RE: Senator Durbin. How many of you have ever held elected office?

[Missy Vixen]

You know, I see these threads every day. There is NOBODY pure enough, is there? In the meantime, I have to ask.

How many here have ever held elected office? If you haven't, why not?

Senator Durbin has served the people of his state and our nation, day in and day out, for quite some time now. I'm not crazy about the latest news, but I have to give him snaps for having the guts to say that he was wrong. There are few people in life who will apologize, period, and he appears to be one of them.

Holding elected office is one long slog of choices. Some are very good. Some aren't so good. Some, you'd really like to do over.

Seriously. I'd like to know. How many here, besides myself, have ever held political office? If you had, you'd see that sometimes, it's not always black and white.

Thank you,
Julie

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. K&R!

:applause:

[stirlingsliver]

2. So, Your Are Suggesting That....

Are you suggesting that, unless someone has held public office, he or she should simply refrain from commenting on the actions of elected officials?

That sounds decidely unprogressive to me.

[waiting for hope]

4. I think she's discussing

that unless you stand in someone else shoes, be a little kinder in judgment.

On Edit: I also think, that at the time this country was in a state of turmoil over 9/11 - while that does not excuse any or all actions, we need to be aware of the tone of the nation during that period. We can all look back and say it could have been easy to have come clean but I still would like to see all that was presented to them before passing judgment.

[stirlingsliver]

8. I'd Like To NOT Have To Apply THAT Standard.

Thanks all the same, but I think that is a very silly standard to apply to elected officials.

Can't you just hear * saying, "Well, unless you have ever been President, please be kind in your judgment of me".

Or Condy: "Unless you have ever been Secretary of State, please be kind in your judgment of me."

See how absolutely SILLY that sounds.

No, for myself, I'll judge ALL elected officials by their actions and their words.

[Missy Vixen]

12. No

What I am suggesting is perhaps maybe some of the armchair quarterbacks whose purity tests are so stringent even Christ himself would fail should try holding elected office.

Truly.

It's an eye-opening experience. It's impossible to make the right decision at all times. Elected officials work for us. This does not give any of us the right to expect them to be superhuman or infallible. Period.

Julie

[stirlingsliver]

13. Who Is Saying That Elected Officials Should Be "Perfect"??

No one is saying that elected officials should be "perfect".

Or, for that matter, "superhuman".

But ALL elected officials should be accountable

Of course it is impossible to make the "right" decision at all times -- just look at all those bad decisions * and Rice have made.

I have never been President or Secretary of State.

Should I not expect that * and Rice will be accountable for their actions?

I would rather not give elected officials a "free pass" on accountability simply because someone says that "it's impossible to make the right decisions at all times".

[Missy Vixen]

17. There's a difference between "accountability" and just plain abuse

>I would rather not give elected officials a "free pass" on accountability simply because someone says that "it's impossible to make the right decisions at all times".<

What "free pass" do you think Senator Durbin is getting on this one?

How about the "free pass" John Edwards got for daring to have incandescent light bulbs in his house, or I could name probably 100 incidents involving Democratic officeholders I've read about on these threads?

Honestly. It's easy to sit back and demand superhuman skill and knowledge when you've never walked in their shoes.

Julie

[stirlingsliver]

21. I Stand Corrected.

Let me say that I would rather hold elected officials accountable for their actions than not do so.

Even when "it is impossible to make the right decisions at all times".

And just to ask you: "Who here is "demanding superhuman skill and knowledge"?

(Can you say "strawman"??)

[LSK]

3. you know what disgusts me about this?

That few people do research for themselves and believe the shit said about our best people.

:grr:

[terrya]

5. Recommended

Thank you for making a good point.

[eleny]

6. He is employed by us.

That's all you need to know about me.

[KG]

7. bravo.

[Missy Vixen]

14. Would you be willing to work for someone that treats you as poorly as the American people treat

the average state or national officeholder?

How would you feel about people you meet automatically assuming you're a liar because your lips are moving?

Again, I'm wondering. For those who believe that they have all the answers -- why haven't you run for office?

Julie

[eleny]

18. It is their own personal choice to seek office

If he can't take the heat for his decision to stay completely silent until now, he can decide not to run for office again.

I don't have all the answers. So, your assuming that is incorrect. But I won't, as his employer, back down on my opinion of Durbin on his silence that he only broke now at this late date. He can't escape that the blood of soldiers is on his hands as well.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. Oh just STOP! Can't you see they're busy getting rid of a GREAT DEMOCRAT? Leave them alone!

