The difference between Republicans and Democrats on national security

posted at 4:57 pm on September 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Rarely do we get to see two stories on the same day providing such a clear contrast in the direction the two political parties take in national security.  First, we have Republicans in the Senate offering an amendment to keep funds from the White House for the closing of Guantanamo Bay and the relocation of 148 of the worst terrorist detainees we’ve captured.  The amendment would extend a ban Congress imposed in the spring when Barack Obama and his team attempted to bypass the legislature on their Gitmo-closing project:

Senators are again trying to stop the Obama administration from closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility by blocking the money needed to transfer the remaining and most notorious prisoners to the United States, Sen. James. M. Inhofe said Tuesday.

The restriction is part of the Defense Appropriations Bill now being debated on the Senate floor and would extend similar legislation that expires Oct. 1.

Mr. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican, supports the bill and thinks it will pass because the 148 remaining prisoners are what he calls “the real bad guys,” including accused al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

“I think we may be in a (good) position,” Mr. Inhofe, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told The Washington Times “America’s Morning News” radio show. “Now that we’re down to the real hardcore, you’ve got to keep that thing open.”

Dianne Feinstein thinks differently, but that’s not a big shock.  She probably will be in the minority, especially since Democrats have already put themselves in a bad enough position over health care and the upcoming cap-and-trade bill.  Voting to bring the worst of the terrorists into American prisons would just about guarantee massive losses in the midterms, if not already certain.

And if that doesn’t do it, the latest effort to punish the telecoms for working with the Bush administration on national security has also hit the floor of the upper chamber:

Four Democratic senators have introduced a bill that would, if passed, repeal the legal immunity afforded the telecommunications industry for their participation in President George W. Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program.

Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) announced the measure Monday. In a release, they said the bill “eliminates retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that allegedly participated in President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program.”

The four senators, all liberal Democrats, emphasized that they believed granting the industry immunity violated the law and due process.

They have great timing.  The recent exposure of two terror plots by al-Qaeda this month highlighted how important those communication intercepts were in protecting American lives.  Even though the American media chose not to focus on this, the conviction of al-Qaeda plotters in the 2007 conspiracy to blow up several flights from the UK to the US relied heavily on these intercepts as well as in uncovering the planned attack, as the UK’s Channel 4 and Wired Magazine reported this month:

The three men convicted in the United Kingdom on Monday of a plot to bomb several transcontinental flights were prosecuted in part using crucial e-mail correspondences intercepted by the U.S. National Security Agency, according to Britain’s Channel 4.

The e-mails, several of which have been reprinted by the BBC and other publications, contained coded messages, according to prosecutors. They were intercepted by the NSA in 2006 but were not included in evidence introduced in a first trial against the three last year.

That trial resulted in the men being convicted of conspiracy to commit murder; but a jury was not convinced that they had planned to use soft drink bottles filled with liquid explosives to blow up seven trans-Atlantic planes — the charge for which they were convicted this week in a second trial.

According to Channel 4, the NSA had previously shown the e-mails to their British counterparts, but refused to let prosecutors use the evidence in the first trial, because the agency didn’t want to tip off an alleged accomplice in Pakistan named Rashid Rauf that his e-mail was being monitored. U.S. intelligence agents said Rauf was al Qaeda’s director of European operations at the time and that the bomb plot was being directed by Rauf and others in Pakistan.

The NSA later changed its mind and allowed the evidence to be introduced in the second trial, which was crucial to getting the jury conviction. Channel 4 suggests the NSA’s change of mind occurred after Rauf, a Briton born of Pakistani parents, was reportedly killed last year by a U.S. drone missile that struck a house where he was staying in northern Pakistan.

Which party is serious about national security, and which party isn’t?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Ya,Liberals view Terrorists as Freedom Fighters,

and,

Republicans view Terrorrists as Target Rich Enviroment,
a good terrorrist is a dead terrorist!!

canopfor on September 29, 2009 at 4:59 PM

The Democrats cannot be trusted with national security.

It’s frightening to think what incompetent, corrupt Democrats have leaked to our enemies, both in the open and under the table.

