections to foreign terrorists held overseas:
Other congressional sources cite another reason Mr. Skelton is holding back: He and other Democratic leaders do not want to risk complicating the passage of the defense bill on the House floor. Worries about such political scrapes didn't stop those leaders from passing a defense spending bill last month containing a polarizing attempt to micromanage troops in Iraq. Nor have House Democrats hesitated to pick fights with the administration over such issues as whether the hiring and firing of U.S. attorneys was properly managed, or whether Karl Rove and Condoleezza Rice can be compelled to testify about their actions as presidential advisers. Why not fight for the right of habeas corpus? Maybe because it's not really a priority for the Democrats, after all.
Bingo. Read on.
I, for one, am simply gobsmacked that the idea of granting constitutional rights to prisoners of war while we are at war isn’t laughed at in conversations held outside mental institutions. The idea is simply bizarre. During World War II habeas corpus rights were not even extended to US soldiers tried by courts martial in the US or abroad much less to enemy prisoners or enemy nationals tried as war criminals.
But it is heartening to see the figurative light bulb finally come on over the collective heads of the WaPo editorial board.
The fact is the democrats really believe in very little beyond believing they should be elected in 2008.
They are willing to place US troops in jeopardy by encouraging our enemies abroad because they perceive that strengthens their electoral hand for 2008. They are willing to place the nations security at risk (here | here) for the sake of potential votes but they are smart enough to know that the average American is not going to intuitively understand why giving access to US courts to al Qaeda prisoners is a great idea and that it is really hard to fight the president on that ground.
The Post is right. This is not a priority for democrats. For that we can be grateful.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Democrats Gut Homeland Security Protections — Comments (0) »
Unclear on the Concept 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
getting your news from DU and KOS can do that to you.
The bill that was vetoed was the equivelent of a delayed surrender plan. The fact that it had money attached was secondary.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
and the moonbats are out. We spray and spray and spray, but they keep coming back.
Hey, mb, when the Democrats attach a 'we must surrender' rider to the authorization bill, it kind of defeats the purpose, no?
That's a more serious response than your comment deserves. If you want more, say something intelligent.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
I mean, think about it: this poor bugger's been abjectly betrayed and abandoned at sea by his political leaders, and all we can do is mock him?
Poor kid. Here, markie, have a rescue anvil.
Moe
PS: I do not take credit for this blamming, mind you.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Here's the visual...
and for his spare time, it's a game too...
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
I am efficiency personified.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
De Opresso Liber
I had something really, really pungent and profound to say to Markie.
Now he is gone.
You guys are becoming just too quick on the draw.
:>
GB
Wasn't all the money the President asked for in the bill he vetoed????
Sounds like fully funding the troops to me.