Dems Strong On Defense: Just Not For Us
Dan Riehl

According to the Washington Post, while America is struggling with two difficult wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the war on terror, the Democrats are planning to broaden the front by increasing their attacks  ... on Bush. And they intend to do it in ways that will weaken America's ability to fight terrorism anywhere it is found.

Despite the threats, Democratic lawmakers expect to open new fronts against the president when they return from their spring recess, including politically risky efforts to quickly close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; reinstate legal rights for terrorism suspects; and rein in what Democrats see as unwarranted encroachments on privacy and civil liberties allowed by the USA Patriot Act.

The Blame America First crowd apparently now sees it's mandate as undermining America's ability to fight terrorism. The liberals at the head of the party will fight to give rights they don't have or deserve to non-citizen terrorists at the very same time they connive to cut off funds for our own troops in the field.

"I suppose there's always a risk of going too far," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), "but the risk of not going is far greater."

You think so, Hoyer? Just wait. Too liberal and inside the beltway Democrats have a rude awakening in their future. If they succeed in undermining this country the way they would like, after we get hit again, it is the Democrat Party that will have blood on its hands. ...

***

Democrats To Widen Their Offensive 
Ed Morrissey

Now that they have settled into their offices, the Democrats now want to focus even more on their main enemy. They plan to challenge the Bush administration on a host of issues, most of which have direct correlation to key special interest groups that form their base:

Even as their confrontation with President Bush over Iraq escalates, emboldened congressional Democrats are challenging the White House on a range of issues -- such as unionization of airport security workers and the loosening of presidential secrecy orders -- with even more dramatic showdowns coming soon.

For his part, Bush, who also finds himself under assault for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the conduct of the Iraq war and alleged abuses in government surveillance by the FBI, is holding firm. Though he has vetoed only one piece of legislation since taking office, he has vowed to veto 16 bills that have passed either the House or the Senate in the three months since Democrats took control of Congress. ...

Backed by a unified party and fresh from a slew of legislative victories, Democratic leaders appear to believe there is hardly any territory they cannot stray onto, a development that has Republican political operatives gleeful and some Democrats worried. Rep. Tom Cole (Okla.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, warned of a "political price" at the polls: "If they let their constituents and their ideology drive them past the point where the American people are comfortable, they will find how quickly the voters will react."

Can they overshoot? Most definitely, and when they do, they will hand on silver platters opportunities for Bush to look presidential. Leon Panetta understands the danger. The Democrats have yet to prove they can govern, and they need to stick to their basics before rushing into the entire national-security panoply. He advises them to stick ti health care, immigration, and social programs and build a record of success there first. ...

George Bush will be warming up his veto pen and preparing for battle himself. The Democrats don't have the votes to override him on any of the important issues, and may wind up making the same mistake Newt Gingrich made in 1995.

***

Democrats win: Here come the constituency payoffs
Bryan Preston

The Democrats are just doing what any party does when they win power: Payback the folks that brung you. And no one should mistake voters with the folks that brung ‘em. The Democrats certainly aren’t.

First payoff: Unions.

Even as their confrontation with President Bush over Iraq escalates, emboldened congressional Democrats are challenging the White House on a range of issues — such as unionization of airport security workers and the loosening of presidential secrecy orders — with even more dramatic showdowns coming soon.

Would unionizing airport security workers make us safer or make the system work better? That seems unlikely, to say the least. It would make airport security workers practically unfirable. But it would pay off the unions that strongarm members–in ways other political movement leaders can’t–into donating to the Democrat cause.

Second payoff: Terrorists.

Democratic lawmakers expect to open new fronts against the president when they return from their spring recess, including politically risky efforts to quickly close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; reinstate legal rights for terrorism suspects; and rein in what Democrats see as unwarranted encroachments on privacy and civil liberties allowed by the USA Patriot Act.

And –

They also want to reopen last year’s law creating military commissions to restore the right of habeas corpus to terrorism suspects and to revise rules that allow convictions to be based in part on evidence yielded by interrogation methods that critics call torture.

The Gitmo detainees are captured illegal enemy combatants. They were captured battling against US troops during the war in Afghanistan, or in places like Pakistan, where they plotted attacks against Americans. They are not US citizens, and they are not common criminals. Granting them access to the rights afforded US citizens accused of common crime may be the most idiotic idea currently under discussion. And the Democrats are hell-bent to see it happen. Clearly they’re putting the rights of captured enemy combatants, who have never in our history been granted class access to civilian courts, above the rights and safety of the American people. Clearly, the Democrats believe they’re going to benefit from this somehow. The Democrats might be naive enough to believe that granting capture enemy combatants access to civilian courts would win the US favor with the so-called international community. And it might, a little. But will it help us win the war? Is this something average Americans even support?

There’s more in the story, ...