oracle
10-02-2002, 02:04 PM
Who's Politicizing Now? (http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz100202.asp)
<font size=1>The "Baghdad Dems" get a pass from the White House.</font>
Stanley Kurtz
The war is now well and truly politicized — and the Democrats have done it. I watched the sickening performance of Congressmen McDermott and Bonior from Baghdad last Sunday, and couldn't believe my eyes. Where are the condemnations? Why haven't Democrats openly distanced themselves from these foolish and scurrilous remarks? The truth is, Republicans, including most especially the president, have been almost shockingly quiet about this. What McDermott and Bonior said and did was infinitely worse than the remarks that led to Sen. Daschle's angry denunciation of the president on the Senate floor. It is the president who has shown bipartisanship here. But at this point, honor and honesty demand that Bonior and McDermott be called to account for their actions.
Sen. Daschle's angry outburst at the president for politicizing the war had at least a shred of plausibility. The president did say, "the Senate is more interested in the special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people." Certainly it is wrong to say that the Senate of the United States is uninterested in the security of the American people. But as Republican senator Don Nickles pointed out on the same show where McDermott and Bonior made their outrageous remarks, Daschle both misquoted the president, and took his remarks out of context.
The president took a swipe at the Senate as a whole, and not at the Democrats, as Daschle claimed. And just a few sentences later, the president noted that many good Democrats and Republicans were working together to pass a homeland-security bill. No doubt, the president's earlier remark was too pointed, but essentially he was saying that the interests of the public employee unions shouldn't be put ahead of the need for a Department of Homeland Security. Exaggeration for political effect? Sure. But in context, this was clearly not a serious claim that the members of the United States Senate truly cared nothing for the security of the United States.
It is obvious that Senator Daschle and the Democrats had desperately poured over the president's words to find a way to denounce him for politicizing the war. Many said that Daschle's outburst was the angriest denunciation of a president from the Senate floor in years. That anger was entirely disproportionate to the supposed offense. To be blunt, the incident was trumped up.
Now consider the actions of McDermott and Bonior. They gave credence to the lies and propaganda of a vicious despot in his own capital, while publicly impeaching the word of the president of the United States. I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but I was particularly appalled by Bonior's acceptance of Saddam's rationalization for not wanting coercive inspections — that the Iraqi's don't want to have someone knocking on their door while they're immersed in prayer. Does Bonior really believe the goons who run Saddam's (secular) terror-state are lost in prayer as they guard his stockpiles of anthrax? Would it matter if they were?
...
Click here to read more (http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz100202.asp)
<font size=1>The "Baghdad Dems" get a pass from the White House.</font>
Stanley Kurtz
The war is now well and truly politicized — and the Democrats have done it. I watched the sickening performance of Congressmen McDermott and Bonior from Baghdad last Sunday, and couldn't believe my eyes. Where are the condemnations? Why haven't Democrats openly distanced themselves from these foolish and scurrilous remarks? The truth is, Republicans, including most especially the president, have been almost shockingly quiet about this. What McDermott and Bonior said and did was infinitely worse than the remarks that led to Sen. Daschle's angry denunciation of the president on the Senate floor. It is the president who has shown bipartisanship here. But at this point, honor and honesty demand that Bonior and McDermott be called to account for their actions.
Sen. Daschle's angry outburst at the president for politicizing the war had at least a shred of plausibility. The president did say, "the Senate is more interested in the special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people." Certainly it is wrong to say that the Senate of the United States is uninterested in the security of the American people. But as Republican senator Don Nickles pointed out on the same show where McDermott and Bonior made their outrageous remarks, Daschle both misquoted the president, and took his remarks out of context.
The president took a swipe at the Senate as a whole, and not at the Democrats, as Daschle claimed. And just a few sentences later, the president noted that many good Democrats and Republicans were working together to pass a homeland-security bill. No doubt, the president's earlier remark was too pointed, but essentially he was saying that the interests of the public employee unions shouldn't be put ahead of the need for a Department of Homeland Security. Exaggeration for political effect? Sure. But in context, this was clearly not a serious claim that the members of the United States Senate truly cared nothing for the security of the United States.
It is obvious that Senator Daschle and the Democrats had desperately poured over the president's words to find a way to denounce him for politicizing the war. Many said that Daschle's outburst was the angriest denunciation of a president from the Senate floor in years. That anger was entirely disproportionate to the supposed offense. To be blunt, the incident was trumped up.
Now consider the actions of McDermott and Bonior. They gave credence to the lies and propaganda of a vicious despot in his own capital, while publicly impeaching the word of the president of the United States. I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but I was particularly appalled by Bonior's acceptance of Saddam's rationalization for not wanting coercive inspections — that the Iraqi's don't want to have someone knocking on their door while they're immersed in prayer. Does Bonior really believe the goons who run Saddam's (secular) terror-state are lost in prayer as they guard his stockpiles of anthrax? Would it matter if they were?
...
Click here to read more (http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz100202.asp)