Daschle Melts Down Before Our Eyes [Archive]

View Full Version : Daschle Melts Down Before Our Eyes

The_Finman

09-25-2002, 10:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
<h2>Daschle Melts Down Before Our Eyes</h2>
http://fp.rushlimbaugh.com/@v=0209251632@/home/daily/site_092502/content/stop_the_tape.Par.0007.ImageFile.jpgOn Wednesday, Tom Daschle had a meltdown before the nation's eyes on the Senate floor.

Everything I've ever said about these people is wrapped up in these Daschle sound bites: symbolism over substance, no principle, being guided by polls, can't take the heat.

Algore's Monday night speech forced Daschle to say something, because he wants to beat Gore for the 2004 nomination -- and pollster John Zogby said the Gore speech was well timed.

Daschle said, "We ought not to politicize this war," and then like Clinton without the slickness said, "I was in Normandy...just last year."

Fact: Daschle has time to rush through bills for his wife's bosses in the airline industry, but not bills on national security.

I'm not saying these Democratic leaders don't care about national security, but I will say they subordinate it to their own political power.

He's freaking out, because he sees that Gallup poll saying people see Democrats -- and not the president -- as politicizing the war.

You're the guys flip-flopping all over the place on Iraq, because you don't care whether Saddam gets a nuke or not.

(...roll clips of Tom Daschle's Monday Meltdown on the Senate floor) (http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/clips/02/09/092502_2_daschle.asx)

(...play more clips of Daschle – this guy REALLY had his buttons pushed) (http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/clips/02/09/092502_3_moredaschle.asx)

Full Story Here (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092502/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DesertFox

09-25-2002, 11:00 PM

Tiny Tom, go back to sucking your, uh, thumb.

Timberwolf

09-25-2002, 11:01 PM

ROTFLMAO!!! Man, I've never heard Dasshole meltdown like that!!! Funniest thing I've heard in months!!!

Warlady

09-26-2002, 04:59 AM

Finman I love the gif! Everything you posted is true. What was so funny about Daschle's meltdown is that he got it wrong and instead of admitting he got it wrong he came back and said context didn't matter. He got mad at the Post for getting him all riled up. I'd just say he's having a bad month. I've seen women with PMS more rational and in control than he was.

Lighthouse_MIDI

09-26-2002, 08:23 AM

I heard on Fox News this morning that dAsshole's office had passed out a transcript
of his speech to demonratic members prior to the melt down, as well as calls were made to all of the media outlets to let them know that dAsshole was going to be making an important speech. images/icons/rolleyes.gif
Sorta looks like he wanted to politicize his comments. images/icons/grin.gif

Warlady

09-26-2002, 08:30 AM

I heard that too LH. Daschle is the worst Senate Majority leader I've ever seen. He got his wires crossed and went on an on about the military when Bush was talking about a homeland security bill that the Dems are filibustering over a labor dispute. Bush had ever right to call them on it. Dems want Fed employees to have protections that no employee in the real world has. No business owner in their right mind would run a business like that.

**DONOTDELETE**

09-26-2002, 08:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Warlady:
I heard that too LH. Daschle is the worst Senate Majority leader I've ever seen. He got his wires crossed and went on an on about the military when Bush was talking about a homeland security bill that the Dems are filibustering over a labor dispute. Bush had ever right to call them on it. Dems want Fed employees to have protections that no employee in the real world has. No business owner in their right mind would run a business like that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not only that - RUMINT has it that Dems are NOT happy with the speech.

Maggie_T

09-26-2002, 09:08 AM

I loved the way someone put it this morning on the radio: Daschle's calculated hysteria. LOL!

Warlady

09-26-2002, 09:23 AM

Thanks Maggie I missed that. Good one. Describes the dwarf to a tee. Most people don't care for hystrionics from our leaders. Daschle showed what he's about yesterday. He's trying to get his mug on the tube because GW is dominating the media. Making an ass of ones self is not the best way to make a statement. It's backfiring.

PaulRevere

09-26-2002, 09:40 AM

"Calculated hysteria" is a good phrase for it. I thought he was over-dramatizing to say the least. It was the worst political acting job I've seen in Washington since Gore and Lieberman staged their teleconference with two Rat congressmen flown down to FL for just that purpose in the election dispute.

**DONOTDELETE**

09-26-2002, 09:51 AM

I've just seen the video / audio of both Bush's initial comment, and Daschle's reaction.
I don't deny, I've never seen Daschle more emotive. However, between his performance, and the President's I believe Daschle's was the more subdued.

