September 25, 2002
OUTRAGE!:
In President's Speeches, Iraq Dominates, Economy Fades (Dana Milbank, September 25, 2002, Washington Post)As he seeks to boost Republican candidates in the midterm elections, President Bush is increasing his emphasis on terrorism and national security, shedding his previous determination to demonstrate his concern about the flagging economy.Four times in the past two days, Bush has suggested that Democrats do not care about national security, saying on Monday that the Democratic-controlled Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people." His remarks, intensifying a theme he introduced last month, were quickly seconded and disseminated by House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.). [...]
Mr. Milbank seems to have completely butchered this story, because here's a text of the President's comments:
I asked the Congress to work with me to come up with a new Department of Homeland Security, to make sure that not only can this administration function better, but future administrations will be able to deal with the true threats we face as we get into the 21st century. A homeland security department which takes over the hundred different agencies and brings them under one umbrella so that there's a single priority and a new culture, all aimed at dealing with the threats.I mean, after all, on our border we need to know who's coming into America, what they're bringing into America, are they leaving when they're supposed to be leaving America. (Applause.) Yet, when you look at the border, there are three different federal agencies dealing with the border: there is Customs and INS and Border Patrol. And sometimes they work together and sometimes they don't -- they don't. They've got different work rules. They've got different customs. Sometimes they have different strategies. And that's not right.
So I asked Congress to give me the flexibility necessary to be able to deal with the true threats of the 21st century by being able to move the right people to the right place at the right time, so we can better assure America we're doing everything possible. The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. 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.
Note that he refers to "the Senate" and not to Democrats. The statement may be objectionable for impugning the patriotism of all 100 Senators, a number that includes at least 49 Republicans, but it can hardly be said to single out Democrats and so is in no wise partisan.
Posted by Orrin Judd at September 25, 2002 2:53 PM
Daschle, in considering his run for the White House, has found a way to avoid politicizing
, according to ScrappleFace
.
"Note that he refers to "the Senate" and not to Democrats. The statement may be objectionable for impugning the patriotism of all 100 Senators, a number that includes at least 49 Republicans, but it can hardly be said to single out Democrats and so is in no wise partisan."
Go back to when the GOP first lost control of the Senate, and look what the pundits said. They said "now Bush can use 'Senate' as a code word for 'Democrats' to blame them for stalling his agenda"
Just because Bush left off the "democratic-controlled" doesn't mean that isn't what he really meant.
Mr. Levy:
It does create a considerable lessening in the partisan nature of the remark though, doesn't it?
Isn't giving aid and comfort to the enemy considered treason?
If Daschel opposes war with Iraq, then let him make the case. Let him explain what we should do instead of war, and why that will make America more secure.
No one has said he cannot speak. He has simply chosen not to, yet he refuses to allow the President's resolution to move through the Senate. If he want's to remove all doubt, he can push the President's plans for secuing the US through the Senate very quickly. Or he can choose not to.
He has chosen not to, but has also chosen not to oppose them. He won't address the very real threats to the US both in Homeland security and in Iraq, and he chooses not to do so because he feels that would help the Republicans (I don't believe that Daschel wants
Saddam Hussein to set off an atomic bomb in the US. I just think he considers that a lesser evil than him becoming Senate Minority leader).
So who is really
politicizing the war? And in the process giving our enemies propaganda material?
I have said many times that I can understand why people oppose the Republicans. I cannot understand supporting the Democrats. The leadership of the Democratic party is corrupt beyond words. They are addicted to power to the complete exclusion of any
principles.
A man was calling in to Neal Boortz today INSISTING that Bush said "Democratically-controlled Senate." The mainstream press helped Daschle out.
Whether you agree that he was aiming specifically at Democrats or not is irrelevant... these people have done a brilliant job of distorting the facts. The scary thing is Daschle admits it and says it doesn't matter.
">http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2002/cyb20020926.asp#1
">http://ratherbiased.com/bush_george_w.htm#daschleIraq
Exactly seven seconds given to a rebuttal to Daschle on CBS News.