They have phone calls to make, emails to write and..... bags to pack because if THEY think THEY'RE getting rid of MY GREAT Senator, they're going to have to move here and just try it. We here in Illinois...LOVE DICK DURBIN. If out of Staters want to get rid of him.....they have a fight on their hands.:grr:

[Cameron27]

10. We here not in Illinois LOVE Senator Durbin!

I'll back you up in that fight!

[Gidney N Cloyd]

11. He's probably the best (Illinois) senator in my voting lifetime.

Maybe better than his mentor, Paul Simon.

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. Paul Simon was Dick Durbin's mentor! They were best of friends until he died.

Durbin is an WONDERFUL Senator! We are blessed to have him here.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

19. Dick Durbin was mentored by Paul Simon as Paul Simon was

mentored by Paul Douglas. All three of them are/were great Democrats and great Senators from Illinois...

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

24. We will proudly, gladly reelect him every time he runs. n/t

[mikelgb]

15. I have not. I don't have the money.

I could not take the time away from my job to campaign. Or I would surely run for office. And had I taken an oath of office and heard what Dick Durbin heard I would have told the American people immediately.

[Beaverhausen]

20. please read this- posted on the "other" thread - Ray McGovern on Democracy Now

RAY McGOVERN: I think people like Dick Durbin have to change their whole mindset and realize that they are not a subservient branch of government. You know, I’m a Virginian, and I think George Mason and James Madison and Tom Jefferson of rolling over in their grave. Here’s Durbin saying, “I knew that the war was going to be fought on false pretenses, but I was sworn to secrecy.” Well, he was sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. And that’s what he ought to have done. Classification is to protect sources and methods. It’s not to protect presidents, OK? And so, he should have come out and said, “Look, this is not what I’m hearing in the Intelligence Committee. Hold the presses. We’re not going to go to war until I get satisfaction.” He didn’t do that.

Now they're -- well, now they’re in the majority. They were in the majority then in the Senate, and they didn’t stand up to it. Now, you have to stand up to it now, because this country needs this war to stop. I hope they have the guts to do it.

AMY GOODMAN: That issue that you raise of Senator Dick Durbin saying that he was angry about it, but “frankly, I couldn’t do much about it, because in the Intelligence Committee we are sworn to secrecy.” He was talking about being misled into the war. Durbin went on to say, “We can’t walk outside the door and say the statement made yesterday by the White House is in direct contradiction to classified information that is being given to this Congress.” Why can't he say precisely that?

RAY McGOVERN: Sure, he can. Sure, he can. And for several years now, the people in the House have been saying, “Well, we can’t do anything because we’re in the minority.” Well, in reflecting on this, I realize that when he did that or did not do that, the Democrats were in the majority in the Senate. And so, what I’m saying here is that they have to step up to their constitutional prerogatives, their constitutional responsibilities, and make sure that this war stops, because there is no justification for the surge or for the funding, other than to prevent the war from being definitively lost while George Bush and Dick Cheney are still in office. That’s what our men are dying for, our men and women are dying for now, and it’s unconscionable.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/01/141...

[stirlingsliver]

22. There Is ALWAYS Some Reason

There is ALWAYS some reason that "prevents" elected officials from doing the right thing.

The sad thing is that some people readily accept those "reasons" -- instead of holding elected officials accountable for their actions and words.

[Missy Vixen]

29. Really?

>There is ALWAYS some reason that "prevents" elected officials from doing the right thing.<

We have no idea what Senator Durbin was told, or not told, do we?

>The sad thing is that some people readily accept those "reasons" -- instead of holding elected officials accountable for their actions and words.<

Actually, a sadder thing is that people insist on purity in all candidates and officeholders that's impossible to deliver, then are infuriated at the wrong people.

Please. Run for office.

Julie

[magellan]

36. We do know what he was told, he tells us himself

April 28 (EIRNS)--Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) told the Senate in a floor speech on April 25, that the classified information that the Senate Intelligence Committee, which he was a member of, was being given on Iraq in 2002 "was not the same information being given to the American people." At the time, he said, "Members of this administration were in active, heated debate over whether aluminum tubes really meant that the Iraqis were developing nuclear weapons. Some in the administration were saying, of course not, it's not the same kind of aluminum tube; at the same time, members of the administration were telling the American people to be fearful of mushroom-shaped clouds."

"I was angry about it," Durbin said, but he couldn't do much because "it was in the Intelligence Committee, we are sworn to secrecy. We can't walk outside the door and say the statement made yesterday by the White House is in direct contradiction to classified information that is being given to Congress." So, instead, "I sat on the floor of the Senate and listened to this heated debate about invading Iraq thinking the American people are being misled, they are not being told the truth."