But that's merely an observation about style.
I think the substance is what should be addressed here. What our President said was:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "The Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington; and not interested in the security of the American People." U.S. President George Bush (the younger) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I find that insult gratuitous, and unPresidential. I think President Bush should know better. If he does, then he exercised bad judgement in over-riding his better instinct. If he does not, then perhaps he is not as well qualified for his job as I had hoped. In either case it would be in our President's best historical and political interests for him to apologize for saying such thing publicly; particularly because (according to news reports) he's said it publicly more than once.

Both houses of Congress have given every indication that they will provide our President with what ever our President asks for on this matter. For a U.S. President to ignore the facts in that regard, at the expense of such distinguished U.S. military veterans as Daniel Inouye is inappropriate.

I am disappointed, but not entirely surprised.

Warlady

09-26-2002, 10:30 AM

I think you missed the point GW Bush was trying to make. Democrats are logjamming what GW feels is important legislation. What Bush is saying is the Dems are putting labor disputes of special interest groups ie unions, ahead of national security. There is nothing in that statement but truth. Daschle's diatribe yesterday was based on the misguided notion he got from reading a news article that had misrepresented what Bush said. He's trying unsuccessfully to regroup. Bush didn't even mention Democrats. He simply said the Senate.

Lighthouse_MIDI

09-26-2002, 10:36 AM

Sear said:"I find that insult gratuitous, and unPresidential. I think President Bush should know better. If he does, then he exercised bad judgement in over-riding his better instinct. If he does not, then perhaps he is not as well qualified for his job as I had hoped. In either case it would be in our President's best historical and political interests for him to apologize for saying such thing publicly; particularly because (according to news reports) he's said it publicly more than once.

Hmmm? Interesting that you are insulted by the truth and demand an apology by G.W. but are not offended by outright and egregious lies by dAsshole. It is beyond my comprehension how anyone could even entertain the thought that G.W. owes anyone an apology. dAsshole proves once again that he is not the least bit qualified to be the senate majority leader. Sear, I think you are entirely wrong on your perception of this situation. - Lighthouse

Gone_with_the_Wind

09-26-2002, 10:48 AM

Daschle is lying through his teeth. After all that chaos yesterday, Daschle still insisted on an apology from Bush. Bush stood his ground (according to Fox News) and said, "...not from this address..." BTW, Does anybody have a direct source on that quote??

But I DID see a live shot of Daschle this morning and he does reword his statement to say "Homeland Security Bill", but then... by God, he blames non-passage on the Republicans. Republicans??? Who's the Senate Majority leader and who's responsible for the agenda and tabling the subject??

I got so mad I started yelling out loud at the TV set. I was alone, BTW, and my poor dog sought refuge in another part of the house. She hates it when I go ballistic and no other person is nearby. Who else would she think I'm directing my anger at? Poor thing!

Warlady

09-26-2002, 11:00 AM

LOLOLOL my doggies are the same way. Bush called Daschle on his obstructionism and poor widdle Tommy is upset.

DoctorDoom

09-26-2002, 11:13 AM

Ultimately it will have zero effect, because his butt-buddies in the RAT-sucking media will spin it and the sheeple will buy it.

Here's an example from tody's MRC email:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>1) ABC and CBS on Wednesday night distorted the Bush-Daschle dispute in favor of Daschle. Peter Jennings mis-portrayed Bush’s comments as related to Iraq when, as CNN, FNC and NBC stressed, they were about the homeland security bill. Jennings cited a “nasty argument...about Iraq and American security.” Dan Rather put the burden on Bush’s rhetoric: “Some of Mr. Bush's campaign rhetoric has resulted in a fierce Democratic Party rebuttal.” NBC’s Tim Russert suggested a presidential motivation for Daschle; FNC pointed out how in the same speech Bush had praised Democrats.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The full text can be read online here.

Thursday September 26, 2002 (Vol. Seven; No. 148) (http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2002/cyb20020926.asp)

To its credit, NBC got it right, but the fawning toadies at ABC and CBS were as usual securely liplocked on the RATs' asses. And, sad to say, the couch veggies get their news from Dan Blather and Peter Jerking (the self-admitted anti-American).

TV news is to journalism as whores are to chastity.

Warlady

09-26-2002, 11:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> And, sad to say, the couch veggies get their news from Dan Blather and Peter Jerking (the self-admitted anti-American).

TV news is to journalism as whores are to chastity.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL no truer words were ever spoken. At least Fox is covering it fairly. God bless Fox news.

