September 29, 2006
WELL, WE CAN AT LEAST SAY THAT DEMOCRATS ARE COMPROMISED:
a href=http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?id=2150495>The Blind Leading the Willing: A compromise between those who don't care and those who don't want to know. (Dahlia Lithwick, Sept. 27, 2006, Slate)
Is it still called a compromise when the president gets everything he wanted?A major detainee bill hurtling down the HOV lane in Congress today would determine the extent to which the president can define and authorize torture. The urgency to pass this legislation has nothing to do with a new need to interrogate alleged enemy combatants. The urgency is about an election.
Last time Congress rubber-stamped a major terrorism-related law no one had bothered to read in the first place, we got the Patriot Act.
Which is so popular it was renewed virtually unchanged. Posted by Orrin Judd at September 29, 2006 12:00 AM
Shouldn't we say this is a backlash against those who screamed torture every time the terrorist suspects were touched? The MSM cried wolf too many times, now nobody believes them. Even the Dems understand that Americans are tired of granting rights to people who wanted to kill us. Americans also know that if the interrogators have gone too far and caused a suspect's death, they would be charged with murder. And an American president will not authorize real torture because of the political consequences that follow. Americans trust ourselves more than the terrorists. The Libs trust everybody else, and they rather pamper the terrorists than to keep us, the 'little Eichmans', save.
Posted by: ic at September 29, 2006 2:59 PMAll you need to know about the Patriot Act is that Harry Reid laughed about it (when he thought no one was looking), but then he voted for it. If Dahlia Dimwit can't figure that out, then she's as dumb as Mark Levin says she is.
Posted by: jim hamlen at September 29, 2006 4:43 PM