Posted on 09/25/2002 2:03:55 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Senate plurality leader Tom Daschle demanded Wednesday that President Bush apologize for "outrageous” remarks implying that the Democrat-controlled Senate was hurting national security. But the two-day delay in his outrage came into question, and Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, Bush and even a Senate Democrat challenged him. Lott said he was "deeply saddened by the tone and tenor" of Daschle's comments. "Who is the enemy here?" asked Lott, R-Miss. "The president of the United States or Saddam Hussein?”
Daschle referred to an article Wednesday in the Washington Post, in which Bush was quoted as saying Monday during a campaign fund-raiser in New Jersey, "Democrats are not interested in the security of the American people."
However, as Fox News has pointed out, Bush was referring not to the war effort but to a bill creating a Department of Homeland Security. The president noted that Senate Democrats, who rely on forced campaign "contributions” from union members, were slowing debate in a politically motivated effort to preserve Big Labor privileges that he said would tie his hands.
"That is wrong," Daschle fumed on the Senate floor. "We ought not to politicize this war. We ought not to politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death.”
Of course, as NewsMax.com columnist John Perry has pointed out, the war is and has been political.
No one has played more political games with the war than the Senate plurality leader. He has never apologized for any of his rhetoric.
'Higher Level'
"We've got to rise to a higher level,” Daschle insisted. "Our Founding Fathers would be embarrassed by what they see going on right now. We've got to better than this. Our standard of deportment ought to be better. Those who died gave their lives for better than what we're giving now."
He later told reporters: "You tell those who fought in Vietnam and World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people," because they are Democrats. "That is outrageous. Outrageous."
Here’s what Bush said Monday:
"I asked Congress to give me the flexibility necessary to be able to deal with the true threats of the 21st century by being able to move the right people to the right place at the right time so we can better assure America we're doing everything possible. The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people.
"I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this president and future presidents to better keep the American people secure.”
Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga., a longtime pest to his left-wing colleagues, endorsed that message Wednesday and urged his fellow Senate Democrats not to exploit the Homeland Security bill.
Sen. Miller: 'No Shades of Gray'
"I've never seen such a clear choice as there is on this issue. For me, there are no shades of gray. It is clear cut," Miller said. "We must give the president the flexibility to respond to terrorism on a moment's notice.
"He's got to be able to shift resources, including personnel, at the blink of an eye. Why do we hold so dear a personnel system that was created in 1833 and that is as outdated as an oxcart on the expressway?"
Responded to Daschle's complaints Wednesday, Bush said that he was acting for the good of the nation.
"I am as determined today as I was on September the 11th to pursue an enemy which still wants to hurt America," Bush said. "The American people should expect me and any president to do everything we can to protect the homeland, and I will."
Lott said on the Senate floor: "I think that Sen. Daschle needs to cool the rhetoric. We need to do it in a bipartisan way. Accusations of that type are not helpful."
Strange Timing
Is it a coincidence that the plurality leader’s attack came two days after rival White House wannabe Al Gore attacked Bush’s policy on Iraq?
"Daschle is trying to compete with Al Gore for the presidential nomination, obviously, so maybe he has come a little bit late to the political table," Fox News political analyst Peter Johnson said. "This is a substantial statement that he is making, but it is a risky statement in terms of the politics."
Though some Democrats endorse Gore's message, former running mate Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., disagreed Wednesday.
A far stranger fact about the timing of Daschle’s snit: He acted as if he had just learned of the president’s comments Wednesday. Was he waiting to get better coverage of his carefully formulated outrage? After all, Britain’s report on the Iraqi menace dominated the news media Tuesday.
Perhaps he should join members of the Bush administration in reading NewsMax.com, which reported the president's comments Monday evening.
I always wondered what his middle name was.
To Dimorats the answer is Bush!
And in case you didnt know, Daschle voted AGAINST the Use of Force resolution in 1991. So now Daschle is demanding that President Bush do what he voted against in the past!
Oh, and dont look for Peter, Tom, Dan, Begala, Carville, Zahn, Matthews, etc... to point that fact out.
Daschle sounded so much like Byrd when he delivered his "speech." The main difference was Byrd has a slightly stronger accent and spits more while talking.
I don't disagree with their right to express themselves, but these two are desperados. If they think the rank and file are behind them, they are in for a surprise.
If going to war with Iraq is okay when a bunch of nations approve of it, why is it wrong when one nation approves of it?
DOES ANYONE REMEMBER HEARING OF THE 1944 ELECTION CAMPAIGN RUN BY THE DEMOCRATS? NAMELY....
DON'T CHANGE HORSES IN MIDSTREAM
Too many more examples: ie Viet Nam, Kosovo and many many more
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.