Two Losers for the Price of One Non-Scandal
Tom Daschle wants George Bush to apologize for saying, “the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people.”
Daschle claims Bush is trying to “politicize this war. We ought not politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death.”
Well, that’s not quite true. Bush was speaking of Senate inaction on the bill creating a Department of Homeland Security. The rest of Bush’s statement 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.”
Daschle loses points for being a crybaby and misrepresenting what the President said. Bush loses points for using such invective to force action on a bad bill creating a useless, but possibly oppressive, new Federal bureaucracy.
They can both go to their rooms without supper.
I just wish there could be a moratorium placed on accusations of “playing politics.” First, because everything politicians do is playing politics. And second because the charge itself is playing politics, rendering anyone who makes it a hypocrite of the first order.
*Sigh* What’s the problem with kids today?
I agree with Bush on external defense and Daschle on homeland defense.
Congress is rightly loathe to void whistle-blower protection for the new Homeland Security Department given the Bush Administration’s refusal to hold anyone to account for the intelligence failures which killed 3000 Americans on 9/11. The only reason we’ve learned about those is because of whistle-blower protection.
If the Bush Administration won’t do its job, it is insane to let it keep Congress from doing their job.
Here is what Bush said : “So I ask 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 that we are 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 (the flexibility) to better keep the American people secure. People are working hard in washington to get it right in washington, both republicans and democrats. You see this isn’t a partisan issue. This is an American issue. This is an issue which is vital to our future…” (My transcription from CSpan)
It’s a two-sided coin, civil service protection. The same protection that protects against whistleblowers also makes it impossible to fire people for making mistakes. (The ones who can be fired are the political appointees.) If you think replacing the people at the top is enough, no problem. (Maybe that’s enough.) If you fear that a department has a rotten culture that no one guy at the top can fix, it’s a problem. If you worry that some employees just aren’t competent enough to do the job, it’s a problem.
Anyway, Mickey Kaus’s discussion is reasonable, fair, and balanced. He dicussses the problems and lists a compromise. Most of the approaches have problems.
It wasn’t fair of Bush to make that comment. Yes, it is true, but, if the Democrats were really interested in the security of the American people, then they’d have to resign, and that’s asking too much.
Now that politicizing is bad, Senator Daschle has a new strategy for running his potential presidential campaign, according to ScrappleFace.
Mr. Thacker,
We _know_ that the FBI and CIA are criminally incompetent and Bush still won’t fire any of them. Instead he proposes to give them more money not to do what they’re already not doing.
The problem is lack of will to fire people who should be fired, not lack of ability to fire them.
Why should President Bush be given the power to fire whistle-blowers when he won’t fire the incompetents who got so many Americans killed?
So far Bush has shown every reason not to give him more domestic power. He won’t use the power he already has.
Are you going to argue that the solution to failed school systems is to give them more money?
Not that it excuses Bush or anything, but his insulting rhetoric is a virtual cut-and-paste of what Democrats were saying during the airport security debate of a year ago.
Parse it how you will, the fact is that Bush accused the Senate of not being concerned about national security. That’s an outrageous statement. Daschle is right to demand an apology.
It’s the same old Republican game: question your opponents’ patriotism and then crawfish away when you’re called on it.
Tom,
He can’t fire them. They have Civil Service Protections. They cannot be fired. Re-assigned, perhaps, but not fired. That is a real tragedy. That is why Bush wants to have control over this new agency. It is a Trojan Horse to slowly erode the Eternal Bureaucracy.
IMHO, Bush has comitted a grievous error in not immediately firing all of the political appointees who “serve at the pleasure of the President.” I fail to see how any clintonoid should still be drawing a Federal paycheck. It is a terrible oversight and I cannot imagine why nothing has been done to date.
Oh, and Bernard, the dems are gutless weasels. They deserve being called on this and it’s funny to watch them squeal when they have been hit where it hurts. They only get puffed up when there’s no substantive comeback to make. Problem was, he never did question their patriotism. He should have.
Dasche has hinted at, and others have outright claimed that President Bush is going to war with Iraq to distract from domestic issues. Accordingly, Daschle not only has no goddamn right to ask for an apology, but Daschle ought to commit harikiri to atone for his slimebag attacks.