If his admitted silence isn't wrong to you then I just don't know what to say, any more than I know what to say to freepers who think Libby shouldn't have gone down for obstructing justice. Just because I fault Durbin for his patently obvious admitted failure (irrespective of the excuse) doesn't mean I want "purity" or for him to be removed. BUT I have a perfectly legitimate reason to be angry with him over this, it isn't petty, and that you think so is as frightening to me as those who think the Dems shouldn't bother impeaching Bush**...because what it means is there are some who'll take political loyalty and expediency over holding people accountable for their actions. And that is a one-way ticket to FAILED GOVERNMENT.

[stirlingsliver]

54. Yes, Really.

Yes.

It really is true.

There is always -- always -- some reason that seems to prevent politicians from doing the right thing.

And again I ask: Who here is "insisting" on "purity"??

And why should I hae to run for office?

I think I -- and most Americans, for that matter -- am quite able to hold elected officials accountable for what they say and do (as well as what they do not say and do not do, without running for public office.

[Missy Vixen]

55. So, in other words, it's easier to sit back and expect others to do your bidding

>And why should I hae to run for office?<

than to get in there and do it yourself.

I would love to see some of these who've huffily informed me that it is their DUTY to hold someone else "accountable" try to live up to their own expectations.

Julie

[stirlingsliver]

56. American Civics 101

Here's a very quick lesson in American Civics:

1. We live in a Representative Democracy.

2. That means we elect other people to serve in Government.

3. That means that I do not have to run for office. I can vote for someone else to represent me.

4. As voters, we have the right (and, some would say, the duty) to hold our elected officials accountable for what they say and do (and for what they do not say and do not do.

See how that works?

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

23. Was Ray McGovern speaking out in 2002? If he was, I don't remember

hearing about in the corporate media. I wasn't aware of DU at the time either.

Read what Dick Durbin said on the floor of the Senate in October, 2002. It couldn't be any plainer, at least to me.

I'm getting really tired of this BS from posters on DU, Sen. Durbin doesn't have to pass anyone's purity test. :mad: :mad:

[Beaverhausen]

28. What he said on the floor of the senate on the day of the vote?

Couldn't he have spoken out sooner than that? Couldn't any of them?

[in_cog_ni_to]

35. ONLY if you wanted him tossed in GITMO for treason. NO...he couldn't do what you're asking

or HE WOULD HAVE. He's a GOOD MAN.

[Beaverhausen]

46. Where did I say he is not a good man?

It's not all black and white. That's for the repubs.

[LSK]

26. so your are illustrating how ignorant Ray McGovern is about Durbin

and what he did in 2002????

Like I have SHOWN YOU numerous times in the past couple of days?

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

30. Yes, LSK.

A belated thank you for all your hard work posting Dick's speech's all over DU since this BS started Friday night when the video was shown on KO.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. My heart bleeds for politicians and their troubles.

Politicians chose their profession just like a plumber does. If they screw up they should be held accountable.

[Missy Vixen]

27. And you wonder why the best will not run

>Politicians chose their profession just like a plumber does.<

So, it's okay to abuse them, even if they have a stellar record, and make a decision you are personally displeased with?

It's a good thing someone chooses to hold political office, isn't it?

>If they screw up they should be held accountable.<

So, let's run Dick Durbin out of office on a rail because he was told lies by those briefing the intelligence committee, and at least had the guts to apologize for his role in what happened?

Julie

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. I'm not trying to run him out of office. If he can't do the job he should look for other work.

From what I understand, he knew that the intelligence was phony and said nothing. Now he's taking heat for his cowardice and trying to avoid it by apologizing.

As for it being "a good thing someone chooses to hold public office", it's a good thing that someone chooses to be a plumber or pianist. None of which makes them qualifies them to get a pass when they screw up.

I don't believe in the idolization of politicians or "leaders" of any kind.

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. WHAT A CROCK! NOTHING DURBIN COULD HAVE SAID WOULD HAVE STOPPED THE WARMONGERS

FROM GETTING THEIR WAR ON AND YOU KNOW! THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD HAVE COME OF THAT IS DURBIN ENDING UP IN GITMO FOR DISCLOSING CLASSIFIED/TOP SECRET INTELLIGENCE! NO ONE COULD HAVE STOPPED THEIR MARCH TO WAR!

I'd LOVE to see what YOU would have done in his same situation. It's always so much easier being an armchair politician.:eyes:

Lucky for Illinois...YOU live elsewhere. WE will do ourselves a HUGE favor and KEEP SENDING HIM BACK TO WASHINGTON BECAUSE HE IS ONE OF THE BEST SENATORS THIS COUNTRY HAS!

