Democrats, Wary of War in Iraq, Also Worry About Battling Bush

nytimes.com ^ | 13 September 2002 | Alison Mitchell

[Darlin']

Guess it just never occurs to the dems to do the right thing for the country, to put America first above their own sorry backsides. Of course not, that would require character, conviction and independant thought. Funny how they didn't seem to find it as much a dilema or cause for concern in 1998.

[College Repub]

This is really not an issue to worry about playing politics over.

[Darlin']

You're absolutely right and the dems will find that out come November.

[Ciexyz]

The article got an important point right: the November Congressional elections will focus on the economy. I hope the Republicans are making sure that the public understands their compassionate conservative positions on economic issues.

[COBOL2Java]

to put America first above their own sorry backsides

In other words, to not be Democrats...

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Guess it just never occurs to the dems to do the right thing for the country, to put America first above their own sorry backsides.

Since the onset of Clintonism, Democrats have always put themselves (personally) ahead of the nation -- the unique joining of personal and national interests that one always sees in un-democratic regimes of all stripes, i.e. my interest is the national interest.

The difference now is that Bush has manuevered them into the position that they APPEAR that are putting themselves ahead of the nation publicly. It is not hidden under layers of garbage, class-warfare type, issues. It's right out in the open and highlighted for all to see.

That's what's killing the Democrats in this election, and maybe in the next one as well. And to think, it was some dunder-head, drunk frat-boy who manuevered them into this position. ;-}

[MonroeDNA]

Great post, but...

I believe that we're not supposed to post entire articles from NYT?

[Cicero]

The Dems in congress only drag their feet on a war when a Republican is in charge. They never raised a murmur when clinton involved us in Haiti, Kosovo, and other foolish and even criminal military actions.

[tomahawk]

The DemonCraps are Saddam's protectors, as he continues with his crash program to build operational nukes (which CSIS estimates is months away). The DemonCraps are Saddam's accomplices, as their actions are calculated towards keeping him in power longer. The DemonCraps are the principle support network Saddam has in bringing his Weapons of Mass Murder to fruition.

[Darlin']

"I hope the Republicans are making sure that the public understands their compassionate conservative positions on economic issues. "

It is a more a matter of we Republicans not the Republicans . The President needs all Republicans to help make that point and insure that he has a congress he can work with for the next 6 years.

[Darlin']

Thanks. :) No the NYT is fine, it is the LA Times, the Washington Post and now apparently msnbc.com and Newsweek too. The last two I only recently discoverd when posting other articles

[aristeides]

The difference now is that Bush has manuevered them into the position that they APPEAR that are putting themselves ahead of the nation publicly. It is not hidden under layers of garbage, class-warfare type, issues. It's right out in the open and highlighted for all to see.

They could still avoid it by coming out in support of the president on the war. For some reason I still don't understand, they don't.

[Darlin']

Clearly, all the dim witted dems aren't in south Floriduh, there is a huge cell in DC. Yep, that "dunder-head, drunk frat-boy " is something else. hehehe.

[ijcr]

By the time Winnick, Lay and Martha do the perp walk, between oct and november, 5% unemployment, lower gas prices pressure on the Dems in congress for prescription benefits, a resolution UN for action in Iraq in weeks and a republican victory in the senate looks good.

[Timm]

No kidding! D*mn, the Democrats are two-faced, manipulative, lying, s.o.b., b*st*rds. They are snakes, self-absorbed and America-loathing.

Let's begin with their "questions", shall we? Tell me, if the Democrats had any serious views about foreign policy, if any one of them actually had sincere "objections" to Bush's plans in Iraq, why are we hearing only now about them? If they had qualms with Bush's clear and obvious desire to confront Iraq, why not introduce debate back in January? Why not after Bush spoke at West Point in June?

Can it be more transparent that the Democrats don't care one way or the other whether Iraq gets a nuclear bomb, whether our militant Islamic enemies become stronger and more determined, or even whether the U.N. tries to put the U.S. in serious danger? They have been about as obvious as they can be that they care only about their domestic power. They would trade the security of America and of the international order for their own domestic power. What difference does it make if America is a second-rate power, intimidated by malignant barbarians, if Democrats can increase taxes to their heart's content?

That's why they have paid no attention whatsoever to Bush's clearly stated objectives, objectives stated since last January, until they woke up at the 11th hour. Even now, their "objections" are motivated only because they noticed that Bush might get some political gain from his sincerely motivated defense initiatives, and for no other reason. Rat b*st*rds!

Lest this seem like ranting, just look at this Times article again. The point of this article is to help the Democrats come around gracefully, without looking like they have capitulated opportunistically to the president. That's why the article is about the "debate", as opposed to a more fire-breathing article about Democratic "charges" that Bush's timing is politically motivated. This latter sort of article is what the Times would run if it sensed that Democrats were really serious about opposing Bush, of course. But, like everyone else, the Times can see retreat when it's happening, so we have this article instead. But even this article doesn't pretend the Democrats have real geopolitical concerns. Even this article, printed by their most influential cheerleader, doesn't pretend the Democrats care about anything other than their own domestic political fortunes. And why not? The Democrats don't care about anything else.

This is as plain a demonstration of the Democrats' duplicity and indifference to the strength of the United States as we have seen in in a generation. Yet, we hear relatively little about this. Why?

Yes, I know, because the press agrees with the Democrats about these matters. But what about our side?

What about the slow-witted, flat-footed congressional Republicans? Why aren't they using this opportunity to pound this point home? Now? With attention focussed on the Congress closely, even the press couldn't ignore pointed Republican remarks. So where is Trent Lott, pointing out unmercifully the Democrats' plain opportunism? Why isn't he appearing on television as I write, castigating Democrats for their feckless cynicism? Does anyone think that if the tables were turned Daschle would show any of the hapless Republican tendency to chivalry?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Democrats can only let our country be fatally weakened if we let them. It would be nice, then, if the Republicans took the opportunity to win for once, instead of letting the Democrats escape to pretend they were always on the winning side after all.

[Illbay]

The title and tilt of this article are misleading.

Dems don't give a fig about war with Iraq, EXCEPT as it affects their political aspirations.

Dems don't give a sh*t about the country, only about their power. Period.

[Darlin']

The why is the President's gravitas. The democrats are in a state of disbelief. They just can't fathom the President's approval ratings staying in the upper stratpsphere for so long, especially after they have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at him. They can't deal with his conviction and absolute determination to do what is right for the country. They have to work with a straight talking, honorable man who loves this country and they don't have a clue. So, they play politics with our national interest and if we allow them to get away with it as in the past then we are simply inviting more attacks. President Bush is about truth and they can't handle the truth, it isn't in their playbook of dirty tricks.

[Darlin']

Excellant rant :)

[Darlin']

Well, it is the New York Times after all. :) That place is infested with Hate America leftist.

[Darlin']

From your keyboard to God's ears :)