**DONOTDELETE**

09-26-2002, 11:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "I think you missed the point GW Bush was trying to make." Warlady <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's why I specifically addressed his words, by direct quote. The issue is not what he meant. The issue is what he SAID.
The part I believe Daschle finds offensive is:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "The Senate is ... not interested in the security of the American People." U.S. President George Bush (the younger) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "Democrats are logjamming what GW feels is important legislation." Warlady <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Really? Legislation related to U.S. national security? That's news to me. I thought the popular complaint was somewhat more the reverse, that Congress was rubber-stamping Bush, not log-jamming him.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "What Bush is saying is the Dems are putting labor disputes of special interest groups ie unions, ahead of national security." Warlady <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then that's precisely what he should say, and I'd not dissent. But not only is Bush reported to have repeated the insult. Bush's spokesman Ari Fleischer has been defending Bush's words.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "There is nothing in that statement but truth." Warlady <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We'll have to agree to disagree about that; and I disagree entirely. I do not find a single shred of truth anywhere in that quote. I have no evidence whatsoever that "The [U.S.] Senate is ... not interested in the security of the American People." None what so ever. And BTW, there are 49 Republicans in the U.S. Senate. Bush's comment disparages them as well, for they are after all, a part of "the Senate".
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "Daschle's diatribe yesterday was based on the misguided notion he got from reading a news article that had misrepresented what Bush said." Warlady <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I didn't get that impression from the extended PBS / NewsHour video coverage of the event. Further, W-VA Senator Byrd had a newspaper in his hand when he addressed the Senate from the floor on this issue, and seemed to be referring directly to the quoted words of our President.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "He's trying unsuccessfully to regroup." Warlady <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps. But that's an entirely different issue. I'm addressing the words of the President of the United States; and basing my assessment of whether Daschle's criticism is appropriate, upon the President's words. Daschle's underlying motive, if any, is another issue, which I'd prefer not to address in this thread.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "Bush didn't even mention Democrats. He simply said the Senate." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In responding to that, I'd like to make two point:

a) Some may suggest that among the executive branch and both houses of our federal legislature, our President chose to address the only one of the 3 which is lead by Democrats, but that the choice was merely a coincidence. I find that somewhat implausible. But even if that's precisely the case, it still provides absolutely no excuse for:
b) In Bush's insult, he insulted BOTH parties, and all 100 members; and I believe falsely so; wrongly so.

One need not be a military veteran to be a patriot. But honorable military service does lend credible evidence of patriotic loyalty; as does losing an arm in combat.
Our President said:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "The Senate is ... not interested in the security of the American People." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think that's an insult if said of ANY U.S. citizen. But it quite frankly is not a plausible, and probably not even rational insult to level at either House of Congress in this context. Among other things it rather obviously implies the Senate is composed of perjurers; for their oath of office obliges them to interest in the security of the American People. If the President thinks that, then it's his duty under both Art.2 Sect.1 Part 7, and Art.2 Sect.3 to indict the Senate for it if he has sufficient evidence to support his allegation. And if he has not, then he would be wise to keep his rude & false gratuitous insults to himself. Saddam is the enemy Mr. President. Not the U.S. Senate. If you alienate your own political machinery, you will only be hobbling your own Administration, and therewith, your nation and People. Do you want to be a one-termer like your Dad?

Warlady

09-26-2002, 11:41 AM

sear did you happen to catch the live press conference just now? Dennis Hastert, Tom Ridge and Trent Lott just spoke and proved my point exactly. The Democrat leadership, specifically Daschle is logjamming the bills. He hasn't brought one up to the floor for a vote in 8 weeks. He is sitting on 50 pieces of legislation. This one seems pretty important. If they are going to try to roll back the President's authority which President's have had on this issue since Kennedy over unions then they are putting special interests above national security. It has nothing to do with patriotism or military service. You are making the same mistake Daschle made. Daschle read a newspaper article that misrepresented what GW was referring to and instead of picking up the phone and calling the President he called a meeting of Dems and then called the press.

DesertFox

09-26-2002, 11:42 AM

Uh, sear, politicians speak for effect. If they had to clear their words of all implications and permutations, they couldn't say anything and hence could get nothing done -- not a bad idea, at that.

The Dimocrat-dominated Senate doesn't worry about National Security to the extent the prez does. That's what the prez's words conveyed and everybody knows it. The Dims can now pick it up apart to spin it as they will, which they'll do regardless of what's said by anyone anywhere anytime.

