quote:Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes of leader time this morning, before we get into the debate on the amendment offered by the senator from Texas, to talk about a concern that I have wanted to avoid talking about for weeks.
I am very saddened by the fact that we have debated homeland security now for three weeks. I have noted on several occasions that there is no reason, on a bipartisan basis, this body cannot work together to overcome our differences and to pass a meaningful and substantive bill dealing with homeland security.
Some have suggested that the delay has been politically motivated, and I have said: I am not willing to believe that. In fact, yesterday I said: We intend to give the president the benefit of the doubt.
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 to 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, Mr. President, increasingly, 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 was given a report about a recommendation made by Matthew Dowd, the pollster for the White House and the Republican National Committee. He told a victory dinner not long ago -- I quote -- "The No. 1 driver for our base motivationally is this war."
Dowd said war could be beneficial to the GOP in the 2002 elections. And then I quote: "When an issue dominates the landscape like this one will dominate the landscape, I think through this election and probably for a long time to come, it puts Republicans on a very good footing."
I thought: Well, perhaps that is a pollster. Perhaps pollsters are paid to say what is best regardless of what other considerations ought to be made. Pollsters are paid to tell you about the politics of issues. And were it left with pollsters, perhaps I would not be as concerned.
But then I read that Andy Card was asked: Well, why did this issue come before Washington and the country now? Why are we debating it in September?
Where were we last year? Where were we last spring? And Mr. Card's answer was: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."
New products? War?
And then I listen to reports of the vice president. The vice president comes to fund-raisers, as he did just recently in Kansas. The headline written in the paper the next day about the speech he gave to that fund-raiser was: Cheney talks about war: electing Taff would aid war effort.
And then we find a diskette discovered in Lafayette Park, a computer diskette that was lost somewhere between a Republican strategy meeting in the White House and the White House. Advice was given by Karl Rove, and the quote on the disk was: "Focus on war."
I guess, right from the beginning, I thought: Well, first it was pollsters, and then it was White House staff, and then it was the vice president.
And all along I was asked: Are you concerned about whether or not this war is politicized? And my answer, on every occasion, was: Yes.
And then the followup question is: Is the White House politicizing the war? And I said: Without question, I can't bring myself to believe that it is. 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? You tell Sen. Inouye he is not interested in the security of the American people. You tell those who fought in Vietnam and in World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people.
That is outrageous, outrageous. The president ought to apologize to Sen. Inouye and every veteran who has fought in every war who is a Democrat in the Senate. He 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.
I was in Normandy just last year. I have been in national cemeteries all over this country. And I have never seen anything but stars -- the Star of David and crosses on those markers. I have never seen "Republican" and "Democrat."
This has to end, Mr. President. We have to get on with the business of our country. 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 fund-raisers, forget making accusations about how interested in national security Democrats are; and let's get this job done right.
Let's rise to the occasion. That is what the American people are expecting.
And we ought to give them no less. I yield the floor.
It's time the Democrats stopped being silent and responded to the assassination tactics employed by the GOP. They're marketing a war for political gain? They're sending children to die so they can get in office? Fuck 'em.
posted
Some have suggested that the delay has been politically motivated, and I have said: I am not willing to believe that. In fact, yesterday I said: We intend to give the president the benefit of the doubt.
Masterful change of topic there. Those who say the delay is politically motivated are saying that DASCHLE is the one causing it. And they'd be right. The President has nothing to do with it.
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.
And why, exactly, would anyone need to make the assumption that Bush has to politicize the war? It's far more likely that he sees Iraq for the threat that it is, and wants the power to deal with it. And I notice that Daschle doesn't tell us WHY the delays.
Dowd said war could be beneficial to the GOP in the 2002 elections.
Yeah, he's a pollster. It's his job to figure out what people think. Still no evidence that Bush's push for an attack on Iraq is BASED on polls, especially considering that Sadaam IS a legitimate threat.
Well, why did this issue come before Washington and the country now?
