Daschle’s latest meltdown: Epitomizes democrats, liberal media
The recent toxic meltdown of Sen. Tom Daschle – characteristically ignored by the liberal media and excused by fellow Democrats – painstakingly underscores where this politically pathetic party is headed. Daschle has not only politicized the impending war on Iraq and made a complete fool of himself, his leftist media degenerates continue to show their true colors by debunking their own claims that liberal bias doesn’t exist.
In short, this latest Daschle tirade further epitomizes what the Democrat Party (fittingly represented by a jackass) and the liberal media have always represented – the absolutely treasonous hatred of George W. Bush and the GOP.
For obstructionist Daschle, this latest anti-Bush tantrum is his third in a long line of sophomoric outbursts; especially when he recently accused Bush of “failing miserably” in his efforts to divert an imminent war with Iraq.
But to understand Daschle’s more recent despicable meltdown, his previous anti-Republican tirades need to be reviewed.
Daschle meltdown #1
Daschle’s first major meltdown occurred on the Senate floor last fall when he read an intentionally misquoted Washington Post article and blasted Bush for “politicizing the war.” The problem was the Post slanted what Bush actually said by adding a word to the article that was intended to create the initial Daschle firestorm.
Bush actually said, “I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this president and future presidents to better keep the American people secure. And people are working hard to get it right in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats. See, this is not a partisan issue. This is an American issue. This is an issue, which is vital to our future. It’ll help us determine how secure we’ll be.”
Post reporter Dana Milbank, however, put the word “Democrats” in front of Bush’s quote to make it appear that Democrats were not interested in homeland security. But, of course, not bothering to check the accuracy of the Post article, Daschle then went into his volcanic dissertation.
Milbank, known for his mincing of the truth to favor Democrats, wrote that, “The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people.”
But the article purposely left the impression that Bush was talking about Iraq when, in reality, he was speaking of the homeland security bill. Milbank’s whole intention was to create further tensions between Bush and Daschle, even if Milbank had to make it up.
In fact, on the Clinton News Network (a.k.a., CNN), Milbank said the incident was hilarious and actually made jokes about “getting bonuses from the Post” for inciting the caustic discussion. He told CNN that since Bush was always discussing Iraq, “it has to have some reverberation.” What? Is this the purpose of his job at the Post? Is it to create discord and political upheaval among party lines?
As Brent Bozell of Media Research Center observed, “Daschle’s Senate floor meltdown was another strange variant on the recent tendency of Democratic leaders to justify their attacks on President Bush based on liberal media attacks.”
Daschle meltdown #2
Daschle’s second meltdown happened last November when he irrationally compared Rush Limbaugh and the Christian community to Islamic terrorists and accused them of endangering his children.
“You know, Rush Limbaugh and all of the Rush Limbaugh wannabes have a very shrill edge, and that’s entertainment,” Daschle said in a WorldNetDaily article. “We were told that even people who don’t agree with them listen because they – because they’re entertaining.
“And, you know, but what happens when Rush Limbaugh attacks those of us in public life is that people aren’t satisfied just to listen, they want to act because they get emotionally invested. And so, you know, the threats to those of us in public life go up dramatically and – on our families and on us in a way that’s very disconcerting,” Daschle said. “I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to dwell on that or to even go beyond that. But I will say that it has created a far different dimension.”
Daschle didn’t spare us Christians, either. Here, Daschle’s more concerned about being terrorized by patriotic Americans like Rush and the Christian community than he is by our real enemies.
“You know, we see it in foreign countries, and we think, ‘Well, my God, how can this religious fundamentalism become so violent?’” Daschle said. “Well, it’s that same shrill rhetoric, it’s that same shrill power that motivates. You know, somebody says something, and then it becomes a little more shrill the next time, and then more shrill the next time, and pretty soon it’s a foment that becomes physical in addition to just verbal. And that’s happening in this country. And I worry about where, over the course of the next decade, this is all going to go.”
(Here, Daschle’s decrying of conservative media dominance obviously has no merit. Not only do liberals run the vast majority of the networks and newsprint, most of them own Hollywood and corporate America. Besides, liberals don’t need to spend millions of dollars to counterpoint Rush; they already have NPR as a liberal radio vehicle to do that.)