**DONOTDELETE**

09-26-2002, 11:57 AM

DesertFox,
If our President was as articulate as you are, or if he had as good a sense of humor (dimocrat... good one!) I'd rest much more soundly at night.
I find little to quibble with in your post. But as I make effort to see to it that my words are true, I'd like to believe on matters of important national interest & security that our President could manage to do the same.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "Silence never makes mistakes." Hindu proverb <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

**DONOTDELETE**

09-26-2002, 01:07 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "President Bush got tough with the Democrats." Warlady <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree. But I'd have preferred that he got tough on substance, not style.
Disparaging their patriotism hardly strikes me as a constructive contribution to the national dialogue in this time of War.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "The union bosses wanted to demand that this gadget be optional. This amendment removes the Presidents ability to tell them to shove it and wear the damn thing." Warlady <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think there's a problem with that, if it's a matter of national security. Seems like the union bosses may be doing their job; representing the rank & file. But that's a matter of leaving options open; not refusing to be patriotic. I find it difficult to believe any U.S. citizen would refuse to cooperate in such manner.

But (setting aside the FL dispute) Bush was elected President, not union boss. I'd like to think he'd confine his address to matters of his Presidency, and not longshoreman union rules.

But NONE of that excuses his gratuitous, counterproductive insult of the Senate; and patriotic members of both parties therein.

**DONOTDELETE**

09-26-2002, 01:10 PM

Sear, I hope that you will read Zell Miller's speech today.

Warlady

09-26-2002, 01:15 PM

Zell Miller's Speech (http://208.185.249.64/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=023757#000005)

**DONOTDELETE**

09-26-2002, 01:18 PM

Thanks blueroan, I'd like that.
If you've got a link, please post it.
I may catch snipets of it on what little TV I have access to.

But I can not imagine what Miller might say that would tidy up the inappropriateness of Mr. Bush's statement.
If I thought I was mis-quoting our President I might be somewhat less critical. But I saw the videotape.
If there's some aspect of Bush's words I'm not seeing, please let me know.

And thanks for the heads-up on Miller.
I'll look forward to it.

**DONOTDELETE**

09-26-2002, 01:28 PM

Ahh, thank you Warlady, blueroan, and Miller.

I think Zell makes my point far more eloquently than I have.

In this time of War against Terror, we need to be united more now than ever. And our President's gratuitous swipe which is neither true, nor kind; is also politically self-defeating.

I agree with Miller.
And for that reason along with my original reasons, I continue to disagree with our President on the narrow issue of his wording.

Chris

09-26-2002, 01:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by sear:

That's why I specifically addressed his words, by direct quote.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is not a direct quote you are quoting. It's evidently someone's partisan charaterization of it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> The issue is not what he meant. The issue is what he SAID.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And, what he said was -

"And my message to the Senate is: you need to worry less about special interest in Washington and more about the security of the American people."

Text of speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020923-3.html))

**DONOTDELETE**

09-26-2002, 01:49 PM

Chris posted to sear:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "That is not a direct quote you are quoting. It's evidently someone's partisan charaterization of it." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
and adds:
"The issue is not what he meant. The issue is what he SAID." sear

Then Chris adds (attributing to President Bush):
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "And, what he said was -

"And my message to the Senate is: you need to worry less about special interest in Washington and more about the security of the American people." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chris,
I don't doubt you've quoted our President correctly. But that does not mean I've quoted our President incorrectly, even though our quotes differ substantially. I've heard news reports that he's commented on this topic in public more than once. I believe the quote I listed was from his stumping for the Republican Senate candidate from New Jersey.
But whether or not that's the case, I have virtually no doubt that it was U.S. President George Bush that said:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "The Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington; and not interested in the security of the American People." U.S. President George Bush (the younger) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The reason I have no doubt is because I saw the videotape. And I got the quote I've now posted multiple times from my own transcription of that tape. If it wasn't the U.S. President then it was an imposter who shares an absolutely startling resemblance. BTW, if that's the explanation, then evidently he fooled the audience, and the news crews too. I tend to find the former explanation more credible than the latter.

Warlady

09-26-2002, 01:58 PM

The message is about priorities sear. Daschle has been dicking GW around for months.

**DONOTDELETE**

09-26-2002, 02:02 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Warlady:
He is sitting on 50 pieces of legislation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He is? I guess that explains why he appeared to be 'eye to eye' when sitting next to Dick Gephardt! http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/repuke.gif

The_Finman

09-26-2002, 02:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Barb:
He is? I guess that explains why he appeared to be 'eye to eye' when sitting next to Dick Gephardt! http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/repuke.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFLMAO!! http://www.ronaldreagan.com/ubb/graemlins/Laughing.gif

Warlady

09-26-2002, 02:04 PM

Robert Reich had borrowed his phone books.

