WSJ: Democrats on al Qaeda Wall Street Journal ^ | October 2, 2006 | Editorial
Democrats keep insisting that, whatever their opposition to the war in Iraq, they'd be as tough as anyone in fighting al Qaeda. We'd love to believe this for the country's sake, but then what are Americans to make of last week's Congressional vote on detainee interrogation and military tribunals?
The bill was a compromise between the White House and three GOP Senators who Democrats had been hailing as voices of independent courage only days earlier. But rather than endorse this deal that put limits on interrogation methods (see nearby), Democrats in both houses voted overwhelmingly no. In the House, only 34 Democrats supported the bill, most of those from the South or rural areas, while the entire leadership and 160 Democrats voted no.
Over in the Senate, 32 Democrats opposed the bill, including the leadership and everyone who's been mentioned as a potential Presidential candidate in 2008: Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Russ Feingold. The dozen who voted yes are either up for re-election or from swing states. If an election weren't coming, we doubt there'd have even been that many. The Democratic "ayes" included Senate candidates Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, both partisan liberals on all issues except, suddenly, this one.
This amazing vote only reinforces the Republican argument that, given the chance, Democrats would return to the pre-9/11, law-enforcement model of fighting terrorism. In voting "no," they were opposing aggressive interrogation of even the worst al Qaeda captives. If Democrats fall short of regaining Congress this year, votes like this will be the reason.
More HERE.
No comments:
Post a Comment