Remaining true to history - [A call for Daschle to resign]

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 3-29-03 | BY THOMAS ROESER

[Oldeconomybuyer]

All arguments against the war--including mine--are moot now. The decision has been made, and our job is not to nurse misgivings but to win in Iraq.

Compared to what occurred 62 years ago, the anti-war movement in the United States is scanty and timorous. In 1941, it was of enormous influence. The ''America First'' movement was based in this city, and its rallies featured the hero Charles Lindbergh and Sears Roebuck tycoon retired Gen. Robert Wood, among others. The movement extended throughout the nation and included young John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts. But Dec. 7 brought an end to all that. The issue became a ''time for unity.'' As indeed it should be today, as our troops are engaged in the struggle in Iraq. Only one point remains unsettled. But I'll get to that in a moment.

America has always been a generous nation with its young treasure--too generous, perhaps, but we have tied an idealistic spirit to enlightened self-interest. Other nations went to war abroad for abject material ends. Not us. Our willingness to do battle in World War I was ''to make the world safe for democracy.''

We did not covet any foreign territory; indeed the president who led us into the war, Woodrow Wilson, was a visionary who wished only to build a league of nations that he hoped would keep the peace.

He was wrong to believe that other nations shared his principles; wrong, too, to suppose that this nation would buy his dream. But we went to war in 1917, and while it didn't solve much, the price we paid had a brave and noble earnestness to it. Our men returned home, and we vowed never again to succumb to a summons to war by eloquence and disarming words. We didn't, either. Franklin Roosevelt couldn't sell us: Pearl Harbor did.

We fought the second World War not for soaring fantasies but to punish Japan, which struck us treacherously and treated our captives with animalistic depravity. Defeating racist Germany, which declared war on us first, by the way, turned out to be a bonanza for the world because it was developing a weapon that could have led to mass extinction. We won that war and took no indemnities or lands. Then we discovered that the Soviet Union, with whom we were allied, intended to conquer for communism--either by seduction or arms. Again we went forth, applying the policy of containment in Europe, laced with beneficence in the Marshall Plan. Our goal was not to take lands but to encourage peoples to be free. Captive nations rallied to our ideals, while in Korea we refused to allow even a Chinese invasion with seeming irresistible numbers to conquer.

Vietnam was a loss and convinced some that we were in danger of overextension, a question that is still unanswered. But now, as it appears that only America can save the world from terrorism, we are ready to go forward. I would hope that we would forsake what is ridiculously called the United Nations. It is merely an international Rotary Club, and to spend time courting its members is to see our labor derided with ingratitude. If we indeed must save the world from terrorism, let us do so without pleading for support from this vast, gaseous canyon where most diplomats are disgusting demagogues or shuffling supplicants.

One job remains uncompleted now that we are resolved to win this war. It involves the senior senator from South Dakota, Tom Daschle, who has said that the death of a single soldier would be the fault of President George W. Bush.

Daschle should resign as Senate minority leader. No one should lead a party who is so insensitive to the demands of national unity. Whether or not Daschle steps down or his party removes him, any additional words from him should be regarded as irrelevant. What is important now is that we triumph and show the world that Iraq's chamber of horrors will not stand.

[G.Mason]

One can only hope.

[Caipirabob]

WOW! This is news. The Chicago Sun-Times, the more liberal-wakko sister paper to our own SoFlo fishwrap the "Sun Sentinel" calling for Daschle to step down?

Very surprised...

[Fearless Flyers]

"Poultry waste and all agricultural waste threatens the security of our Nation, and we can help Americans get back to work by addressing this issue" Tom Daschle January, 2002

Copied from the archives of CNN, Wolf Blitzer, during an interview with Hillary Clinton. Blitzer played the video, of Daschle’s appearance before some women’s group the previous week, where he adds Chicken $h!t to the National Defense and Homeland Security iniative.

I'd like to thank the Senator for the opportunity to shovel Chicken, $h!t putting me back to work, while at the same time helping to secure our Nation.

Shall we Start securing our Nation by shoveling the the Poutry waste around the Da$$hole?

[Diogenesis]

"Let them laugh for NOW.
You and I still control a thousand stolen FBI files and you own South Dakota's graves' citizens.
Because of them and that there never has been
AND NEVER WILL BE accountability for us."

[hoosiermama]

Hope this attitude is catching.

[Batrachian]

Tom Daschle isn't going anywhere.

It's only a matter of time before the Democratic Party goes into full anti-war mode. Their constituency is there already, and the current "support the troops" mood in the party leadership is going to evaporate once they start to sense any political benefit to opposition.