Daschle meltdown #3
Daschle’s latest meltdown is his most vituperative of his political hissy fits to date. Apart from the equally treasonous, bellicose attacks on Bush from ex-presidents Clinton and Carter, Daschle’s most recent left-wing diatribes were perhaps the most volatile pieces of verbal excrement ever to be spewed out of a Bush-hating mouth.
“I’m saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to war,” Daschle cowardly told a bunch of AFSCME Democrat cronies March 17. “Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn’t create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country.”
But Newsmax.com reported that Republican National Chairman Marc Racicot denounced the South Dakota Senator leftist’s “divisive and brazen[ly] political posturing,” noting Daschle’s own miserable failures.
“It is disheartening and shameful for Senator Daschle, who has previously advocated and authorized the use of force in Iraq, to now blame America first,” Racicot said.
In fact, what’s so incredibly ironic – and typically hypocritical – about Daschle’s recent political bile is that he never once objected to then-Prevaricator-in-Chief Clinton’s “Wag-the-Dog” wars – neither did the liberal media.
In fact, the Weekly Standard’s Stephen F. Hayes pointed out that many of today’s most outspoken critics of Bush’s Iraq policy were “the most vocal supporters of bipartisan unity on those occasions when Clinton used, or threatened to use, force against Saddam Hussein.”
Daschle, by far, was arguably Clinton’s biggest supporter of the use of force to drive out the Iraqi dictator. Hayes cited the Post:
“I hope Saddam Hussein and those who are in control of the Iraqi government clearly understand the resolve and determination of this administration and this country,” Daschle hypocritically said in 1996 when Hussein attacked the Kurds in northern Iraq. “This may be a political year, . . . but on this issue there can be no disunity. There can be no lack of cohesion. We stand united, Republicans and Democrats, determined to send as clear a message with as clear a resolve as we can articulate: Saddam Hussein’s actions will not be tolerated. His willingness to brutally attack Kurds in northern Iraq and abrogate U.N. resolutions is simply unacceptable. We intend to make that point clear with the use of force, with the use of legislative language, and with the use of other actions that the president and the Congress have at their disposal.”
According to Hayes, Daschle also insisted on unity on Feb. 11, 1998, in another showdown with Hussein, “with troops amassed throughout the Persian Gulf and the threat of war evident, Daschle declared that Saddam “has to agree that there will be compliance with international law and the agreements that he signed in 1991. Period.”
“Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law,” Daschle said. “Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? . . . The answer is, we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.”
Hayes added that, two weeks after that, Kofi Annan brokered a compromise agreement – another “last chance” – with Baghdad. In announcing his deal, Annan said that he “could do business” with Saddam Hussein.
But when Trent Lott criticized the United Nations secretary general for questioning how Annan could “do business” with a man responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, Daschle rose quickly to Annan’s defense, Hayes reported. Daschle’s concern was familiar: American unity.
“I don’t know what purpose it serves by attacking one another at this point. I mean, if ever there was a time for us to present a unified front to Iraq, this ought to be it. . . . Let’s not . . . send all kinds of erroneous messages to Iraq about what kind of unity there is within the community,” Daschle said.
As the Post’s account makes clear, Hayes reported, Daschle is no longer concerned about American unity. When Hayes asked Daschle last month why he now opposes policies he supported under then-President Clinton, he claimed:
“At that time, of course, President Clinton enjoyed broad-based international support. It is essential for us to consult with the international community now.”
But, ironically, Clinton never consulted the UN when he launched his “Wag-the-Dog” attacks. Daschle is using excuses, with the help of liberal media cohorts, and his coveted bully pulpit on C-SPAN, to play politics and cause further division between political aisles.
Daschle’s treasonous outbursts really have nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with his bruised ego and his endless lust for political power.
Bottom line: Daschle and his Democratic cronies do not want Bush to win this war. The truth is, they shutter at the very thought of Bush coming out victorious over our enemies because it would weaken their Democratic efforts to re-gain political control, as well as further strengthen Bush’s political prowess.
Moreover, the simple fact that Bush has chosen not to respond to Daschle’s tirades is a testament to Bush’s leadership abilities and proven character. Bush is a president that commands respect and that’s what Daschle and the liberal media establishment loathe about him.
In the long run, Daschle and his liberal media supporters have proven to be an utter disgrace to our nation. A true leader, like Bush, leads by example.
Daschle, on the other hand, isn’t a leader. He is nothing more than an angry, bitter, washed-up little tyrant who should either hand in his resignation or keep his mouth shut.
“Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”