NoDonkey on September 29, 2009 at 5:01 PM

Republicans see America’s enemies as overseas. Democrats always keep their eyes on the prize and consider Americans their enemies. Seriously, can you imagine any politician describing whole swaths of the Muslim world as evil and rapacious such as in the health care debate?

rob verdi on September 29, 2009 at 5:02 PM

Well nit wit Mitt opens his mouth and again sticks his foot right in it. Mike Steele rightly chastised The Messiah for flying off the Denmark to kiss some Danish as_ and grab for Mayor Daley and the Chi-Town crack dealers, the next Olympics. So what does stupid RomneyCare Mitt do – he says, “Oh no, it’s wonderful that the One is going over there to get the Olympics!” Mitt, I used to love you – do us all a favor – go back to Michigan and sell cars or something. You simply have no political common sense. I love the guy – but dumb is dumb.

Cinday Blackburn on September 29, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Republicans = Stallions

Democrats = Eunuchs

PappaMac on September 29, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Wow.

Which party is made up of Americans, more like it, and which party isn’t.
The dems are pathetic. Do they have any clue what they are supposed to be doing up there on that hill?!

bridgetown on September 29, 2009 at 5:04 PM

“Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) were convicted of Treason against the United States of America today…

… and were stripped and left naked in the mountains of Afghanistan.”

Seven Percent Solution on September 29, 2009 at 5:06 PM

Oh,and let this be a Teachable moment,never again to believe
Liberal lies that they have any credibility as far as Nation
al Security is concerned,or Foreign policy for that matter!!

canopfor on September 29, 2009 at 5:06 PM

“Oh no, it’s wonderful that the One is going over there to get the Olympics!”

Mitt Romney said that? White guilt. There is no other explanation. He’s terrified of being called a racist. Therefore, he’s not fit to lead. Go away, Mitt. …paging Sarah Palin…come in…

bridgetown on September 29, 2009 at 5:06 PM

Which party is serious about national security, and which party isn’t?

Sort of like who’s buried in Grant’s tomb?

jwolf on September 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM

Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

Hopefully these four fools will be turned out of office.

GarandFan on September 29, 2009 at 5:07 PM

That’s “Gelding”, Pappa. Horses without nuts.

BobMbx on September 29, 2009 at 5:08 PM

They should announce that they will only wiretap and scrutinize information for all of America, except for congress. Any terrorist information received over the “wire”, and pertaining to congress will not be monitored.
They would squeal like pigs….

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 5:08 PM

I heard the last part of a news report today where a high level administration official actually called the Gitmo terrorists… “refugees”.

I’ll try to find it and post it here, unless someone already has.

TXUS on September 29, 2009 at 5:10 PM

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 5:08 PM

I’m hoping there are some resourceful young ones, like the acorn stingers….setting up recording devices all over the capitol. Every office, every bathroom.
Shine the light. Illegal or not. Shine it.

bridgetown on September 29, 2009 at 5:10 PM

TXUS on September 29, 2009 at 5:10 PM

Okay, that is repulsive.

bridgetown on September 29, 2009 at 5:11 PM

Well,ya know according to the Liberal State Runned Media,
the Bush Administration were eve dropping on average Amer
icans and journalists,(Sarc).

canopfor on September 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM

how about Immunity for Chris Dodd on his bank fraud and loans?

SDarchitect on September 29, 2009 at 5:12 PM

The Liberal democrats are playing for the other team.

jukin on September 29, 2009 at 5:13 PM

Now that the occupancy has been scaled back to the worst 148, maybe we could use some of the spare space for meetings like the G20 that just ended in Pittsburgh. The protesters could save money by buying one way tickets to the demonstrations.

meci on September 29, 2009 at 5:13 PM

Out of curiousity,does the Liberal Party know that
the Western world is at WAR with the Jihadys!!

canopfor on September 29, 2009 at 5:14 PM

The One Reason I voted for McCain.

lavell12 on September 29, 2009 at 5:15 PM

The republicans have a dual responsibilty to protect the country from enemies both foreign and democrats.

fourdeucer on September 29, 2009 at 5:17 PM

Funny how conservatives support big government all of the sudden.

AJB on September 29, 2009 at 5:18 PM

I appreciate the work the NSA has done for us, and I also appreciate that the wiretapping process will be legal in the future (if I understand the last paragraph of the Wired article yet).

It is heartening to see that terrorists are being preemptively caught, yet a federal government empowered with the ability to monitor all communications without oversight is quite scary. Does anyone have more information on the legality and tactics of the current program?

Black Yoshi on September 29, 2009 at 5:19 PM

VDH gives a broad picture of what Ed talks about. Link here.

So here we are in yet the latest round of perpetual peace, this time overseen by a postnational, messianic Barack Obama. Serial apologies, engagement with dictators, the trashing of his predecessor, and calls for a newly empowered United Nations are all part of a sophisticated soft power that has replaced the old Bush “smoke ’em out,” “dead or alive” reductionism.