Try attacking the Senators who actually VOTED to send our troops into Iraq! DURBIN DIDN'T.

[magellan]

38. Straw man

No one's claiming he could have stopped the war by speaking out, and you have no proof he would have wound up in Gitmo if he had. That's a load of hyperbole and you know it.

It'd be nice if people could see past their party loyalties long enough to hold their own to the same standards they hold the Repugs. Durbin is a good Senator, but that doesn't mean he doesn't make mistakes and that people can't be angry at him for not putting thought into action in this instance. He saw a crime being committed against the American people and did very little to call attention to it. So did they all on the intel committee, but he's the one who's spoken up and admitted what he knew at the time.

[in_cog_ni_to]

40. And you have no proof that had he come forward with TOP SECRET/CLASSIFIED Intel...he wouldn't have

ended up in GITMO. You also have no proof that had he come forward with TOP SECRET/CLASSIFIED Intelligence that it would have stopped the war.

There were other Dems on that very committee. Where are the threads attacking them? I am NOT beyond holding my party accountable, but this one is waaaay out of bounds. Dick Durbin is one of THE BEST LIBERAL DEMOCRATS in the Senate and we have DUers calling for his resignation! That's just nuts.

I'm not angry at him. I know that man. I KNOW he would have come forward if he COULD. He couldn't. He's a GOOD and HONEST man. Our party is lucky to have him and having DUers TRASH him for the last 4 freakin' days is infuriating.

[magellan]

48. What I think is nuts is the hysterical defense of Durbin

Plenty has been said about the other Dems on the committee. But as I said, DURBIN is the one who chose to speak out now about what he knew and when. It's only natural that the attention would focus on him. You're acting like reading that news and then responding in anger is somehow unusual. What's unusual is your LACK of anger and rabid DEFENSE of his failure.

If it comes to choosing between what you and Ray McGovern have to say on the matter of what Durbin or anyone else on the intel committee could and could not say without "ending up in Gitmo", I'll go with McGovern. And he says "Classification is to protect sources and methods. It’s not to protect presidents."

What Durbin heard the WH telling the public was lies, he admits he KNEW it was lies, and he -- just like everyone else on the committee who saw that disparity -- had a responsibility to speak up loud and clear and say just that. Period.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. So? I have attacked senators who voted for the war.

You seem to forget that the politicians work for us.

[Joe Fields]

31. No excuse.

[paulk]

33. I've never held elective office

but I have been to quite a few city council meetings, and I've been active in some local zoning fights... also I've had a few elected officials who were regular customers of mine and were usually willing to "talk shop", (off the record, of course)... and that experience has given me some insight into the "slog of choices" you mention.

I understand exactly what you're talking about... and there is a large contingent at DU that has no real understanding of what govt. does or even how it does it...

[WildEyedLiberal]

37. Thank you.

It's really damn easy for the keyboard warriors at DU to sit here and pretend that they're perfect and would be courageous enough to put everything on the line for their beliefs. It's extremely easy to be courageous when you're on the sidelines. I am not and have never been impressed by the false blustering bravado of the purer than thou.

As far as I'm concerned, your OP is also relevant for the IWR and whatever other long-past votes DU still gets itself in a self-righteous huff over. Again, if these people are perfect enough to have never made a bad vote in their life, why don't they run for office?

Teddy Roosevelt had it right:

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

My admiration will always go to the men and women in the arena, even if occasionally they stumble, falter, or fail, because for those that have proven their dedication to the liberal cause, one or two mistakes cannot erase that record. It takes no courage or conviction, on the other hand, to be a sideline critic or keyboard warrior.

[The Count]

39. He's responsible. What about the other members of the intelligence committee?

You know, the ones that voted yes, co-sponsored the bill maybe, knowing all this and made their "oops" years after Durbin. Are they deserving a vote for POTUS?
Here they all are:


Bob Graham, Florida Chairman
Carl Levin, Michigan
John D. Rockefeller IV , West Virginia
Dianne Feinstein, California
Ron Wyden, Oregon
Richard Durbin, Illinois
Evan Bayh, Indiana
John Edwards, North Carolina
Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

43. It was the Senate Intelligence Committee, not the Judiciary.

For the umpteenth time: Graham, FL;, Levin, MI; Wyden, OR: Durbin, IL; and Mikulski, MD voted NO for the IWR.

Rockefeller, WV: Feinstein, CA; Bayh, IN and Edwards, NC voted AYE for the IWR...

:banghead:

[The Count]

47. Intelligence - sorry. Point was, Edwards voted Aye - and he's getting DU support

for POTUS Durbin voted No - and he is asked to resign.
In spite of my mispeaking, my point remains: why the double standard?
I was able to edit the previous post.

