Democratic anti-Americanism at its all-time height

I found this fascinating.

“To those who would doubt the necessity of the actions by the president, one should pose the question as to what the consequences would be in the face of American inaction. First, clearly, no other country would take the lead. The signature of the current era is such that response to aggression will not be taken up by other powers in the absence of American leadership, unfortunately. This was the case in the invasion of Kuwait. It was the case in Bosnia when, after several years of Western inaction in the face of ethnic atrocities in Bosnia, only the United States, only the United States, could bring about a credible, effective implementation of peace in that sorry part of Europe. . . . It is American leadership which is decisive to the peace in these regions, and I commend President Clinton for his decisive action. It was necessary to weaken the Iraqi leader’s ability to intimidate his neighbors, and to make it clear that he will pay a price for his aggression.”

Senator Robert Byrd, September 1996

“Today I weep for my country. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. … Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. After war has ended the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America’s image around the globe.”

Senator Robert Byrd, March, 2003

“I hope Saddam Hussein and those who are in control of the Iraqi government clearly understand the resolve and determination of this administration and this country. This may be a political year, . . . but on this issue there can be no disunity. There can be no lack of cohesion. We stand united, Republicans and Democrats, determined to send as clear a message with as clear a resolve as we can articulate: Saddam Hussein’s actions will not be tolerated. His willingness to brutally attack Kurds in northern Iraq and abrogate U.N. resolutions is simply unacceptable. We intend to make that point clear with the use of force, with the use of legislative language, and with the use of other actions that the president and the Congress have at their disposal.”

Tom Daschle – September 1996

“Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? . . . The answer is, we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.”

Tom Daschle – February, 1998

"I am “… saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to go to war.”

Tom Daschle, March, 2003

“If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he’s made? Well, he will conclude that the international community’s lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he’ll use the arsenal.”

-President Bill Clinton in 1998

This is eye-opening. Actually, it’s not; it’s completely typical of the anti-American hypocrasy that plagues the Democratic party. It’s a complete joke and offensive to mainstream American. Good luck ever getting back into the White House.

THE TRUTH

Uh what?

Shoo troll.

All it says to me is that George W. has failed so incredibly as a leader that he can’t even get people to remember that they agree with him.

Must…not…reply…can’t…help…it…

Actually, it’s quite typical of the hypocrasy of our two-party political system. Many Republicans were against our incursion into Bosnia, supposedly because there was no “vital American interest” there. Their real problem was a Democrat at the controls. George H.W. Bush put us into Somalia, but Republicans had a problem with increasing the American presence.

Now, the Democrats are casting what could be viewed as a victory for Bush as a foreign policy defeat.

It’s all politics, guy. Pure and simple.

Why is it Anti-American not to want to go to war? I just can’t wrap my mind around this thought that if you don’t mimic what the President says, you’re anti-American. Last I checked, one of the big deals with being American is the right to state your opinion, even if it doesn’t agree with everyone else’s.

That being said, Daschel isn’t protesting the war, he’s campaigning for president. It’s pretty sad, but politics is always #1 for politicians, even if it means proving yourself a hypocrit.

As Reeko said, this isn’t a Democratic trend, it’s a political trend. Republicans and Democrats alike have been dancing this dance since long before you were born, and they will continue long after you’re gone.

Daschle definitely sees an opportunity for face time and soundbites and seizes on it. Sickening. Of course, I already thought he was a dick and would never have voted for him.

It’s funny how disappointed we are when we discover politicians are so politically motivated. Imagine that.

So once again, the two-party system has proven itself outmoded and corrupted. Surprise!

“Anti-American,” to me, seems to be the current conservative effort to stifle free discussion of the issues.

Actually, it’s quite typical of the hypocrasy of our two-party political system.

So once again, the two-party system has proven itself outmoded and corrupted.

I hear this a lot, especially in this thread. In what ways would a third or fourth party eliminate party loyalty? One thing it would absolutely do is guarantee that any elected official would need even less of a clear mandate from the electorate. Not that that’s a bad thing, I guess, but in a this-thread-endorsed political utopia with 11 viable parties, U.S. Presidents could get swept into office with less than 10% of the vote. Unless you guys are advocating a single party system, in which case, I agree, it would most likely result in more standardization among politicians and their opinions. Only now we’re living in the United States of Nazi Germay! I hope nobody got too scared by the sudden shock of my twist ending.

The problem with the two parties is that everything becomes an “us” vs. “them” attitude. Often, ideology takes a back seat to party affiliation.

This gets tossed around a lot, but what does it mean? Most conservative pundits are more than happy to discuss the issues. Is the Republican party leaning on Phil Donahue to talk about Gary Condit, instead? Which issues aren’t getting discussed?

They don’t have to. His show was canceled, (and he was replaced with a guy who publicly refers to women as “dykes”) because he was seen as “anti-American” for allowing antiwar activistson his show.

http://www.fair.org/activism/savage-donahue.html

His show was cancelled despite having the best ratings on the network; this occurred, according to published reports, after a study commissioned by NBC described Donahue as “a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace” who would be a “difficult public face for NBC in a time of war” (All Your TV, 2/25/03). “He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration’s motives,” the report noted, warning that the Donahue show could be “a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.”

Network insiders echoed these qualms. In an email leaked to the website All Your TV (3/5/03), one executive suggested that MSNBC could take advantage of the “anticipated larger audience who will tune in during a time of war” to “reinvent itself” and “cross-pollinate our programming” by linking pundits to war coverage. “It’s unlikely that we can use Phil in this way, particularly given his public stance on the advisability of the war effort,” the email said.