We are more likely now to put CIA interrogators on trial than to arrest and berate new terrorists. Dick Cheney, not Osama bin Laden, has become the new national threat. George W. Bush has been reduced to Orwell’s Emmanuel Goldstein, the “He did it” collective menace at whom we are supposed to yell out in hatred each morning. We now live in an era of renewed appeasement, faith in the United Nations, no “inordinate fear,” and all the usual tired slogans.

also here:

So there is no need to mention what follows next in this tired old script. We may experience another attack like 9/11, given that many terrorists must now believe that the United States either cannot or will not go after them in the manner of the last eight years.

Many jihadists must feel that the new government in Washington is more likely to contextualize their hatred than ensure it does not spread or materialize into war. Regional bad actors — take your pick, from Ahmadinejad to Chávez to Kim to Putin — may feel it is about time to make regional adjustments in the balance of power, given their impressions that the United States is almost sympathetic to their frustrations and believes that Bush ineptness and bad faith, not the intrinsic agendas of such antidemocratic, ambitious powers, caused prior tension.

And once we experience such “adventurism,” the reaction is just as scripted. We will want tougher CIA interrogators to ensure there is no more suicide mass murdering. Attorney General Eric Holder will go the way of Louis Johnson. Congress will hold hearings on who shut down Guantanamo and freed the terrorists. White papers will be issued detailing how the Obama administration curtailed proactive national-security measures. Committees will blast the creation of needless “firewalls” between agencies. Senators will call for more aid to Colombia or Georgia or South Korea or Israel or (fill in the blank).

The cycle will play out as in the past, because, in this age of enlightenment, affluence, and leisure, we just cannot accept that human nature remains the same and thus predictable. It remains too depressing to concede that for a few evil opportunists good will is seen not as magnanimity to be appreciated, but as weakness to be tested. And who but a dunce would believe that continual military preparedness is far cheaper — and more humane — than the perpetual “peace dividend” and lowering of our defenses?

VibrioCocci on September 29, 2009 at 5:19 PM

These companies should absolutely be stripped of their retroactive immunity. They violated the law and violated the trust of their customers and were rewarded for it by the Bush Administration.

mr_B on September 29, 2009 at 5:20 PM

Funny how conservatives support big government all of the sudden.

AJB on September 29, 2009 at 5:18 PM

Funny that a lib doesn’t know that constitution expressly states that national security is one of the duties of the government, and can’t distinguish between national security and the feds telling people what kind of health insurance they have to have.

ProfessorMiao on September 29, 2009 at 5:22 PM

The One Reason I voted for McCain.

lavell12 on September 29, 2009 at 5:15 PM

This, Palin, and an unbridled fear of outright facism pretty much made my decision last year.

Now, of course, we’re all just plain racists.

TXUS on September 29, 2009 at 5:22 PM

The problem is that Democrats think Republicans are Terrorists and Terrorists are Freedom fighters.

Browncoatone on September 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Not a huge fan of FISA, sorry. This is prob one of the few issues I agree with liberals on. I just don’t trust the government with that kind of power. Especially, with this administration.

Trent1289 on September 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Tongue-in-cheek: “Released Guantanamo Bay Detainees Assimilate Remarkably Well Into American Neighborhoods” http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/05/released-guantanamo-bay-detainees.html

Mervis Winter on September 29, 2009 at 5:25 PM

The right-thinking American public has a lot to deal with at one time.
At home our government continues to push spending and programs that will hurt our economy at the very time our economy is weak and needs the opposite treatment.
Abroad we are weakening our defenses and military capabilities at the very time our enemies are increasing their aggressive capabilities, and when we should be shoring up our military to meet the obvious threats coming down the road.
Our country is at sea.

GaltBlvnAtty on September 29, 2009 at 5:29 PM

They are not called Dhimmi-crats for nothing, ya know.

Subsunk

Subsunk on September 29, 2009 at 5:30 PM

Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) announced the measure Monday.

The usual suspects.

Johan Klaus on September 29, 2009 at 5:32 PM

Mervis Winter on September 29, 2009 at 5:25 PM

From the article…”One family service provider who gave an ex-detainee a tour of the local day care center said, “In the first five minutes, I think he asked more questions about exit routes in case of fire than most parents ask all year.”"

Tactical information, an essential element of intelligence…and this family service provider will be more than happy to give the ex-Gitmo guy a job at that day-care center?

