Tommy throws a fit -- yet again
Poor, poor Tommy.
For Democrats, who soon face a painful up-or-down on military action against Saddam, 'protecting and defending' their jobs in Washington is, well, Job #1.
As the election season kicks into high gear, many Democrats are growing increasingly apprehensive. In many House and Senate contests, Iraq now dominates election debate. The shift from 'kitchen table' issues to national security and foreign affairs contradicts conventional wisdom, whose motto is 'all politics is local'. Iraq, they said, won't effect the coming midterms, which decides which party controls Congress and the agenda the next two years.
As Congressional debate heats up, Democrats find themselves increasingly conflicted. Many truly loathe the military and prefer casting a 'nay' on military action to oust Saddam, but fear the negative fallout from voters who overwhelmingly back the President's plan. Others fear a vote to approve the war resolution, whose draft Thursday the White House sent to Capitol Hill, would only boost the President's standing, lifting Republican prospects for November.
An earlier effort by Democrats to postpone the vote till after the elections backfired badly. Hardline Senate leader Tom Daschle, who led the drive, still smolders from that terrible miscue. His angry tirade on the Senate floor yesterday, in which he accused the White House erroneously of politicizing the war, reflects growing desperation as polls show Iraq now tops the list of voter concerns, rather than Medicare, Social Security and the minimum wage, issues Democrats prefer to run on. British Prime Minister Tony Blair's effective presentation Tuesday, unveiling a long-awaited dossier on Iraqi weapons stockpile, left Democrats seething. They accuse Bush of practicing 'reckless' unilateralism, but that charge rings hollow with Blair, key U.S. ally, making basically the same case as the President.
(Daschle's highly inflammatory remarks, incidentally, far from scoring the party political points, sparked a backlash across Capitol Hill instead. Republicans, led by Minority Leader Trent Lott, noted the Washington Post story, which Daschle used to level his charges, had twisted the President's remarks made during a campaign fund-raiser Monday in New Jersey. The subject was Homeland Security, not Iraq, nor did the President use the term "Democrat-controlled Senate", an embellishment by Post reporter, Dana Milbank. As for remarks attributed to Vice-President Dick Cheney Tuesday in Kansas, the White House noted they were grossly taken out of context. Now, an astute politician might've checked with the White House before going off half-cocked, and avoid the embarrassment. But no-one's ever accused Sen. Daschle of being astute. His constant stumbles are legendary. Expect more slip-ups, goofs, flubs and miscues from Daschle as November approaches.)
For Democrat core constituencies, a bastion of militant anti-Americanism, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has assumed almost mythic, iconic stature. Their love affair with Saddam, responsible for gassing tens of thousands to death, is remenicient of the romance with Che Guevara 40 years ago. The Argentine communist, and Castro comrade-in-arms, became a symbol of the "struggle" -- the battle against American "imperialism", the "scourge" of western culture and freedom.
To lefties, even the notion of the use of force is anathema. Unless, that is, the dictator happens to be Slobodan Milosevic, ex-Serbian president (now on trial at the Hague), or Gen. Raoul Cedras, exiled-Haitian leader. When it came to Slick Willy's 'wag-the-dog' war over Serbia, a staunch U.S. ally during WWII, the left was fully on board.
Bomb, bombs-away!
Tom Daschle embodies this odious hypocrisy -- the liberal double-standard on the use of force -- perfectly.
On Saddam and Iraq, Daschle is the dove-est of doves. 'Unilateral war is wrong', he says. 'Pre-emption is immoral and dangerous.' 'Who died and made Bush King?' 'Who the heck does he think he is, anyway?' 'Bush must get U.N. approval first, or forget it.' 'Iraq has never attacked us, so back off, bucko.' 'Bush has no right running around the world knocking off heads of state he doesn't like'.
Ah, but mention Milosevic, and Presto-Chango! see-dove-turn-hawk, magically! Instantly! Gee, ain't that morphin' somethin'? On the morality of war, it's evident liberals are quite selective: They loved waging war on Milosevic -- Operation Allied Force -- but fight tooth-and-nail to defend Saddam, mustering the phoniest excuses.
But was Milosevic ever a threat to the United States?
No.
Was Milosevic developing Weapons of Mass Destruction?
No.
Did Milosevic ever gas tens of thousands of innocent civilians?
No.
Did Milosevic attempt to assassinate a former U.S. President?
No.
Was Milosevic colluding with terrorist groups plotting the total destruction of the United States?
Saddam Hussein stands guilty of all the above -- and then some.
Yet, did Daschle demand Clinton seek Congressional approval before using military force in Serbia?
No.
Did Daschle insist Clinton get allied support first?
No.
Did Daschle demand Clinton seek U.N. approval?
No.
Did Daschle insist Clinton get permission from China and Russia and Rosie O'Donnell first?
Er, no.
Hypocrisy?
Oh, you bet.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents..
"JohnHuang2"
I forgot about that one. That's casus belli on principle (even if it had been the SinkEmperor).
BTTT
The Post of the Week!