Urbin Report

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Hugh Hewitt on the Senate Democrat Temper Tantrum.

Here's the beginning:

With the Senate shut-down engineered by Harry Reid today, Senate Democrats have all but conceded their rout over the past five days. The indictment of Lewis Libby brought them only confused looks and scratched heads from America at large, and Rove had escaped. Then the president nominated an extraordinarily qualified jurist and rolled out a comprehensive strategy on avian flu preparedness. Oh, the economy grew by 3.8% GDP in the thrid (hurricane) quarter.

On top of it, Chuck Schumer's outrageous attack on Judge Alito and the DNC's scurrilous anti-Italian-American insinuation (so raw that even Chris Matthews could not swallow it) had opened the window into the Democratic destruction machine too wide. See Michael Barone's analysis on why an attack on a grandson of Italy was stupid and then consider how that is playing in New Jersey and Virginia, where elections are looking for those statehouses in a week. Then Barbara Boxer attempoted to make an argument against Alito on the nets, and the Gang of 14's Lindsey Graham and Michael DeWine preemptively announced support for the constitutional option if Dems resurrected their extra-constitutional filibuster.


In the blink of an eye, all of last Thursday's promise was gone and Dems were reeling, and Judicary Committee Democrats in particular are looking at another round of hearings where the nominee stands relative to his opponents as a teacher does her first graders.

Go read the rest. As I've said before, it's not enough just be against the adminstration, you need to be for something.

Update: Byron York nails it:
Perhaps the best explanation for the Democrats' decision to virtually shut down the Senate today can be found in one passage from CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's news conference last Friday:

This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel....The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction. And I think anyone who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.


Fitzgerald's statement, and his decision to confine the indictment of Lewis Libby to charges of lying and obstruction, threatened to dash the Democrats' hope of using the CIA leak case as an opportunity to re-debate the reasons for going to war in Iraq. So the party, or at least its leaders in the Senate, has decided to use another route, the shutdown of the Senate, as a way to achieve that goal.


Muir nails it in three panel format:


Glenn Reynolds is a bit too polite to come out to say that Reid is acting like a spoiled child and brings up that the investigation that Reid wants needs to go places that Reid and the democrats don't want it to go:
...the investigation needs to go way back before the war, to 1998, when a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which provided that:

(1) On September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran, starting an 8 year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops and ballistic missiles against Iranian cities.

(2) In February 1988, Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their home villages in the Anfal campaign, killing an estimated 50,000 to 180,000 Kurds.

(3) On March 16, 1988, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iraqi Kurdish civilian opponents in the town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 Kurds and causing numerous birth defects that affect the town today.

...

(9) Since March 1996, Iraq has systematically sought to deny weapons inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) access to key facilities and documents, has on several occasions endangered the safe operation of UNSCOM helicopters transporting UNSCOM personnel in Iraq, and has persisted in a pattern of deception and concealment regarding the history of its weapons of mass destruction programs.

(10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.

(11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'
...

It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq's transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq's foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq's foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein's regime.



There is a lot more that the democrats want ignored, so go read the whole thing.