[JNelson6563]

41. Keyboard commandoes know all

and never, ever have to get their hands dirty. It's a win/win!

Oy.

Good post Julie.

Cheers :toast:

The Other Julie

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. The "keyboard commandos" are doing their duty as citizens.

Holding politicians accountable for their misdeeds and failures are what citizens in a democracy are supposed to do.

[JNelson6563]

58. Yes, everyone knows that whining on the tubes

always results in big change in reality. Oy. Additonally, one needn't ever do a thing in real world politics to have a complete and thorough understanding of how it all works. Knowledge, schmowledge!

*sigh*

Julie

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. Do you have any idea what your advocating?

That the populace leave it up to "leaders"? That our only input or comment should be at the ballot box after the "leaders" are selected by the party and the powerful?

But, taking your response on it's face, if the "keyboard" commandos are so ineffectual and their voices so unnecessary in "real world politics" why are you even concerned about the proles wasting their time "whining" about the foibles of politicians who, we all know, are saintly folk who are beavering away in our interests..when not raising campaign money and cutting deals.

"There is nothing politically right that is morally wrong." Daniel O'Connell


"The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."
- Dante

[JNelson6563]

64. Yes, I advocate action

Not bitching to make myself feel like I've done something.

Julie

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. Such as Durbin's "action" when he withheld information from the public?

Or, the "action" taken when the politicians voted for the war because they might face an angry electorate?

[JNelson6563]

70. No, not excuses, action

Action by we, the little people. Beyond LTTE, and contaction our legilators. Let's get organized! Politically organized! Strong grassroots can affect change. Whining on DU cannot.

Julie

On edit: Jumping to conclusions and eating up Drudge report quality crap is also ineffectual. Read this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x807213

[LSK]

65. by ignoring facts???

:shrug:

[nosmokes]

42. Durbin is only 1/8 of the issue

but he's in the bullseye because he came out and fessed up, and like i said he gets an attaboy for that. true he has a excellent track record. but when it counted the most he and his 7 fellow commitee members were AWOL.

now y'all can roast my ass from here to next year, but if 8 heavy weight senators, EVERY SINGLE MINORITY PARTRY MEMBER, of the intel commitee did their research and had some visual aids and some press hand-outs and they called for a prime time press conference to be carried live and they snnounced that there were serious differences among the eintel community about whether saddam had WMDs or a nuclear program and ties to al-q and all of the things that dimson was saying were etched in stone then it just mighta changed a whole lot of things. now granted, we'll never know and and the best we can do is speculate, but one thing we do know is that the job of those senators is to act as a check and a balance on the power of the president, and at that they failed miserably by not even doing more than the minimum. and if that insults your precious senator durbin or your presidential candidate goodhair edwards, then i suggest you take a hard look at his actions, because i've stated nothing more than what he's said himself, and his job description.

[Catherine Vincent]

44. K&R!

Rock on, Julie! :hi:

[MisterP]

45. it's only 700,000 dead, no biggie

[WinkyDink]

49. Then we shouldn't judge BUSH, either, I suppose?

I'm serious about this quetion: Was Durbin sworn not to say, "Based on WHAT I'VE NOW LEARNED and must KEEP SECRET, I must vote against this Resolution."?

I'm just curious as to the precise restrictions, given how Bushco likes to play with wording.

[Missy Vixen]

53. If those here can't tell the difference between Bush and Durbin

we have a much larger problem than I can anticipate or remedy.

Why did Bush involve us in Iraq in the first place? What was going on in the country during the runup to the war? Even with a Democratic majority, those who were not in favor "did not support the troops" and "if you're not with us, you're against us". Do you think Bush involved us in this war because of love of country, or for other reasons? Do you believe that Bush honestly tries to represent the people of the United States to the best of his ability?

Do you believe that Durbin bitterly regrets what happened, and has tried to represent the people of his state and the people of the United States to the best of his ability during a long and distinguished career? Do you wonder if he was told at the time that to speak out would mean consequences beyond what any of us could imagine?

Julie
by the way, I do not live in Illinois

[calimary]

50. I just want to know why he's taking such flak when he was never in

charge of the Intelligence Committee "when it mattered" - that is, when all this shit was first going down, and ANYONE even nominally against it was shouted down, called names, shunted to the side, and certainly not given much if any coverage to present his or her view. There was a republi-CON named pat roberts, of Kansas, who was in charge of this committee, who got the most inside info because this White House for the LONGEST time ONLY briefed its own and people like Dick Durbin were left out in the cold because they had a "D" after their names. And pat roberts did nothing but cover up and sweep stuff under the rug and obstruct and lie and string things out and bait and switch. And WHERE IS HE NOW???? How come nobody's jumping down his throat???