Chris

09-26-2002, 02:17 PM

sear,

If you would have bothered to check you would have seen that the quote I posted was from the New Jersey senate candidate speech. I didn't see your quote in it.

Perhaps if you could supply a full context source of the speech your quote is in, which backs up your assertion that he wasn't precise about what he was addressing, then your claim would be credible.

**DONOTDELETE**

09-26-2002, 02:41 PM

To Sear,

I've been reading your posts, and while I'm fairly new to this forum, I just had to reply to you.
Of course, you are aware that Pres. Bush's father was a hero in WWII, having been shot down at age 20 and W's comments were directed at the Senate...not the Democrats, and not at those in the Senate who served in the military.
The number one issue for the American people and those who serve in government is national security, and if you have looked at a calendar recently, we are over one year beyond the attack on our country.
Gore.....trying to position himself as the frontrunner in 2004 should W fail, gave an outrageous speech - contracting his previous stands for his own personal agenda.
The Democratic Party's Congressional leadership is now as busy as a one-armed paperhanger or a cat covering its befoulment on a marble floor, trying desperately to sort out the mess created by Gore. Daschle and Gephardt are blinking like toads in a hailstorm, as evidenced by Daschle's tantrum on the Senate floor, trying to weasel out of this dilemma. In so doing, they are as effective as a one-legged man in a butt kicking contest. The liberals are trying to cover Gore's blunder by agreeing with him while at the same time distancing themselves from Gore's position.
Let's get this Homeland Security Bill up and running - the right way.....giving President Bush a Department that is functional.
http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/smilies3/deal.gif

EveningStar

09-26-2002, 02:48 PM

<h2>Hey, Daschle...</h2>

http://www.cagedwhore.com/oa/assholeblink.gif

Warlady

09-26-2002, 02:51 PM

Congressman Ford, a Democrat was just on Fox news speaking. He said he met with the President this morning and now believes the Presidents words were taken out of context by Daschle and the Washington Post.

Warlady

09-26-2002, 02:52 PM

hahaha wow ES. I had to put on my sunglasses for that one.

Maggie_T

09-26-2002, 04:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by DoctorDoom:
Ultimately it will have zero effect, because his butt-buddies in the RAT-sucking media will spin it and the sheeple will buy it.

TV news is to journalism as whores are to chastity.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doc, you should see the headline in our local pinko rag: "Daschle Rips Bush ... " They're simply salivating with pleasure about little (in every sense of the word) Dasshole's PMS outburst. I can only imagine the letters to the editor tomorrow: how clever, tough, accurate, etc. our Daschle is; finally someone told Bush what he had to hear, etc., etc. The peaceniks will have a collective orgasm over this.

Which is IMO what Daschle was aiming at. Gore, who - believe it or not - still thinks he will someday be president - was his old pompous, self-righteous, holier-than-thou self yesterday and his toadies had a field day over it. Daschle, who - believe it or not - also thinks he can be president someday - was talking to the same crowd. This was simply pandering to the ban-the-bomb-sign-carrying crowd.

Someone joked today that 'pubs are paying Dasshole to make a fool of himself. I replied that they would be wasting their money because with Dasshole it's a natural thing.

Warlady

09-27-2002, 12:48 AM

President Bush got tough with the Democrats. Republicans are always complaining that Republicans aren't tough enough on the Democrats. I have seen many specifically complain that Bush is too bi-partisan. Daschle and his merry little band of socialists are holding up a very important piece of legislation that will streamline what is now a bureaucratic nightmare to be more efficient. Hopefully. I know I'm an optimist. Anyway today in a press conference Tom Ridge cited an example of what the Democrats and the union bosses are trying to accomplish. With the amendment they are trying to add to the already passed House version of the bill they are removing the Presidents ability to do his job. One example he cited was a new gadget that port authority and border patrol employees will be wearing on their belts that detects nuclear material. The union bosses wanted to demand that this gadget be optional. This amendment removes the Presidents ability to tell them to shove it and wear the damn thing. It would also prevent him from firing incompetent workers and giving raises based on merit. That is pandering to special interests over national security.

**DONOTDELETE**

09-27-2002, 03:21 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "The message is about priorities sear. Daschle has been dicking GW around for months." Warlady <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The U.S. Senate: practicing partisan politics? ABSOLUTELY! There's simply no doubt about it.
The U.S. Senate: "not interested in the security of the American People"? Hardly.
That insult is both gratuitous and factually false.

