The Democratic Tap Dance Around the Issues
Posted by Christopher Adamo
Friday, February 27, 2004
It is an election year, which means the Democrats are feverishly attempting to engage in complete image reconstruction. What makes things particularly interesting is the manner in which they, on the one hand, decry every word spoken by the President as somehow abhorrently wrong, while on the other hand they seek to convince the people that if elected, they wouldn’t risk the security of the nation by doing anything different.
Among the major issues of the day is, of course, the question of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Yet because Hussein didn’t leave them in boxes, complete with ribbons and tags, on the steps of his palace as he fled for safety, we are now expected to presume that such things never existed, and that Hussein wouldn’t have supported their development and deployment against Americans.
Likewise, his regime certainly could have had nothing to do with the terrorist organization that perpetrated the attacks of September 11, despite the fact that Afghanistan, that organization’s former base of operations, is a nation in that same region of the world, that had been governed by Islamist fanatics who hate Western civilization with a mindless passion (and Iran, the only nation separating the two, just happens to be governed by Islamist fanatics who hate Western civilization with a mindless passion). Furthermore, we are expected to ignore Salman Pak, a virtual suburb of Baghdad, where terrorists used the fuselage of a commercial airliner to train in methods of boarding and highjacking passenger aircraft.
The Democrat end game is obviously to convince the American people that war with Iraq, and indeed President Bush’s entire response to 9-11, has been unnecessary and even ineffectual. Ostensibly it has only served to undermine freedom in America, while destroying this nation’s credibility among many of its long time allies, such as the French, Germans, and Russians. That other nations in the region are lining up to ''come clean'' regarding any nuclear or biological weapons programs they might have once contemplated is, of course, irrelevant.
Despite all of this, George W. Bush apparently chose Iraq out of a hat and proceeded to concoct an entirely bogus scenario about the need to destroy its government, knowing full well that his plot would come to light before the next presidential election to be relentlessly used against him.
Surprisingly, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D. SD), a key player among the President's not-so-loyal opposition, is singing a completely different tune these days, at least when speaking to his constituents back home. Recently, in a speech to the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce, he publicly applauded President Bush’s efforts in the war on terror. But Daschle’s words should not be interpreted as anything other than a transparent attempt to pander to South Dakota’s overwhelmingly conservative population.
One really has to wonder just what the people of South Dakota are thinking. They elect a state legislature with the courage and principle to enact a law recognizing and protecting the inherent right to life of the unborn, yet they send a senator to Washington who, in service to the liberal agenda, leads the fight to fill the courts with activist judges who will work diligently to undermine those very things. Do South Dakotans really believe the fallout from Daschle’s rank partisanship won’t return to haunt them, merely because he is pragmatic enough as a politician to know better than to voice his true feelings in their midst?
Of course, the biggest issue lately causing Democrats to scramble for cover is the push for so-called same sex ''marriage.'' While liberals have always sought to define morality downward, many of them nonetheless realize that a presidential election year is a very bad time to be doing so.
Some of the presumably more slippery ones, like Senator and presidential-contender John Kerry (D-MA), attempt to stand firmly on both sides of this issue by claiming to oppose same sex “marriage” while supporting ''civil unions.'' Such high-handed and silly rhetoric is ultimately no more meaningful or believable than claiming to support the use of force against Iraq, while opposing the war. (Come to think of it, John Kerry did claim to support the use of force while opposing the war).
The bad news is that these verbal gymnastics will only worsen between now and Election Day. If Americans are to see their way clear, they must continually look beyond the latest sound bites and consider them against the backdrop of each candidate’s record.
Posted by Christopher Adamo
Friday, February 27, 2004
It is an election year, which means the Democrats are feverishly attempting to engage in complete image reconstruction. What makes things particularly interesting is the manner in which they, on the one hand, decry every word spoken by the President as somehow abhorrently wrong, while on the other hand they seek to convince the people that if elected, they wouldn’t risk the security of the nation by doing anything different.
Among the major issues of the day is, of course, the question of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. Yet because Hussein didn’t leave them in boxes, complete with ribbons and tags, on the steps of his palace as he fled for safety, we are now expected to presume that such things never existed, and that Hussein wouldn’t have supported their development and deployment against Americans.
Likewise, his regime certainly could have had nothing to do with the terrorist organization that perpetrated the attacks of September 11, despite the fact that Afghanistan, that organization’s former base of operations, is a nation in that same region of the world, that had been governed by Islamist fanatics who hate Western civilization with a mindless passion (and Iran, the only nation separating the two, just happens to be governed by Islamist fanatics who hate Western civilization with a mindless passion). Furthermore, we are expected to ignore Salman Pak, a virtual suburb of Baghdad, where terrorists used the fuselage of a commercial airliner to train in methods of boarding and highjacking passenger aircraft.
The Democrat end game is obviously to convince the American people that war with Iraq, and indeed President Bush’s entire response to 9-11, has been unnecessary and even ineffectual. Ostensibly it has only served to undermine freedom in America, while destroying this nation’s credibility among many of its long time allies, such as the French, Germans, and Russians. That other nations in the region are lining up to ''come clean'' regarding any nuclear or biological weapons programs they might have once contemplated is, of course, irrelevant.
Despite all of this, George W. Bush apparently chose Iraq out of a hat and proceeded to concoct an entirely bogus scenario about the need to destroy its government, knowing full well that his plot would come to light before the next presidential election to be relentlessly used against him.
Surprisingly, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D. SD), a key player among the President's not-so-loyal opposition, is singing a completely different tune these days, at least when speaking to his constituents back home. Recently, in a speech to the South Dakota Chamber of Commerce, he publicly applauded President Bush’s efforts in the war on terror. But Daschle’s words should not be interpreted as anything other than a transparent attempt to pander to South Dakota’s overwhelmingly conservative population.
One really has to wonder just what the people of South Dakota are thinking. They elect a state legislature with the courage and principle to enact a law recognizing and protecting the inherent right to life of the unborn, yet they send a senator to Washington who, in service to the liberal agenda, leads the fight to fill the courts with activist judges who will work diligently to undermine those very things. Do South Dakotans really believe the fallout from Daschle’s rank partisanship won’t return to haunt them, merely because he is pragmatic enough as a politician to know better than to voice his true feelings in their midst?
Of course, the biggest issue lately causing Democrats to scramble for cover is the push for so-called same sex ''marriage.'' While liberals have always sought to define morality downward, many of them nonetheless realize that a presidential election year is a very bad time to be doing so.
Some of the presumably more slippery ones, like Senator and presidential-contender John Kerry (D-MA), attempt to stand firmly on both sides of this issue by claiming to oppose same sex “marriage” while supporting ''civil unions.'' Such high-handed and silly rhetoric is ultimately no more meaningful or believable than claiming to support the use of force against Iraq, while opposing the war. (Come to think of it, John Kerry did claim to support the use of force while opposing the war).
The bad news is that these verbal gymnastics will only worsen between now and Election Day. If Americans are to see their way clear, they must continually look beyond the latest sound bites and consider them against the backdrop of each candidate’s record.