It's crass (at best) to discuss politics in these times, but something just occured to me that is too good to keep to myself. With the current "support the troops" mood of the Democratic Party leadership, this is a good time for a revitalized Green Party to come out and state that they are the new home of the anti-war movement and take about half the voters away from the Democrats. Anti-war Green candidates running in the '04 elections will wreak havoc on the Democrats.

It's a pleasant pipe dream in these troubled times.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Compared to what occurred 62 years ago, the anti-war movement in the United States is scanty and timorous.

Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy was popular in Britain, and 80% of Americans opposed entry into WWII before Pearl Harbor.

This is post-Sept 11, and America will defeat the Hussain regime; peace can come only then. To be "antiwar" is to be anti-Victory, and to be anti-victory is to be anti-peace.

[Mister Baredog]

Demoncrats know no shame and will never resign if it means relinquishing power. One doesn't have to look back any further than Clinton to prove that. I don't recall a single resignation from ANY demorcat because of anything he did, and as we know there were countless opportunities for someone stand up for integrity, his corruption was certainly spectacular but none of these power hungry weasels ever even contemplated resignation.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I don't think the Dem's will line up behind Daschle. They can see his popularity sinking and the broadsides he's taking from the public and the media. They want no part of it.

[Alas Babylon!]

I dunno. If I recall correctly these protestors didn't seem to mind Clinton's wars and military adventures. There were no mass protests then, and, in fact, people like Mike Farrel and Sheryl Crowe supported Clinton's war on Serbia. But now they're opposed to US action. This AFTER we were attacked on 9/11. I'd say they're anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-conservative. Becuase they do this even in light of the despicable attacks of 9/11, I would throw in anti-American as well.

[gitmo]

I think a lot of us are anti-war. But we recognize that there are far worse things in this world than war: opression, loss of Liberty, and danger of attack from our enemies.

I believe that whenever we go to war, we must apply whatever force is necessary to guarantee victory. That was our failure in Vietnam. We were never willing to conquer North Vietnam. Instead we were attempting to hold them off indefinitely.

[oyez]

No one should lead a party who is so insensitive to the demands of national unity.

That what comes when there is so much emphisis on diversity. When you really, really need the people are out to their own lunch.

[LibKill]

It's only a matter of time before the Democratic Party goes into full anti-war mode. Their constituency is there already,

I frequently check out the lefty sites (know your enemy). You are completely correct, the dims are in anti-war high dudgeon.

This puts the dim candidates in a very bad position. If they don't go completely anti-war they can't get the votes of their lefty 'base'. If they do go anti-war, the patriotic majority will turn away from them in disgust.

It's an interesting time we live in.

[2timothy3.16]

Now that is gross, true terrorism, the stuff of nightmares.

[harpo11]

"This is outrageous, outrageous...." Gosh, if Tom Daschle steps down who'd take his place to provide us with such blithering moronic manical antics?

Well, I quess I don't need to worry, the demos certainly have a fine tradition of such shining, er I mean, shinola leadership that there are probably many eager to take Daschle's place.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

The way the Dem's have home-cooked the SoDak election process, I'm not sure Daschle could be blasted out of office.

[Coop]

Let's hope you're right. But even if he remains, I am encouraged to see a major paper calling for him to resign. His comments went well beyond reasonable dissent.

Next up: Rep. Charlie Rangel.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

anti-Bush, anti-Republican, anti-conservative. Because they do this even in light of the despicable attacks of 9/11, I would throw in anti-American as well.

There is nothing more American than the First Amendment. The great irony of that constitutional provision is that it empowers superficial loudmouths who actually think that the whole Constitution was written by old fogies whose goal was to take the joy out of life.

Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I think a lot of usfont color=red>essentially all of us are anti-war. But we recognize that there are far worse things in this world than war: opression, loss of Liberty, and danger of attack from our enemies.

I believe that whenever we go to war, we must apply whatever force is necessary to guarantee victory. That was our failure in Vietnam. We were never willing to conquer North Vietnam. Instead we were attempting to hold them off indefinitely.

The great military lesson of Vietnam is that playing defense indefinitely may seem possible militarily but is not possible politically. Our officers, who all study military history and thus Vietnam, all know this. They also know that the Democratic Party stabbed the military in the back--with the consequence that the previously apolitical officer's corps is 80% Republican.

The great political lesson of Vietnam is that journalism exists to find fault. "Objectivity" is simply a cover story for journalism's herd instinct to avoid flame wars among themselves--a "go along and get along" system.

Why Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate