‘Not Playing Politics’, Dems To Delay Iraq Vote
Vol: 12 Issue: 27 Friday, September 27, 2002
The day after Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle accused the administration of politicizing the war, a group of House Democrats are planning a strategy designed to delay the vote on Iraq until after the November 5th elections.
Democratic Representatives Ellen Tauscher of California and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio have requested a meeting of all 209 House Democrats to round up support for delaying the vote on a use-of-force resolution until January.
In a self-indicting statement, Tauscher and Kucinich said in a letter to fellow House Democrats, The war has become a political issue in House and Senate campaigns.
Ellen Tauscher told the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call that she resented what she saw as efforts by GOP House Whip Tom DeLay to make the Iraq vote a manhood test.
Daschle said Republicans had made it much more difficult to reach a consensus by politicizing the Iraqi issue and he said was now “unsure” the resolution could reach the Senate floor by next week as planned.
Daschle doesn’t say how the White House is politicizing the war. Evidently by jumping through the political hoops Daschle keeps putting in the way.
Not all Democrats are lying through their teeth, although one would have to be an idiot to argue that Daschle has any objective apart from winning seats in November. He can deny it all day long, but his actions say something else.
Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, speaking for a small breakaway group of Democrats, said, We stand today with President Bush not as Democrats or as Republicans, but as Americans who share the president s belief that its time once and for all to stop Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction,
Other Democrats meeting with Bush included Reps. Leonard Boswell of Iowa, Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota Bob Clement of Tennessee and Bart Stupak of Michigan.
If Daschle cared about the safety of American troops, he’d be doing exactly the opposite of what he is now doing.
The US needs to attack no later than January, and have wrapped up the war by February in order to avoid having troops in heavy chemical suits fighting in the desert heat.
It is our troops who will sweat the effort to protect Democratic seats in the Senate, not the senators who put their reelection hopes ahead of national security.
Or the country in general. If the vote is delayed long enough, the Pentagon will be forced to postpone the war by a full year until the weather favors a ground war.
That’s all the time Saddam needs to develop a nuclear weapon, according to both US and British intelligence.
As I pointed out yesterday, Daschle took to the well of the Senate to denounce President Bush by accusing him of politicizing the war in a speech he made. Except Bush wasn’t talking about the war, didn’t mention the Democrats and didn’t say what Daschle accused him of.
When these (somewhat salient) facts were pointed out to him, neither Daschle nor Gephardt missed a beat. “Maybe that’s not what he said,” both acknowledged under direct questioning, “But that’s what he meant.”
The truth is not in them. The Democrats are desperate to find something that will prove they were right about Bush. Somewhere. The strategy is failing.
According to the Democrats, Bush is responsible for the recession; (that began before he took office) the Bush tax cuts made it worse; (it didn’t, it served as a cushion) Bush was running roughshod over the Congress on Iraq; (the opposite is actually true).
Just last month, the Democrats were insisting the president bring the debate to Congress. In August, Daschle said it would be a big mistake for the administration to act without Congress and without its involvement.
In September, Daschle said: “It would certainly be in [the president s] best interest, our country’s best interest, for him to go to . . . the United Nations, to solicit their support.”
The president went to the U.N. and laid out a clear and compelling case to that body.
Since the president has done and said everything the Democrats demanded of him, the tactic now is to go after him for things he didn’t do or say.
Now Daschle says that a ‘trusting relationship must be restored’ with the White House before the Senate can move on the resolution, which the administration had hoped to see done next week.
It was the first truthful statement offered by either Daschle or Gephardt regarding the White House this week.
Daschle noted during what some in the media are calling his ‘breakdown speech’ that, “Our founding fathers would be embarrassed by what they see going on right now. We’ve got to be better than this, our standard of deportment ought to be better. Those who died gave their lives for better than what we’re giving now.”
Daschle thought he was talking about the President. He should read his words again.
There are but three questions facing Daschle and Company.
First, is Saddam Hussein a clear and present threat to his neighbors and to regional peace? Second, does that threat extend to America? And third, will that threat go away by itself?
Do you think those questions remain unanswered?
Now, one more question. Which is more important? The security of the United States? Or getting re-elected?
Is the war being politicized by Bush? I dunno. Is Bush responsible for the March 2000 recession?
Is Al Gore the guy you’d like to see running the country at this moment?
I’d love to be able to ignore American politics and stick to the meat of Bible prophecy, but there is no way to separate the two and hope to understand the scenario of the last days .
The government of antichrist is political as well as spiritual.
A political climate of deception must not only exist — it must be politics as usual — for the world’s most prolific deceiver to enjoy any measure of success when his time comes.
Separating politics from end time prophecy would be like trying to understand science apart from mathematics.
You can’t get there from here.
When asked what would be the sign of His coming, the FIRST thing Jesus said was, “Take heed that no man deceive you.” (Matt 24:4)