Dare Not Politicize the Iraq War . . . Unless You're a Democrat

Human Events Online ^ | September 24, 2003 | Chris Field

[bigsky]

Over the last couple of months, Democrats, particularly the ten liberals running for the party's nomination for 2004, have lambasted President Bush over every single thing that pops up on their Leftist radar.

One topic for which the President has received a good portion of the political heat has been the his handling of the war in Iraq and its aftermath. Democrats claim that the President misled the American people, that there was not plan for post-war Iraq, that we are in some sort of Vietnam-style quagmire, that our troops are demoralized, and a whole host of other media-hyped accusations. They do all of this in order to score political points with their Leftist base and to secure votes to put them in the White House.

Many conservatives consider it repugnant. Democrats ought to also, for it was just one year ago that Senate Democratic leadership hoisted the flag of indignation over what they claimed was the politicization of possible war in Iraq.

Regardless of whether or not the White House politicized an Iraq war, the following remarks made by Sen. Tom Daschle (S.D.), the Senate Democratic Leader, and Sen. Robert Byrd (W.V.), the Democratic Dean of the Senate, are worth consideration.

Sen. Daschle, Congressional Record, S9187, Sept. 25, 2002:

Over the course of the last several weeks, as we have debated national security, the issue of war in Iraq has become more and more prominent. And again, as I go back to my experience in 1991 and 1992, during a similar period – the fall and winter prior and after an election – I expressed the concern that our politics in this climate could easily create a politicized environment and, in so doing, diminish, minimize, degrade the debate on an issue as grave as war.

No one here needs to be reminded of the consequences of war. No one here should have to be admonished about politicizing the debate about war. But . . . over the course of the last several weeks, reports have surfaced which have led me to believe that indeed there are those who would politicize this war. […]

I can't believe any President or any administration would politicize the war. But then I read in the paper this morning, now even the President – the President is quoted in the Washington Post this morning as saying that the Democratic-controlled Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people.''

Not interested in the security of the American people? […]

[The President] ought to apologize to the American people.

That is wrong. We ought not politicize this war. We ought not politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death. […]

We have to rise to a higher level.

Our Founding Fathers would be embarrassed by what they are seeing going on right now.

We have to do better than this. Our standard of deportment ought to be better. Those who died gave their lives for better than what we are giving now.

So, Mr. President, it is not too late to end this politicization. It is not too late to forget the pollsters, forget the campaign fundraisers, forget making accusations about how interested in national security Democrats are; and let's get this job done right. [emphasis added]

Sen. Byrd, Congressional Record, S9187 – S9188, Sept. 25, 2002:

I am terribly disappointed. We are entering an election. War clouds loom over this country. Yet the President would say the Democratic-controlled Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people.'' […]

I am disgusted by the tenor of the war debate that has seemingly overtaken this capital city. Here is the President of the Senate, the Vice President of the United States, out campaigning. The President is campaigning using war talk to win the election. The Vice President of the United States is barnstorming for Republican candidates. […]

It is despicable that any President would attempt to use the serious matter of impending war as a tool in a campaign war.

I am not going to continue to be silent. The blood of our sons and daughters, our soldiers, sailors, and airmen, has far more value than a few votes in a ballot box. [emphasis added]

So, has the Democratic Leadership been actively condemning the politicization of the war in Iraq by the ten would-be-President Democrats?

[logic101.net]

Nice title! Does anyone remember the line during the Clinton Eons (ok, seemed like Eons) about how politics stop at the water's edge?

Mark A Sity

[Codeflier]

Democrats never worry about their past statements, they just "move on" to the next lie.

[Verginius Rufus]

As the quotes from last September show, the Democrats were already politicizing the war then, before it began, by accusing the President of using the war for political gain. They think the war on terror is just a slogan. Did any prominent Republicans lambast Wilson in 1918 or FDR in 1942 in such tones?

One of the non-Fox cable channels yesterday was showing footage from the Sunni triangle area of anti-U.S. "resistance" types (some waving photos of Saddam Hussein). The message seemed to be: this is what the Iraqis think of the U.S. (as if that area and those people were typical). The attitude of the program was not far removed from the Jane Fonda mentality during the Vietnam War.