Chris,
If I'd gotten my information from the Internet I might be able to post a link to it in this thread.
If you would have bothered to check you would have seen that the quote I posted was from television coverage. How do you propose I post a link to that?
The difference is; w/ a hyperlink, we are often left to take the word / credibilty of the source, the transcriber, and perhaps others involved in turning spoken word into text.
But I got it "straight from the horse's mouth": spoken by the President, in the President's own words. You may doubt me if you wish; though I'm quite confident if you check a newspaper of record (available on line) you should find my quote is precise.
I appreciate your fidelity to the truth; one I share with passion. Thanks.

Barb commented to sear:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "I'm fairly new to this forum" Barb <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hello Barb. Welcome to Warlady's Political Forum. Visit often. Post a lot.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "W's comments were directed at the Senate...not the Democrats, and not at those in the Senate who served in the military." Barb <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Our President said "the Senate". And you're quite right, he didn't specify further than that in the particular quote I've posted. I remind you, the U.S. Senate (to which our President was referring) is composed of 49 Republicans, 50 Democrats, and one independent; and I believe there is at least one U.S. military combat veteran member of the Senate at the time Bush made that statement. But in any case, Bush disparaged the Senate as a whole. His factually false, gratuitous insult was addressed to the Senate as a whole, excluding no individual, and no category of individual. As a Republican I'm somewhat puzzled by your reaction.
Bush disparaged not only every individual member of the U.S. Senate, regardless of political party affiliation. Our President also disparaged the institution of the U.S. Senate, and thereby, also the office of the President which he holds, and his own individual credibility; perhaps at no time of more importance to a President than in time of War.
After my lengthy participation in this thread, I find the weak defenses of our President have confirmed my initial view. Our President's remark was unfortunate, and should already have been retracted.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "If you make a mistake, and you know it's a mistake, and you do not correct that mistake, you have made two mistakes." Chinese proverb <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Our President has made two mistakes, in this matter.

Chris

09-27-2002, 07:54 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by sear:

Chris,
If I'd gotten my information from the Internet I might be able to post a link to it in this thread.
If you would have bothered to check you would have seen that the quote I posted was from television coverage. How do you propose I post a link to that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I saw what you said about where you got the quote. There's always transcripts somewhere when he speaks in public.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
The difference is; w/ a hyperlink, we are often left to take the word / credibilty of the source, the transcriber, and perhaps others involved in turning spoken word into text.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean like your transcript of the quote, conveniently out of context? Lame excuse sear, really lame, even for you! images/icons/rolleyes.gif

I sourced the White House website that posts his speeches. If any of that stuff is transcribed wrong someone would be all over it, since it's also on video for all to see.

Warlady

09-27-2002, 08:55 AM

I believe the fact that GW was correct in his charge that Democrats ARE putting special interest unions over national security outweighs any misunderstanding they may have had of his choice of words. This issue is too important to make it just about hurt feelings. They are supposed to be adults and it's time for the Senate to do their job and stop whining.

Lighthouse_MIDI

09-27-2002, 10:24 AM

Sear said: "Bush disparaged not only every individual member of the U.S. Senate, regardless of political party affiliation. Our President also disparaged the institution of the U.S. Senate, and thereby, also the office of the President which he holds, and his own individual credibility; perhaps at no time of more importance to a President than in time of War.
I am at a total loss as to how you can perceive Bush's remarks in this way.
images/icons/rolleyes.gif
As far as I am concerned, he has called a spade a spade. In fact, when you look at the
verbal attacks he has taken from both congress & the senate, he really has been quite respectful, restrained and polite. images/icons/wink.gif
- Lighthouse

**DONOTDELETE**

09-27-2002, 10:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "You mean like your transcript of the quote, conveniently out of context? Lame excuse sear, really lame, even for you!" Chris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Out of context? Which context is it out of. It's a sentence. Its meaning is quite clear. Are you suggesting that he uttered other sentences before & or after it which somehow transform the meaning of that one?

Excuse? Your meaning (if any) is not clear to me. Just what do you propose I'm trying to excuse?

I find it revealing Chris that while the President doesn't have the backbone to fess up to his error, you at least present the apparent good judgement to back away from it; ascribing some deviance or incompetence or subterfuge on sear's part.
You may be able to fool everyone else on Earth with that one.
But for reason far too obvious to need enumerating; it can't possibly work on me.

And finally Chris, I thank you for your compliment, inadvertent though it may have been. "...even for you!" indicates you recognize me for the extremist that I so deliberately am. I am a man of principle in an astonishingly Machiavellian world. And though that may at times place me out of step with some of my countrymen, your blunted insult serves to remind me that it is they that are out of step, not me.
I appreciate your reminder / exoneration. Thanks again.

