The Republicans who are currently showering Senator Daschle with bile should take a look at their own history [from E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post]:
The president’s party took an early run this week at shutting down criticism with an all-hands-on-deck attack on Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, a Vietnam-era veteran who had the nerve to criticize the diplomatic failures leading up to this war.
“I’m saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to war,” Daschle said on Monday, “saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn’t create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country.”
The way the Republicans reacted, you’d have thought Daschle had endorsed Saddam Hussein for reelection. “Those comments may not undermine the president as he leads us into war,” said House Speaker Dennis Hastert. “And they may not give comfort to our adversaries, but they come mighty close.”
But a different standard seemed to apply after President Clinton launched his 1999 air campaign in Kosovo to protect ethnic Albanians from another dictator.
“I don’t think we should be bombing in the Balkans,” said Rep. Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican. “I don’t think NATO should be destroyed because we changed its mission to a humanitarian one.” His colleague Rep. Randy Cunningham (R-Calif.) accused Clinton of pursuing “the most inept foreign policy in the history of the United States.”
For what it’s worth, at the time, I criticized both parties for overly personalizing the Kosovo debate around Clinton. But the fact is that DeLay, Cunningham and the other critics were, like Daschle, simply exercising their right — as Americans and as members of Congress — to differ with the commander in chief.
Defenders of Daschle have focused on the Kosovo debate, but almost all of Clinton’s military decisions came under withering Republican criticism. That’s especially true of those he took in the middle of his sex scandal. Note, for example, this Republican reaction to Clinton’s missile strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan against al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
“I just hope and pray that the decision that was made was made on the basis of sound judgment and made for the right reasons, and not made because it was necessary to save the president’s job,” said Dan Coats, then a senator from Indiana and now President Bush’s ambassador to Germany. “Why now? Bin Laden has been known to be a terrorist for a long time. Why did this happen?” [emphasis added – g]
In truth, many Americans — including many in the peace movement arrayed against Bush’s Iraq policy — questioned Clinton’s airstrikes. Surely Daschle’s critics do not propose a double standard holding that while it was permissible to criticize Clinton’s military decisions, it’s wrong to criticize Bush’s. Do they?
Take a look at the emphasized quote. Now, change “Bin Laden” to “Hussein.” I think that one phrase shows two things: that history does have a role in the decision to take action, and that the Republicans should take a step back and understand that they themselves have fought against a president’s necessary policy. No one here is smelling like a rose. They should all feel free to voice their opinions, but none of them should be criticized for doing so.