Um... because there's a threat, and a President that's finally willing to deal with it? Yes, politics does play some part in it, but its role is in forcing the Democrats into doing what needs to be done, regardless of whether they want to or not.
Cheney talks about war: electing Taff would aid war effort.
This is a true statement, yes? If the person Taff is running against would be against the war, and Taff is for the war, then electing Taff would aid the war effort. Effectively, a question of whether the war serves the elections, or the elections can help serve the war. Daschle, for all he's talking, has no evidence for his POV.
Advice was given by Karl Rove, and the quote on the disk was: "Focus on war."
Ah, the joys of out-of-context quotes...
I can't believe any president or any administration would politicize the war.
Senators, OTOH, are another story.
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."
Again, no context.
You tell Sen. Inouye he is not interested in the security of the American people. You tell those who fought in Vietnam and in World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people.
And these make up the majority of the Senate?
I don't suppose anyone has stats on how many veterans are in the Senate, and their parties?
We have to get on with the business of our country.
Again, who does he think is delaying this?
It is not too late to forget the pollsters, forget the campaign fund-raisers, forget making accusations about how interested in national security Democrats are; and let's get this job done right.
What job? The job of NOT defending the country? 'Cause that seems to be what Daschle's advocating, seeing as there has been no vote...
They're marketing a war for political gain?
Says Daschle.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, it's about damn time that some people are growing a spine. Yes, Iraq is a threat. But (at the risk of appearing uninformed) it's not the most crucial threat right now. Yes, Saddam is a loose cannon who needs to be smacked down. But really, what good will it do to get the entire world pissed off at us by acting unilaterally? And by calling for an invasion, they're basically playing into Saddam's hands -- he gets to play the victim.
But that's not the worst part. The key here, is Bush's assertion that the Democrats are not interested in national security. That's simply a gross insult to half of the legislative branch of the government.
quote:Daschle: "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.'"
And THAT is what Daschle is reacting to. Bush and Cheney and the others are trying to make it look like the Republicans are the only ones who really care about "national security."
Take the example of Cheney's fund-raising speech. He specifically connected the election of a Republican to the support of a war that hasn't even started yet!
Here, I've got an idea for national security: nuke everyone else off the face of the planet. Then they won't bother us!
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
i'd love to nuke everyone off the planet. especially PETA.
IP: Logged
Of course, the Bush quote that has Daschle so all-fired mad was buried in a back page of the Post, and taken out of context. But don't let that get in the way of a good meltdown.
A political party cashing in on a war for political gain? Perish the thought! As if that's never happened, and as if the Democrats aren't trying to do it as well - or haven't done it before... FDR and JFK ring a bell.
Poor Daschle, he's stuck between a rock and a hard place. A CBS poll shows 68% of Americans favoring war ( http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm ), his compatriots are starting to jump ship or engage in internal warfare (Didja hear Gore blast Lieberman, his former running mate and bosom pal in 2000?) You can't help but feel sorry for the guy.
And now Condoleeza Rice says they've got new evidence linking Iraq to Al-Qaida.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, half your post doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. Gore & Lieberman? Is your case against Daschle really that weak you have to go off topic?
Wellin that case, fine. Bush has BO. I win.
Also, aren't you and Omega always the ones screaming about how polls can't be trusted? Now we know that you do trust them quite a bit.
posted
Well, if the poll is from the media, and it says that the Conservatives are RIGHT, I admit that's odd. Odd enough to merit special attention.
quote:Gore & Lieberman? Is your case against Daschle really that weak you have to go off topic?
It's not off-topic at all, it's a perfectly valid reason for Daschle, normally a fairly soft-spoken individual, to be raving and shouting on the Senate floor - his party is breaking ranks and fighting amongst themselves. ( Gore attacking Lieberman is simply a rather striking example of this event.) Since Daschle is the nominal leader of the Democrats - he by far gets the most face time - this does not say good things about him being able to hold the party together... which is BAD news for a possible presidential hopeful.
And since his anger at Bush is over something so otherwise inconsequential, one must assume that his rage has other contributing factors.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
