FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Posted on 10/01/2002 6:28:12 AM PDT by SJackson
The nature of politics is changing -- changing, I say! Politicians, long rumored to be political, are forbidden from “politicizing” an issue. It’s “outrageous”! Indeed, “wrong!” -- (sweeping gesture) -- “wrong! ” This from Daschle and the Byrd-dogs, who were kind enough to set us straight on the matter. They have helped us understand that our view of politics as being inherently political is very misguided. It’s one thing to debate war -- a highly questionable concept in the first place -- but since it might prove harmful to Democrats and other living things, especially before a potentially Senate-changing vote, one should never question another’s views on an issue that carries with it political ramifications.
Can it get much more ridiculous? First, one Albert A. Gore, Jr., decided to crawl out of his hole to grace us with a speech in San Francisco that defied both reason and good taste, and earned the disdain of even those who once endorsed him. It was a classic Gore: He attacked the President, not for wanting to go after Saddam (an idea Gore long ago supported), but for wanting to go after him now. It was a fascinating display of political maneuvering, one carefully crafted to create a new image for Gore, an image designed to resolve the desperate identity crisis of the modern Democrat: Tah-dah! It’s Super-Gore, transformed into both liberal and conservative, dove and hawk, purveyor of peace and defender of freedom, the everyman for every man!
Alas, the image will not stick, for one could not come away from that speech not feeling a little like a dog encountering an anomaly, the head cocking left, then right, then left again, wondering if something hasn’t gone seriously awry. It was so weird, in fact, that listening to his off-the-wall remarks got to be quite comical.
Right off the bat, Gore charged that the war effort to date had failed. Not true, of course, but perhaps, since he is no longer VP, no one has told him that the Afghanistan campaign was an overwhelming (un-Vietnam-like) success. He went on to express his concern with Bush’s “sudden” preoccupation with Iraq, which was, he explained, a reaction to the realization that the War on Terror is “proving to be more lengthy and difficult than was predicted.” I guess whenever Bush and Rumsfeld warn America that this war most likely will take years, they really mean “days.” Dreamers! Can’t they see that we need to finish what we started? No multitasking in the military, I guess -- one thing at a time, that’s the best method. We haven’t even found Bin Laden yet! Heck, while we’re all pretending that Saddam’s a big bully, we’re still wondering if Bin’s dead. Shouldn’t we be sifting through the Afghani rubble for DNA strands? Shouldn’t we be worried that al-Qua’ida is still out there? Shouldn’t we try to stop them? (Uh … aren’t we?)
Gore soon pounded on the Bush Doctrine, that the “president is proclaiming a new uniquely American right to preemptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat.” A minute later -- about the same minute that I was trying to remember why it is wrong to pummel stupid people -- he had this to say:
“Now let’s be clear: There’s no international law that can prevent the United States from taking action to protect our vital interests when it is manifestly clear that there’s a choice to be made between law and our survival. Indeed, international law itself recognizes that such choices stay within the purview of all nations. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, our action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than requiring us to go outside the framework of international law.”
Argggh! I would quote more but the contradictions might make me implode. Suffice it to say, he carried on with such nonsense, even outright lying about having “felt betrayed” by Bush Sr. for not toppling Saddam when he had the chance. (The U.S. pulled out because the goal of the Gulf War, to liberate Kuwait, had been met; it was a rigid definition of purpose that Gore and nearly all Democrats, barely supportive of the war itself, encouraged.) Naturally, Gore didn’t mention feeling betrayed by Bill Clinton for not taking out Bin Laden when Clinton had many chances.
All of this was in the purest spirit of politicization, which was what rendered Daschle’s recent accusations of politicizing toward Cheney and Bush so absurd. When I was able to untangle the Gorish snarl from my head, I could enjoy the spectacle in the same way that I enjoyed Gore’s on-camera calls for support during the Florida election debacle, with a mix of humor and disbelief. The latter arises when I witness just how low this man will go; the former when I realize that his arrogance has him completely blind to his utter lack of subtleness. Had a banner been placed above his head identifying his real purpose for being in San Francisco -- “It is I who should have been President! But there’s still hope. Pick me! Pick me!” -- the speech would not have fared any worse.
My guess is Senator Daschle was a little shaken by all this, and a bit embarrassed, especially when the next day the Brits knocked down the anti-war opposition with an alarming dossier that delineated the Saddamite threat.
Daschle is a snake and thus anything but stupid. He watches every move that power-hungry politicians on both sides of the aisle make. He now needed something to counter the revitalization of Gore (a threat to Daschle’s agenda) and to neutralize Gore’s humiliation of the party.
Thankfully, Bush, that politicizing ol’ war-hound, conveniently made an “over the top” remark to the effect of: If the Senate doesn’t stop stalling the Homeland Security initiative, it doesn’t care about national security! Daschle, still disgruntled that his recent blast at Cheney had barely earned a nod from anyone, and happy to quote Bush out of context, seized the moment and cued up the floor. An unusually high number of Washington’s finest arrived, eager to hear Daschle’s strategic tongue-lashing of the President for his ill-treatment of veterans who question the proposed invasion of Iraq!
Quite a stretch, but not surprising when we realize the game has indeed begun. Politics are now in full motion. If, as Safire notes, Gore’s speech was the kickoff of the 2004 Democratic campaign (whether it includes Gore or not), Daschle’s speech was the first play. Unfortunately, it was also the first fumble. It might have gone well had he checked his sources, but he didn’t, and the histrionics involved -- decidedly Daschlean, with raspy-voiced moments of passion and distress -- made his faux pas all the more memorable. The coup de grâce comes when we revisit the unintentional comedy of Senator Byrd, or perhaps imagine the moment when someone had to let Daschle know he was looking a little like Radner’s Emily Latella. With such performances, there is some hope that Latella’s famous punchline will serve as epitaph for the Dems:
“Never mind!”
I'm just a naive old member of the VRWC. Can anyone help me to understand this?
It would seem to me that war is essentially a political decision, that's why the founders placed the military under civilian control.
These servants of the people along with Bonior (sp) and McDermott have tried making policy to an enemy audience and they have failed miserably. They have in fact forsaken their oaths of office and their country for power, a large bubble and blotch the American People will not soon forget.
Who needs enemies when you have enemies of the people like this?
This mid term election has become much more enjoyable than I ever could have imagined several months ago.
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.