All Your TV’s Rick Ellis quoted a network source: “I personally like Donahue, but our numbers were telling us that viewers thought he has too combative, and often said things that some respondents considered almost unpatriotic.”

According to published reports, these fears led MSNBC to “micromanage” the Donahue show. “He was often told what kinds of subjects to showcase and what kind of guests to have. And he was often chided for being too tough on some guests,” consumer advocate Ralph Nader wrote (Common Dreams, 3/3/03). “In the past few months, the corporate ‘suits’ even told Donahue that he had to have more conservative or right-wing guests than liberals on the same hour show.”

Erik,

Because neither party represents the “annoyed but apathetic middle” that makes up the majority of Americans. But also because the party machines have become so entrenched that it’s all partisan political games now. You can’t come in with new ideas, thoughts of serious reform, etc. and have any chance of being elected.

Reeko,

I’m talking about that fact that any sentiments of concern about whether going to war is a good thing are dismissed as anti-American and patriotic.

Mind you, I think Americans who burn flags should be sent off to the middle-east or Africa for a few months for a reality check. And uninformed people who speak out without attempting to understand the whole picture (on either side of the issue) should be slapped with a carp.

But merely expressing concern about the war, the reasons behind it, and its reprecussions should not be dismissed as an unAmerican activitity. It’s the epitome of American activities.

MSNBC producers are just in this for the money. They are trying to steal market share from FoxNews, not trying to promote a political agenda.

I think being anti-war gets you the anti-American tag only if you’re European. I think a more descriptive adjective for the anti-war Europeans would be anti-Bush, not anti-American. As far as unpatriotic, I haven’t observed much of that going around, so I can’t comment on why someone would be called that.

They don’t have to. His show was canceled, (and he was replaced with a guy who publicly refers to women as “dykes”) because he was seen as “anti-American” for allowing antiwar activistson his show.

http://www.fair.org/activism/savage-donahue.html

His show was cancelled despite having the best ratings on the network; this occurred, according to published reports, after a study commissioned by NBC described Donahue as “a tired, left-wing liberal out of touch with the current marketplace” who would be a “difficult public face for NBC in a time of war” (All Your TV, 2/25/03). “He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration’s motives,” the report noted, warning that the Donahue show could be “a home for the liberal antiwar agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.”
[/quote]

First of all, I’m wary of an organization who purports to be even-handed, yet uses such one-sided reasoning to define themselves. From their site:

What’s Wrong with the News?

Independent, aggressive and critical media are essential to an informed democracy. But mainstream media are increasingly cozy with the economic and political powers they should be watchdogging. Mergers in the news industry have accelerated, further limiting the spectrum of viewpoints that have access to mass media. With U.S. media outlets overwhelmingly owned by for-profit conglomerates and supported by corporate advertisers, independent journalism is compromised.

Ultimately, FAIR believes that structural reform is needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting, and promote strong, non-profit alternative sources of information.

Hrm…I’m not saying that there is a liberal bias in media, but to pretend that the charge doesn’t exist casts serious questions on the organization’s own impartiality.

Secondly, Donahue’s show had a lot more problems than lack of patriotism. Even if his was the highest rated show on MSNBC, the channel as a whole is getting creamed by CNN and Fox News. Donahue’s rating blip could easily (and realistically) been caused by background noise.

Also, Donahue was not just combative with his guests, but downright rude and annoying. The few times I watched, he didn’t even listen to the answers his guests gave to his questions. I realize that this same charge can be leveled at Hannity and O’Reilly, but they tend to be a little less annoyingly obvious. (Actually, I like how O’Reilly handles this, he tends to disagree once or twice, then marks it down as a difference of opinion that’s not going to change over the course of the show.) Donahue just continued on as if the guest had said nothing.

Personally, I think Donahue should have stuck to the culture talk show rather than try to get into the political talk realm, Colmes, Geroldo, and Matthews have the Phil beat hands down.

[size=2]Edited to add ‘not’ to ‘I’m saying that there is…’ which is sorta vital to my meaning and to gut some of the extraneous quoting.[/size]

I used to love Phil. He just wasn’t the same. My wife and I were excited about his come back. His times without an audience were just bad. One show in particular he had a zero tolerance, anti-drug official on. Along with him, he had a “legalize it” guy from Nevada maybe and some other guest with similair liberal views. Phil did not even attempt to fake impartiality or objectivity. There were a lot of, “Oh come ons” and the like. The legalize it guy seemed more level-headed than Phil. Phil’s way too entrenched in his ideology to be a decent host, especially where political issues are concerned.

I agree. O’Reilly is the closest we are ever going to get to a semi-objective host. I have heard him countered and admit he had not thought of that point and changed his mind. On nothing major, mind you, but still. He does his share of rolling over people, but tries to give his guests the last word and moves along briskly if someone is crawfishing. He takes chances and short of having a host with absolutely no opinion, the right leaning O’Reilly is the best we have for now.

There hasn’t been a liberal bias in the media since the 1970s.

O’Reilly objective?

Right now the media coverage, where the war is concerned, is simply lame. They are limited as to where they can go and what they can say, so there is a lot of guessing with experts as to what things could be happening. I heard several today giving excuses for why they have nothing to say.

“We’d like to give you more info, but we don’t have the eyes for it.” Instead we will just speculate and waste hours upon hours of time showing stagnant camera views and replaying the plethora of exciting siren sounds we have looped here at the studio.

Ugh! Horrible.