Which Side Are They On?

Why are the Democrats objecting to language denouncing Iran's statements vis-a-vis Israel? Do the Democrats know right from wrong? Or are they simply angling for political advantage?

Their actions seem to suggest that they a) don't know right from wrong as it's all relative; and b) their objections are politically motivated and not grounded in the facts and circumstances.

The Senate was taking up language on S. Res. 336, a resolution to condemn Iran's Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic and dangerous rhetoric. The following was part of an exchange between Sen. Santorum and Sen. Wyden on the floor debating the issue:

Sen. Santorum: ...I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 336, a resolution to condemn the recent destructive and anti-Semitic statements of the President of Iran which I submitted earlier today. I ask that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Sen. Wyden: Mr. President, while I personally am vehemently opposed to the statements that have been made by the President of Iran, I have been asked by the Members on this side of the aisle to object, and I do so object.

What the heck was objectionable about the resolution? Only that it calls for the Senate to support the Iranian people exercise self-determination over the form of government of their country and that the Senate supports a national referendum. Why are the Democrats scared of siding with the side of liberty and freedom for the Iranian people? What's gotten into them? This used to be the party of liberty and civil rights, yet they refuse to extend that belief to those who yearn for freedom (but simultaneously want to extend civil rights to terrorists - how's that for perverted logic).