Never heard of Beslan?

coldwarrior on September 29, 2009 at 5:33 PM

Cinday Blackburn on September 29, 2009 at 5:03 PM

Not that this is on topic to this thread, but since you brought it up, I am compelled to provide the full quote in context, not your editorialized version:

However, Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and 2008 Republican presidential contender, said Obama was right to make an appearance.

“In the current environment, the presence of a head of state is important to get the Games,” Romney, who headed the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah, said, noting that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair had set a new standard by personally lobbying for his country’s succesful 2012 Olympic bid.”

Buy Danish on September 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM

Democrats always keep their eyes on the prize and consider Americans their enemies.

rob verdi on September 29, 2009 at 5:02 PM

Is there something wrong with this characterization?

James on September 29, 2009 at 5:36 PM

These two articles show which party is committed to fake national security posturing. Moving the Guantanamo prisoners will have a small if any effect on “national security” but it allows the Republicans to try to scare the bejesus out of people who are too dumb to pay attention. And there is no evidence that the terrorists in the U.K. were caught with the aid of massive illegal spying by the phone companies. Apparently it was a normal, legal tap that everyone supports.

So, Republicans pro-posturing; Dems pro-civil liberties and the principles on which this country was founded. Clear win for the Ds.

Bleeds Blue on September 29, 2009 at 5:39 PM

Col Jack Jacobs this morning on Fox Business News. weighing in on the Afghanistan Strategy. General McChrystal has asked for 40,000 more troops for mission success in Afghanistan. Col Jacobs says, he will probably get 10,000 more and be told to make do.

Dr Evil on September 29, 2009 at 5:43 PM

Back on topic…

Regarding the despicable move against the Telecoms –

How can one retroactively remove immunity from prosecution? Wouldn’t the Left be outraged if one of their witnesses was given immunity only to have it thrown out when a Republican Administration/Congress came in and decided to trash it and haul the previously immunized person or group to court?

Buy Danish on September 29, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Trent1289 on September 29, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Any e-mail is like being on public airways.

Johan Klaus on September 29, 2009 at 5:49 PM

Bleeds Blue on September 29, 2009 at 5:39 PM

If Gitmo prisoners were moved to your community you and your neighbors would be vulnerable to a Beslan-styled massacre or hostage situation. Do you think it’s worth it?

Keep in mind that the conditions at Gitmo are better than at most Federal prisons and the whole controversy was manufactured. The Alinsky mentored Dems are very good at that.

Buy Danish on September 29, 2009 at 5:50 PM

Which party is serious about national security, and which party isn’t?

OK, I’m sure that the Democrat Party is not serious about national security but to then leap to the conclusion that the Republican Party is serious about national security is a leap too far.

I’d say one sucks and the other one really sucks.

pabarge on September 29, 2009 at 5:53 PM

Bleeds Blue on September 29, 2009 at 5:39 PM
If Gitmo prisoners were moved to your community you and your neighbors would be vulnerable to a Beslan-styled massacre or hostage situation. Do you think it’s worth it?

Keep in mind that the conditions at Gitmo are better than at most Federal prisons and the whole controversy was manufactured. The Alinsky mentored Dems are very good at that.

Buy Danish on September 29, 2009 at 5:50 PM

In theses days of modern instantaneous communications, there’s no reason that terrorists can’t Beslan-ize my neighborhood to get people out of Guantanamo. Long distance terror is just as effective.

Bleeds Blue on September 29, 2009 at 5:54 PM

These two articles show which party is committed to fake national security posturing.

Bleeds Blue343 on September 29, 2009 at 5:39 PM

Your party gave us 9/11. The other party kept it from happening again.

Next?

Del Dolemonte on September 29, 2009 at 5:55 PM

These two articles show which party is committed to fake national security posturing.

Bleeds Blue343 on September 29, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Your party gave us 9/11. The other party kept it from happening again.

Next?

Del Dolemonte on September 29, 2009 at 5:55 PM

I think you got that one backwards, dude.

Bleeds Blue on September 29, 2009 at 5:56 PM

mr_B on September 29, 2009 at 5:20 PM

and if there is another attack, you all will say…’Why didn’t anyone connect the dots?’

cmsinaz on September 29, 2009 at 5:58 PM

I bet dems will be outside the hospital singing songs for terrorists when they get sick and need a transfer to a hopsital near them. They’ll probably be wearing KSM shirts like Che shirts.

meMC on September 29, 2009 at 5:58 PM

I say keep letting out the rope… at the rate they’re descending, 2010 is going to be remembered politically as the year of the massacre.