If you want to distribute blame, let's not heap it all on Dick Durbin, okay? Yeah, certainly he could have spoken out, but how much would anyone besides people like us here have paid any attention to him, or given a second-and-a-half to anything he was saying??? NOBODY who tried to speak out got a fair shake. He would have opened his mouth and tried to object and he would have been almost literally RUN OVER and burned in effigy. ANYTHING he would have tried to do, and many of them - like him - DID try, wouldn't have gone ANYWHERE. Certainly it wouldn't have gotten any coverage, nowhere near any "equal time" - which back then was being offered exclusively to bush-fans and bush-backers. Besides, he wasn't in any position to do anything about it, anyway, not being chairman of any committee, not having subpoena power, not being in the majority and being able to help set the agenda. Democrats were ground into the dirt for the last too-many years, ONLY UP TIL JANUARY.

I'm glad he's finally speaking out. At least now, he's in a position to be able to do something about it. And it's not anywhere near as significant as if tenet had grown some nads and spoken out, too. tenet would have been in a position to do something, make some noise, attract some attention to himself, maybe even stall the juggernaut for awhile. People, critics, the media, even other republi-CONS would have HAD to pay at least some attention to a george tenet. Dick Durbin they would have scoffed at, as they did when ANY Democrat back then tried to show some fortitude. I hope we haven't forgotten how horrible, sad, hopeless, and barren those times were - THIS soon.

[in_cog_ni_to]

57. THIS is what they were doing to Dems who spoke out against the war. Remember the Daschle Speech?

Dems, GOP trade jabs over Iraq
Daschle: Bush exploiting possible war

By Sean Loughlin (CNN Washington Bureau)
Thursday, September 26, 2002 Posted: 10:32 AM EDT (1432 GMT)
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle attacked the president on Iraq, and Minority Leader Trent Lott later rose in the administration's defense.


Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle accuses Vice President Dick Cheney of politicizing the Iraq debate by urging an audience in Kansas to vote for a GOP candidate because he supports President Bush on the issue.



Who is politicizing the possibility of war with Iraq?



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sharply stepping up the political rhetoric about Iraq, Democrats and Republicans traded shots Wednesday over whether the Bush administration was exploiting the possibility of war for political gain.

In a blistering salvo delivered on the Senate floor, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle lashed out at Bush, saying the administration was doing just that and had impugned Senate Democrats in the process.

Daschle's speech set off a war of words throughout the day between both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Daschle, D-South Dakota, read through a litany of comments from administration and GOP figures about Iraq, including one from Bush who was quoted by The Washington Post Wednesday as saying the Senate was "not interested in the security of the American people." The Senate is controlled by Democrats.

"Not interested in the security of the American people?" Daschle said. "You tell Sen. Inouye he's not interested in the security of the American people. You tell those who fought in Vietnam and in World War II they're not interested in the security of the American people. That is outrageous. Outrageous. The president ought to apologize."<snip>

<snip>
Bush's remark about the Senate not being "interested" in national security came at a campaign event Monday in New Jersey when the president was talking about the homeland security legislation, not Iraq.

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Daschle took Bush's comment out of context and said Daschle was relying on misleading or erroneous press reports to make his charges.

"Now is a time for everybody concerned to take a deep breath, to stop finger-pointing and to work well together to protect our national security and our homeland defense," Fleischer told reporters. "That's how the president approaches this issue."

But Daschle returned to the Senate floor again late in the day and said there was "no context" in which the president could fairly question whether the Senate was interested in national security. <snip>


(Full transcript)

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/25/iraq.congress/index.html

THE DASCHLE SPEECH.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a stinging salvo delivered on the Senate floor Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle lashed out at President Bush, saying his administration is exploiting the possibility of war with Iraq for political gain and had impugned Senate Democrats in the process.
daschle
Daschle: "We ought not politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death."

Daschle demanded an apology and urged the president to end what the South Dakota Democrat called "politicizing the debate about war."

A transcript of Daschle's comments follows:

DASCHLE: Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes of leader time this morning, before we get into the debate on the amendment offered by the senator from Texas, to talk about a concern that I have wanted to avoid talking about for weeks.

I am very saddened by the fact that we have debated homeland security now for three weeks. I have noted on several occasions that there is no reason, on a bipartisan basis, this body cannot work together to overcome our differences and to pass a meaningful and substantive bill dealing with homeland security.

