Carol Platt Liebau: Two Questions for the Democrats

Friday, October 27, 2006

Two Questions for the Democrats

If they're serious about national security issues -- as something other than simply a political tool, that is -- perhaps the Democrats would answer two questions:

(1) Why would Nancy Pelosi consider denying moderate, bipartisan Jane Harman the opportunity to chair the House Intelligence Committee, and replace her with liberal Rep. Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge who was impeached for and convicted of bribery?

(2) How did Senate Democrats – who claimed that dissident Republican Senators Warner, Graham and McCain had their proxy to negotiate with The White House on procedures for interrogating and trying terrorist detainees – come to reject the compromise legislation negotiated by the trio?

7 Comments:

Blogger Duke-Stir said...

The reason for the latter is because the product that was "negotiated" by McCain, et al, was in fact what Bush wanted to begin with. They were our only chance to avoid having the Constitution defecated upon. They failed.

The answer to the former is: for the same reason you disdain McCain. RINO, right? That's the term?

Like Bush hasn't cronied the hell out of Iraq (witness the disaster), the bureaucracy (witness Safavian and others), and our security situation (witness Michael Brown, and countless others). I feel so much safer.

5:07 PM  
Blogger stackja1945 said...

"If they're serious about national security issues.."

Carol, they are not!

5:48 PM  
Blogger Jeremiah Bullfrog said...

Well, if 'ol Nancy puts former impeached judge Alcee Hastings in the Intel committee chair, it'll sure look like she's not really all that interested in "draining the swamp". Rather, she's just lookin' to replace swamp critters with (R)s after their names with swamp critters with (D)s after their names.

7:11 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

So Harman is a DINO? I had no idea.

7:41 AM  
Blogger Cliff said...

Duke-Stir said...
"The reason for the latter is because the product that was "negotiated" by McCain, et al, was in fact what Bush wanted to begin with."

Yea right! Nancy's going to listen to McCain and Bush!

9:40 AM  
Blogger Jeremiah Bullfrog said...

Guess I didn’t make myself clear.

Wasn’t referring to Harman. Was commenting on the inconsistency (hypocrisy if you will) that would be inherent in Pelosi’s pledge to “drain the swamp” (a reference to corruption among the R’s that currently control the House) if, as one of her first acts as Speaker, she were to place a confirmed corrupt official as chair of the House Intelligence committee.

She wouldn’t be “draining the swamp”; the swamp of corruption would still be there, as stinky and slimy as ever. She’d simply be restocking that swamp with a different swamp critter, this one with a (D) after his name.

1:46 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Jeremiah's post was quite clear. I was referring to Duke-Stir's post: "The answer to [Why would Nancy Pelosi consider denying moderate, bipartisan Jane Harman the opportunity to chair the House Intelligence Committee...] is: for the same reason you disdain McCain. RINO, right? That's the term?"

I didn't know that the Left wing of the Democrat party considered Jane to be other than a true-blue Democrat.

In fact, NARAL rates her 100%, the ACLU 73% and is has been "Rated 78% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)". (Source)

So what is her big stumbling block to the Left?

11:32 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google