Griz on September 29, 2009 at 6:01 PM

Democrats: The best friends the terrorists ever had.

Republicans: Absolute spineless dorks, but have the protection of the nation in mind when they’re being absolutely spineless dorks.

ted c on September 29, 2009 at 6:01 PM

Ed, while I wholeheartedly agree with you, when you ask:

“Which party is serious about national security, and which party isn’t?”

I ask you: just how do you suggest the matter be pressed upon the Democrats +/or politicians in general?

You are certainly doing more than your part in bringing this to the attention of the public, buuuuuuut…

Lockstein13 on September 29, 2009 at 6:07 PM

In theses days of modern instantaneous communications, there’s no reason that terrorists can’t Beslan-ize my neighborhood to get people out of Guantanamo. Long distance terror is just as effective.

Bleeds Blue on September 29, 2009 at 5:54 PM

Uh, would you like a mulligan on that one?

Buy Danish on September 29, 2009 at 6:10 PM

I think you got that one backwards, dude.

Bleeds Blue343 on September 29, 2009 at 5:56 PM

Yeah, you’re right. We had many more attacks after 9/11. Can I have some of your sheap tequila?

Actually, kid, as usual I got it exactly right.

bin Laden himself said that the attacks, which al Qaeda started planning in 1996, were supposed to happen on a Democrat President’s watch. Thge only reason they didn’t was because Atta told Ozzie he and his team needed more time to train. Obviously he was right.

But on your 3-ringed world, those plots were conceived of, planned and trained for between in the shirt 8 months between January and September of 2001.

And until the media suppressed them, early polling after the 9/11 attacks showed many more Americans saying it was Clinton’s fault than his successor’s. Which was also borne out by Bush’s 90% job approval.

Move along.

Del Dolemonte on September 29, 2009 at 6:13 PM

Funny how conservatives support big government all of the sudden.

AJB on September 29, 2009 at 5:18 PM

Absolutely NOTHING funny about National Security. Ever met a conservative who didn’t think it was the Government’s JOB to secure this nation?
Wow, you are Thick in the head. I, for one, have Never known a conservative who would want to withhold tax dollars when it came to Securing our nation. Educate yourself, Please!!!!

bridgetown on September 29, 2009 at 6:14 PM

Funny how conservatives support big government all of the sudden.

AJB on September 29, 2009 at 5:18 PM

Ever read the constitution, cupcake?…the feds have just a couple of jobs to do…one of them, to protect our borders.
Try reading it someday, you might be surprised how much the government does, that shouldn’t, and how much it should, but doesn’t…

right2bright on September 29, 2009 at 6:18 PM

Back on topic…

Regarding the despicable move against the Telecoms –

How can one retroactively remove immunity from prosecution? Wouldn’t the Left be outraged if one of their witnesses was given immunity only to have it thrown out when a Republican Administration/Congress came in and decided to trash it and haul the previously immunized person or group to court?

Buy Danish on September 29, 2009 at 5:44 PM

This has already more or less happened, think DOJ, Holder and CIA interrogations. The Dhimmcrats act as if they will never be out of power and therefore they have no worries about retribution.

Kind of worrisome when you think about it, why would they think their hold on power indefinate? Especially with BHO’s affinity for Prez’z for life like Chavez, Putin, Ortega, Zelaya etal.

Creepy.

Archimedes on September 29, 2009 at 6:21 PM

I heard Inhofe on Bill Bennet this morning. He said that when Barack Obama killed that defense shield in Poland it made the US less safe. The shield in Europe was intended to protect our eastern coast, not just eastern Europe.

Yes, there is a difference.

Terrye on September 29, 2009 at 6:25 PM

I’d love for one of our Leftist types here to tell us how Bush would have prevented the 9/11 attacks WITHOUT using warrantless wiretaps, racial profiling, etc.

9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta and his colleague spent the night of 9/10 in Portland, Maine. Early on the morning of 9/11 they caught a commuter flight from the Jetport to Boston. The gate agent was immediately suspicious of them, but let them fly into history anyway. Because he was PC.

It’s haunted him ever since, knowing that had he racially profiled, he would have prevented one of the attacks.

Del Dolemonte on September 29, 2009 at 6:26 PM

Wow.