Some have suggested that the delay has been politically motivated, and I have said: I am not willing to believe that. In fact, yesterday I said: We intend to give the president the benefit of the doubt.

Over the course of the last several weeks, as we have debated national security, the issue of war in Iraq has become more and more prominent.

And again, as I go back to my experience in 1991 and 1992, during a similar period -- the fall and winter prior to and after an election -- I expressed the concern that our politics in this climate could easily create a politicized environment and, in so doing, diminish, minimize, degrade the debate on an issue as grave as war.

No one here needs to be reminded of the consequences of war. No one here should have to be admonished about politicizing the debate about war. But, Mr. President, increasingly, over the course of the last several weeks, reports have surfaced which have led me to believe that indeed there are those who would politicize this war.

I was given a report about a recommendation made by Matthew Dowd, the pollster for the White House and the Republican National Committee. He told a victory dinner not long ago -- I quote -- "The No. 1 driver for our base motivationally is this war."

Dowd said war could be beneficial to the GOP in the 2002 elections. And then I quote: "When an issue dominates the landscape like this one will dominate the landscape, I think through this election and probably for a long time to come, it puts Republicans on a very good footing."

I thought: Well, perhaps that is a pollster. Perhaps pollsters are paid to say what is best regardless of what other considerations ought to be made. Pollsters are paid to tell you about the politics of issues. And were it left with pollsters, perhaps I would not be as concerned.

But then I read that Andy Card was asked: Well, why did this issue come before Washington and the country now? Why are we debating it in September?

Where were we last year? Where were we last spring? And Mr. Card's answer was: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

New products? War?

And then I listen to reports of the vice president. The vice president comes to fund-raisers, as he did just recently in Kansas. The headline written in the paper the next day about the speech he gave to that fund-raiser was: Cheney talks about war: electing Taff would aid war effort.

And then we find a diskette discovered in Lafayette Park, a computer diskette that was lost somewhere between a Republican strategy meeting in the White House and the White House. Advice was given by Karl Rove, and the quote on the disk was: "Focus on war."

I guess, right from the beginning, I thought: Well, first it was pollsters, and then it was White House staff, and then it was the vice president.

And all along I was asked: Are you concerned about whether or not this war is politicized? And my answer, on every occasion, was: Yes.

And then the followup question is: Is the White House politicizing the war? And I said: Without question, I can't bring myself to believe that it is. I can't believe any president or any administration would politicize the war.

But then I read in the paper this morning, now even the president -- the president is quoted in The Washington Post this morning as saying that the Democratic-controlled Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people."

Not interested in the security of the American people? You tell Sen. Inouye he is not interested in the security of the American people. You tell those who fought in Vietnam and in World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people.

That is outrageous, outrageous. The president ought to apologize to Sen. Inouye and every veteran who has fought in every war who is a Democrat in the Senate. He ought to apologize to the American people. That is wrong. We ought not politicize this war. We ought not politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death.

I was in Normandy just last year. I have been in national cemeteries all over this country. And I have never seen anything but stars -- the Star of David and crosses on those markers. I have never seen "Republican" and "Democrat."

This has to end, Mr. President. We have to get on with the business of our country. We have to rise to a higher level. Our Founding Fathers would be embarrassed by what they are seeing going on right now. We have to do better than this. Our standard of deportment ought to be better. Those who died gave their lives for better than what we are giving now.

So, Mr. President, it is not too late to end this politicization. It is not too late to forget the pollsters, forget the campaign fund-raisers, forget making accusations about how interested in national security Democrats are; and let's get this job done right.

Let's rise to the occasion. That is what the American people are expecting.

And we ought to give them no less. I yield the floor.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/25/daschle.comments/index.html

We ALL know what happened to Tom Daschle.:( They had Jeff Gannon working behind the scenes to beat Daschle in his reelection.

ALSO...don't forget Daschle was one of the Senators that received an ANTHRAX letter in 2001.

Op-Ed by Tom Daschle - Anthrax

Posted by: ecthompson

From WaPo:

Oct. 15, 2001, is a day I’ll never forget. On that day one of my staff members opened an anthrax-laced letter addressed to me, and my office became a part of the deadliest bioterrorism attack in U.S. history. Anthrax was also sent through the mail to a number of other people and organizations — the National Enquirer, the New York Post, broadcaster Tom Brokaw and Sen. Pat Leahy of Vermont. These attacks killed five people, injured 17 others, disrupted operations all over Capitol Hill and alarmed an entire nation.