Warlady

09-27-2002, 10:28 AM

LH but that's okay right? GW should be able to take it on the chin. According to some he should be demeaned and attacked time and time and time again, day after day after day and just rollover. images/icons/rolleyes.gif

Chris

09-27-2002, 10:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by sear:
Out of context? Which context is it out of. It's a sentence. Its meaning is quite clear. Are you suggesting that he uttered other sentences before & or after it which somehow transform the meaning of that one?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Excuse? Your meaning (if any) is not clear to me. Just what do you propose I'm trying to excuse?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You’re making excuses why you can’t support your claim with the context the comment was made, so that you can claim he was talking about something else.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I find it revealing Chris that while the President doesn't have the backbone to fess up to his error, you at least present the apparent good judgement to back away from it; ascribing some deviance or incompetence or subterfuge on sear's part.
You may be able to fool everyone else on Earth with that one.
But for reason far too obvious to need enumerating; it can't possibly work on me.

And finally Chris, I thank you for your compliment, inadvertent though it may have been. "...even for you!" indicates you recognize me for the extremist that I so deliberately am. I am a man of principle in an astonishingly Machiavellian world. And though that may at times place me out of step with some of my countrymen, your blunted insult serves to remind me that it is they that are out of step, not me.
I appreciate your reminder / exoneration. Thanks again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/joker.gif

Nice try, but you're not fooling anyone with your little temper tantrum diversion. The fact remains that you still won't support your claims with the context in which your quote was spoken. Talk about no backbone to fess up.

**DONOTDELETE**

09-27-2002, 10:58 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "I am at a total loss as to how you can perceive Bush's remarks in this way." Lighthouse MIDI <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How do you perceive the literal meaning of:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "The Senate is ... not interested in the security of the American People." U.S. President George Bush (the younger) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I admit, I'm a product of the U.S. public (government) school system. But from what meager education I got on subject / verb / predicate language analysis, sentence structure, and meaning; the meaning of this Presidential utterance seems most unambiguous.
Is "the Senate" not the subject in it?
Is "not interested" not the verb phrase in it?
Is "security of the American People" not the noun phrase in it?

Lighthouse MIDI, if there is some other literal interpretation of this sentence that I've overlooked; please please enlighten me.
And if not; do you realize Hawaii's Senator Daniel Ken Inouye lost an arm in battle (WWII I believe) defending the security of the American People. The President disparaged the entire U.S. Senate. Do you really think disparaging the entire U.S. Senate, which includes a seriously / permanently wounded U.S. military veteran such as Inouye is the best way for a President to "be a uniter, not a divider" as TX Gov. Bush claimed he intended to be, when he campaigned for President in Y2K?

The President's utterance was in terms of political strategy foolish & counterproductive. It was factually false, and the more his defenders defend him on this, the more vividly they contrast its (& his) folly.

Warlady

09-27-2002, 10:59 AM

sear what about all the apologies the House and Senate Democrats owe Bush for all the mean nasty vile comments they make about him on a daily basis? Sheesh.

Lighthouse_MIDI

09-27-2002, 11:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Warlady:
LH but that's okay right? GW should be able to take it on the chin. According to some he should be demeaned and attacked time and time and time again, day after day after day and just rollover. images/icons/rolleyes.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
He certainly has rolled over enough times and I commend him for the honorable discretion he has shown. I certainly don't have the patience & temperament that he has displayed. By now, I would have given a speech that started out something like: "Now listen & listen good you little twerp Daschle and the rest of your pin head robots! images/icons/shocked.gif Quit whining while sitting on your hands and get to work on all of the legislation in front of you. Also, you beady eyed numb nut, if you don't start getting some of my judicial nominations passed, I am going to walk over to your office, rip off your head and poop in your neck! images/icons/shocked.gif images/icons/wink.gif images/icons/grin.gif
- Lighthouse
(Aaaaah, someone please pass me my blood pressure medicine) images/icons/wink.gif

Warlady

09-27-2002, 11:08 AM

LOLOL don't you know he would love to?

**DONOTDELETE**

09-27-2002, 11:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "Yes!" Chris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's good to learn Chris.
What are they? In what way do they linguistically modify the linguistic meaning of the sentence at issue?
To support this argument of yours you'll need to both quote this contingent "context" you allege; and then you'll need to also indicate in what way those surrounding sentences modify the unambiguous meaning of what the President said.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "You're making excuses why you can't support your claim with the context the comment was made, so that you can claim he was talking about something else." Chris <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I make no excuse, other than perhaps my source; which is the President rather than a web site. I take no shame in that. Call it an excuse if you like. I think of it as an explanation, a statement of fact.