Which party is made up of Americans, more like it, and which party isn’t.
The dems are pathetic. Do they have any clue what they are supposed to be doing up there on that hill?!

bridgetown on September 29, 2009 at 5:04 PM

Believe it or not, some americans really are democrats. and some americans live in NYC, and LA. liberals, maybe…but americans nonetheless.

ernesto on September 29, 2009 at 6:26 PM

But on your 3-ringed world, those plots were conceived of, planned and trained for between in the shirt 8 months between January and September of 2001.
Del Dolemonte on September 29, 2009 at 6:13 PM

And don’t forget that Jamie Gorelick, who set up the wall between the F.B.I. and C.I.A. worked in the Bush Administration.

Oh wait! She worked for Clinton. My bad.

Buy Danish on September 29, 2009 at 6:28 PM

Del Dolemonte,

Obviously 9-11 was planned, financed and trained for between Jan. 2001 and Sep. 11, 2001. Bush dismantled all of the Clinton administrations wonderful anti-terrorism programs which allowed 9-11 to happen. We never had any terrorism before Bush. In all seriousness, the one thing Bush should be ashamed of is not completely getting rid of all of Clinton’s idiotic policies and canning every hold over.

Howcome on September 29, 2009 at 6:34 PM

Believe it or not, some americans really are democrats. and some americans live in NYC, and LA. liberals, maybe…but americans nonetheless.

ernesto on September 29, 2009 at 6:26 PM

But those are small “a” americans, not good Americans.

Jeff from WI on September 29, 2009 at 6:37 PM

And don’t forget that Jamie Gorelick, who set up the wall between the F.B.I. and C.I.A. worked in the Bush Administration.

Oh wait! She worked for Clinton. My bad.

Buy Danish on September 29, 2009 at 6:28 PM

Any serious investigation of the 9/11 attacks would have demanded that Ms. Gorelick be put on the stand to testify under oath about the actions she took that hamstrung the intel agencies from talking to each other.

Instead, the Democrats chose her to be on the Commission itself. Where she would never have to answer those questions. Whitewash, pure and simple.

When the evil John Ashcroft called this fact to the Commission’s attention during his own testimony, he was roundly booed by the Democrat spectators in the gallery.

Speaking of the “9/11 Commission”, the Democrats also made a big deal out of the fact that Chimpy Bush testified to the Commission behind closed doors with Darth Cheney at his side. However, they totally ignored the fact that Bill Clinton refused to testify to the same gang without Bruce Lindsey at his side.

Double standard, you say? But of course.

Del Dolemonte on September 29, 2009 at 6:38 PM

Here’s a link where an Obama administration official calls the Gitmo terrorists “refugees”. Unbelievable.

Christian Conservative on September 29, 2009 at 6:40 PM

Believe it or not, some americans really are democrats. and some americans live in NYC, and LA. liberals, maybe…but americans nonetheless.

ernesto on September 29, 2009 at 6:26 PM

Tell that to New York resident Katha Pollitt, who “writes” for The Nation. After the 9/11 attacks, her daughter wanted to display an American flag outside their home. Absolutely not, Mom said.

Here’s what she wrote…it’s called “Put Out No Flags”

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011008/pollitt

excerpt

My daughter, who goes to Stuyvesant High School only blocks from the World Trade Center, thinks we should fly an American flag out our window. Definitely not, I say: The flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war.

Del Dolemonte on September 29, 2009 at 6:49 PM

Which party is serious about national security, and which party isn’t?

I’ll take Obvious Political Questions for $1000, Alex.

Chris of Rights on September 29, 2009 at 7:23 PM

How the heck is the removal of immunity for a criminal charge NOT ex post facto and/or bill of attainder?

These Commies need to stop pissing on the constitution.

Oh, but at least we can get D.C. a representative, right?

cackcon on September 29, 2009 at 7:25 PM

“Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

Does this not say it all? Does not the “D” in their title speak volumes regarding their mindset?? The “D” eliminates them from any credibility.

royzer on September 29, 2009 at 7:31 PM

If you ask me…THERE ISN’T THAT MUCH DIFFERENCE! ALL THESE PARTIES WANT IS MARTIAL LAW! And just look at what is going on in Montana…BLACKWATER ANYONE?!

BobAnthony on September 29, 2009 at 7:56 PM

Hey Ed, I sent a tip to you guys linking to the one lonely news story (Boston Herald) about how the Democrats this summer quietly relaxed the prison restrictions on convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid.

In other words, rewarding him for his hatred of America.

Del Dolemonte on September 29, 2009 at 9:32 PM

send the democrats to gitmo

workingforpigs on September 29, 2009 at 11:17 PM