Twenty-eight people, including 20 on my staff, tested positive for anthrax exposure. Though relieved that they were spared the horror of the disease, I am reminded every day that the families and friends of five others were not so lucky. Robert Stevens in Florida, Kathy Nguyen in New York, Ottilie Lundgren in Connecticut, and Thomas Morris Jr. and Joseph Curseen in Washington were all victims of the attack.

Five years later, the alarm I and many others experienced on that dark day has been replaced by a deep discouragement and dismay. more

http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2006/10/19/op-ed-by-tom-daschle-anthrax/

[Missy Vixen]

59. Well, we all know that's okay, right?

:sarcasm:

He chose to become a politician, didn't he? He should take the heat or just get out of the kitchen! He works for me! I can have completely unreasonable standards of any politician I could NEVER live up to myself!

:sarcasm:

I would love to see some here who think that they could be as ideologically pure as they expect others to be serve in even a local capacity. It's not fun facing one's constituency and standing behind a vote to raise taxes, for instance, (no matter how justified and necessary it was at the time,) let alone the current subject at hand.

Julie

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. Politics are supposed to be fun?

[Missy Vixen]

63. Oh. I'm crushed,

I'm sure you've never faced taxpayers you've just told that the town you live in will be forced to make up a several hundred thousand dollar shortfall due to dropping revenues on the state level, for instance.

I continue to be amazed at those on this site who believe that they could stand up under the onslaught of 24x7 scrutiny, but don't have the guts to go down to the county courthouse, file to run for a public office, and serve their constituency.

Julie

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

67. If it's so awful, why did you do it?

Don't you reckon that it comes with job? Plumbers don't like digging through shit to open a clogged drain, but they do it. Pianists have to spend dreary hours of practice, so they do it.

And, when they screw up, they have to endure the complaints of critics.

[Missy Vixen]

71. This is my last response to you

I'm tired of arguing with someone who has no interest whatsoever in actually putting his or her money where his or her mouth is. It's easy to sit behind that keyboard and take shots at others, isn't it?

Why did I do it? Good question. I think that everyone legally able to do so should serve in elected office, no matter how humble. It's an invaluable education. There's also the very real fact that the vast majority prefers not to get their hands dirty. I might also add that I got paid $250 a month for what amounted to a full-time second job.

The instance that I cited in my previous post actually happened several years prior to my being in office. Instead of repaying the sewer system debt, the councilperson in question simply dumped the funds into the general fund, with the blessing of the former mayor. The state of Washington requires that all municipalities balance. Period. We didn't have a lot of choices -- raise taxes to repay the deficit involved, or the city financial manager (who also was not employed at the city during the period of mismanagement,) was resigning and hiring counsel.

I'm more than happy to accept criticism for my mistakes. I won't take verbal abuse or threats.

Julie

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. "verbal abuse"? "threats"? Show me.

Show me, in any of my posts to you, where I either "verbally abused" or "threatened" you. I took no personal "shots" at you.

I simply have no sympathy for politicians who complain about being criticized when they screw up. Nor, do I idolize politicians as having some sort of noble calling that places them above the commoners who have to live with their, all-to-frequent decisions based on their fragile egos or self-interest.

I've gotten my hands dirty, as dirty as most of the citizens of this alleged democracy, who have had to endure the antics of politicians and fought back.

Were not the "councilperson in question and the former mayor" not liable for criticism for their mistakes or malfeasance? As a citizen of Washington State, and the United States, and of the world, I cling to the archaic notion that public officials, of any party, no matter how much "good" they may have done, are still accountable. And, that one doesn't need to run for, or hold office, to have a say in how the bosses are doing their jobs.

[GeorgeGist]

60. I have ...

it's one thing to be misled but quite another to be a misleader ... even if by omission. And this crap about sworn to secrecy doesn't release Durbin from his oath of office. That is black and white!

[wryter2000]

68. No one here's pure enough except you and I.

Sometimes, I have my doubts about you. :)

[Missy Vixen]

72. LOL!

wryter2000, if we're ever in the same place at the same time, I hope you will permit me to buy you a beer.

:toast:

Julie

[wryter2000]

74. Only if you want me to do my Homer Simpson imitation

Mmmmmm. Beer!

You're on!

[happydreams]

69. It's a rigged game. I don't play in rigged games.

Every time I see some democrat on a talk show or being interviewed having every single day of his/her life being gone over with a fine tooth comb while the psychopath in the WhiteHouse is given a free ride at every turn I can only conclude that it is a rigged game and those with the money to pay, pay off, or rig the system get their say on their own terms.

The corporate media rigs the game. The voting machine companies rig the game. The fascists do whatever they like and get away with it.

I don't know what the solution is, but I for one would never get involved in the fundraising game until it is a level playing field.