any democrat would be worse and here's an example.
"Late last week Byron Dorgan, the North Dakota Democrat, offered what he assumed was an uncontroversial amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization bill under consideration in the Senate," Matthew Continetti writes in the Weekly Standard.
"The amendment would have increased to $50 million the reward 'for the capture, or information leading to the capture,' of Osama bin Laden. But Senate Republicans noticed something odd about the Dorgan amendment. It contained no mention of a reward for bin Laden's death," Mr. Continetti said.
"John Sununu, the New Hampshire Republican up for re-election next year, quickly introduced his own amendment striking Dorgan's language and replacing it with a $50 million reward for 'the capture or death or information leading to the capture or death' of bin Laden. Sununu's amendment passed by unanimous consent.
"The next morning the Senate's [No. 3] Republican, Jon Kyl of Arizona, went to the Senate floor and pointed out the discrepancy between Dorgan's and Sununu's amendments. Dorgan's emphasis on 'capturing' bin Laden, Kyl said, was illustrative of the Democrats' approach to terrorists. Kyl said Democrats treat the enemy as criminals to be captured and prosecuted, not enemy soldiers to be detained or destroyed. The revised Dorgan amendment passed overwhelmingly.
"The Dorgan episode also illustrates how quickly the terms of a debate can change. Republicans began last week worried that the fight over the defense bill would lead to substantial GOP defections from President Bush's surge policy in Iraq. That didn't happen. Instead Senate Republicans are confident they will be able to defeat every amendment to the bill that contains a congressionally mandated change in Iraq policy. What's more, the Senate Republican leadership is primed to go on offense this week, having identified language in the authorization bill, and in several Democratic amendments to it, that they plan to portray as soft on terrorism." |