Finally Chris, "temper tantrum"?
If that's the best you can do, you'll have to do it with someone else. My temper has since I've begun contributing to this thread, remained as drowsy and even-keeled as it is conservative.

I prefer to debate the issues Chris.
If you have a comment to make about the topic, while avoiding dull tangents such as "temper tantrum" among your others, I'd be delighted.

Lighthouse_MIDI

09-27-2002, 11:16 AM

Sear said:
"Is "the Senate" not the subject in it?
Is "not interested" not the verb phrase in it?
Is "security of the American People" not the noun phrase in it?
Yep! We agree on the meaning and he spoke the truth. He simply spoke the truth that you are trying to interpret as being an attack on the members who might have served in the military. To me, this is absured.
Obviously we are not going to agree on this I think you are reading more in to it than what his comments were intended to say. images/icons/wink.gif
- Lighthouse

**DONOTDELETE**

09-27-2002, 11:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "sear what about all the apologies the House and Senate Democrats owe Bush for all the mean nasty vile comments they make about him on a daily basis? Sheesh." Warlady <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you'll quote them here Warlady, I'll condemn them here.
Perhaps they outnumber Bush's insult by so much (50 to 1?) that it would be impractical for us to attempt to condemn them all.

However: "Two wrongs don't make a right." Or perhaps in this case 51 wrongs do not make a right.
We've got hundreds in our Legislative branch. We've got only two in our Executive branch. And it's the Executive's (Bush's) job to lead. And it's Bush's job not just to lead the Government, but the People too. And if the Senate were controlled by our party, then Bush might have an easier go of it. But the Senate is lead by the opposition; and therefore Bush will have to accomplish with appeal , persuasion, and teamwork what otherwise might be far easier. Bush has just lit half a book of matches in a foolish attempt to burn his political bridge before him. It's a significant strategic political blunder; and whether Daschle's hand was over-played on the floor of the Senate or not is immaterial. The President has given them an excuse. That's not good for Bush. It's not good for the Senate. It's not good for the government as a whole. It's not good for the People. It's not good for the nation. It's not good for the world. And it's not good for our troops in the field where both our blood and treasure are very much at stake.

Bush's unfortunate comment cost him a lot, and bought him next to nothing. It was foolish through and through. He should know better. And that he evidently does not is as much a cause for alarm as anything else he may be up to.

**DONOTDELETE**

09-27-2002, 11:46 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "He simply spoke the truth that you are trying to interpret as being an attack on the members who might have served in the military. To me, this is absured." Lighthouse MIDI <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The President has Constitutional obligations which I've already referred to in this thread.
If the President fails to discharge those obligations satisfactorily, he'll be subject to impeachment.
If you are right, he's in BIG trouble. But since you are wrong, the problem may be somewhat less dramatic / traumatic.

But regarding this "truth" you speak of Lighthouse:
Is U.S. Senator Daniel Ken Inouye in the U.S. Senate or isn't he?
If Bush meant "some in the Senate" then he should have said "some in the Senate".
He didn't say that. He said:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> "The Senate is ... not interested in the security of the American People." U.S. President George Bush (the younger) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
which includes every Senator in the Senate, including Senator Inouye.

The notion that Inouye isn't interested in the security of the American People is incredible, absurd; and the obviously false allegation discredits the man that makes the false accusation. It discredits, and erodes the credibility of our President Bush (the younger).

Please forgive me one and all. This topic started out weak, and has tapered off precipitously from there. I may check back later to see if anyone has left a comment worthy of response.

Warlady

09-28-2002, 12:03 AM

sear I think you've join the Daschle bandwagon of blowing this out of proportion. It's over and I frankly am not going to waste anymore of my energy beating a dead horse. I'm much more concerned with the Democrats playing politics with our national security than the hurt feelings of a few hypocritical liberals. As for GW kissing Daschle's butt he's been doing that since the dwarf took control and it's gotten him nothing but a knife in his back. It's time to play hardball politics.

Chris

09-28-2002, 12:05 AM

sear,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>To support this argument of yours you'll need to both quote this contingent "context" you allege; and then you'll need to also indicate in what way those surrounding sentences modify the unambiguous meaning of what the President said. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice try sport. You're the one using your own personal transcript showing a partial statement, and making a claim as to what it is about. And, you're the one taking it out of context. You need to provide the proof of the context you allege if you want to make a credible claim.