McCain: About to Get Rolled?

That's the question that I have regarding the CIA interrogation flap that's developing in Washington. My hunch is that that's exactly what's going to happen. One of the reasons I say this is this Bill Kristol opinion from yesterday's FNS roundtable:

Incidentally, I'm very concerned about U.S. soldiers in the field. I was with the parents of a young man serving in Iraq last night. They're for Bush, not for McCain. Do we think if we polled the soldiers in Iraq, they would be with McCain on this, not with Bush? I rather doubt it. This is an issue of how tough we can be on the very few high-value terrorists whom we choose to have the CIA interrogate. It has nothing to do with the military treatment of other military prisoners. And on this issue, I think the country is with Bush. I think the enlisted men in the military are with Bush. And Bush is going to win.

I haven't seen any polling on this but I'd have to bet that America is split 75-25 on using aggressive measures in breaking the KSM's & Abu Zubaydahs, with McCain's being the indefensible position in this fight. I don't know why McCain's chosen this position because I don't see the merit of his position. Frankly, I only see McCain's position as one of a stubborn, wrong-headed man.

Why anyone would care about anything other than getting the information out a terrorist's head, regardless of what the 'World Community' thinks? The 'World Community' has the luxury of pontificating on this issue because they aren't AQ's primary targets. President Bush doesn't have the luxury of living in this hypothetical world. His mission is simple: prevent terrorists from executing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. He's had a perfect record on the issue since the world changed on 9/11. In fact, the interrogators' use of aggressive, though not abusive, methods have led to Abu Zubaydah giving up 9/11 mastermind KSM, as well as several other HVT's.

Let's look at another Kristol clear comment:

It's a tough vote for Democrats. The Democrats are living in a world where they think having John McCain on their side gives them a huge amount of political cover. I don't buy it. If you're in a real competitive Senate race and a Republican says, "I'm with Bush, and I'm with the CIA director, and I'm with the intelligence officers in the field who have to buy litigation insurance now because of the illegal uncertainty, and I think we need to be tough on people like Abu Zubaydah," what's the Democratic Party going to say? "Well, gee, I'm with Senator McCain." Well, fine, but what's your substantive position? If your substantive position is you can't be tough with the Al Qaida terrorists, that is a winning fight for Bush, and McCain being on the opposite side of it is hurting him badly.

I totally agree with Mr. Kristol's assessment that Democrats can't hide behind McCain. McCain's is an idefensible position, which makes his staking out this position all the more puzzling. That Democrats would oppose this isn't surprising. Nothing in their public statements say that they're more worried about getting every bit of information from the terrorists than they are about the 'World Community's' opinion. We shouldn't seek out opportunities to anger the 'World Community' but we shouldn't cave to their opinions when it's a life-and-death situation, either. And this is a life-and-death situation.

WALLACE: So you're saying that even if they're fighting amongst themselves, the Republicans, the very fact that they're talking about the war on terror and not the war in Iraq and not other issues is good for Republicans?

KRISTOL: Yes, because the actual Republican candidates in the 50 congressional districts and 10 Senate states that are really at risk, or in play, are not going to be fighting among themselves. They're going to be with Bush. And the Democrats are against Bush. Now, it makes them feel better here in the Capitol to have McCain and Lindsey Graham with them. But in the real races in Missouri and in Minnesota and in Washington state, where there are real races going on, I think it's a winning fight for the Republicans.

HUME: And not only that, Chris. That's not the only fight that's going on, the one over detainee treatment and trial. There's also a battle going on over whether the president should have the legal authority granted him specifically by Congress to conduct this electronic eavesdropping on telephone calls from suspected Al Qaida people into and out of the United States without a warrant. The public, I think, widely supports that program. The Democrats in the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, for example, made a tremendous stink in opposition to it, accused the president of all kinds of things. You've got Leahy and Senator Feingold and those people out arguing against the president on this. And that goes into the memory banks, as well, I think. And so, it's not just this one fight. Democrats are against the president on a number of issues here.

Bill and Brit have nailed the essence of this issue. They've shown the folly of the Democrats' position on the Patriot Act, the NSA intercept program and the Democrats' belligerance on last week's Senate Judiciary vote passing the NSA intercept legislation. Here's the Washington Post's account of the NSA intercept legislation:

With prodding from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL), the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10 to 8 along party lines to approve a bill negotiated with the White House to allow, but not require, Bush to submit the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program to a secret court for constitutional review.

That bill, which could come before the Senate next week, is considered by many to be a ratification of the administration's current surveillance program, which monitors the overseas phone calls and e-mails of some Americans when one party is suspected of links to terrorism. The program has been attacked by Democrats and civil liberties advocates as an excessive encroachment on Americans' privacy.

If Democrats are planning on defending themselves on the NSA intercept program by saying this legislation is "an excessive encroachment on Americans' privacy", then they'll get beaten up badly by the voters this fall. Recall the nation's reaction to the NSA program when the NY Times article broke? Poll after poll after poll showed that 70+ percent of the American people sided with President Bush on the issue. I've seen nothing that suggests they've changed their minds.

When the final summary gets written on the McCain-Graham-Warner flap gets written, it'll be said that the President won because he was on the side of the angels on this issue.

---

Posted Monday, September 18, 2006 7:35 AM

August 2006 Posts

No comments.