Personal Note From the Webmaster:
As you read this and other quotes and statements from Senator Daschle keep one thing in mind.  The Senator meets every morning with the President and is briefed on the state of the Nation.  At any time he has the opportunity to ask any question he wishes.  So when he states that he needs to be kept informed I ask why doesn't he simply ask the questions at the daily briefings?

Frank

Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:22 PM 
Subject: Fw: The First Shot

Please read and disseminate if you agree.

DASCHLE'S FIRST SHOT
New York Post | 3/05/02 | John Podhoretz

Posted on 3/5/02 3:08 AM Pacific by kattracks

March 5, 2002 -- SENATE Majority Leader Tom Daschle is an intelligent man, a very astute politician and a very partisan Democrat. He possesses a quality of thoughtfulness that has helped make him both the most powerful Democrat in Washington and a leading candidate for his party's 2004 presidential nomination. What he says should always be taken seriously because he speaks with care and prudence.
One can therefore assume that when Daschle decided last week to offer a very muted criticism of President Bush's efforts in the war on terrorism, he was not speaking off the cuff or hysterically or irrationally. By answering questions about the war in a skeptical and pessimistic way, America's most important Democrat chose deliberately to open the first meaningful chasm between his party and the president on the war since Sept. 11.

Now, you'd get the sense from the coverage of Daschle's press conference that he had merely questioned the "direction" in which the president is taking the war - sending U.S. special forces into the Philippines and Georgia.

That impression misrepresents what he actually did.

Here's what Daschle said:

* "There may be support in general for the president's request for defense, but somebody's got to ask tough questions." Translation: Democrats may deny the president the defense budget he wants.

* "I don't think the success [of the war] has been overstated, but the continued success, I think is still somewhat in doubt." Translation: I don't like the way the war has been going the past couple of weeks.

* "Clearly, we've got to find Mullah Omar, we've got to find Osama bin Laden and we've got to find other key leaders of the al Qaeda network, or we will have failed." Translation: The Democratic leader says the war is a failure without Osama and Omar in hand.

* "I think that we've got to make a better analysis of what's been done. I will say that at this point, I don't think it would do anybody any good to second-guess what has been done to date. I think it has been successful. But I think the jury is still out about future success, as I've said. But I'm not going to get into the business of second-guessing what we've already done." Translation: Despite my words, I'm considering getting into the business of second-guessing what we've already done, because we need "a better analysis" of it.

* "I think there is expansion without at least a clear direction to date. And before we make commitments in resources, I think we need to have a clearer understanding of what the direction will be." Translation: I am also thinking about second-guessing what the administration is now intending to do in the war, and my whip hand will be my control over the purse strings in Congress.

As these extended quotations suggest, the tone Daschle took last week was striking for its hauteur and emotional stinginess. He grudgingly acknowledges that the war has been a success, but suggests that in the future he might change his tack and declare it a failure.

Daschle says he did what he did because it's his responsibility as the leader of the Senate. The president isn't consulting with him and other senators enough, he says, and Congress is a "co-equal branch" of government.

That's disingenuous. Daschle did what he did not because he's a leader of the Senate but because he is a true partisan leader. He believes it's his responsibility to test the depth and strength of the public support for George W. Bush, who is not only the president but the head of the rival party.

Daschle may believe that the more skeptical news coverage of the war in the past month has penetrated into the American consciousness and has therefore given him and other Democrats an opportunity to chip away at a president who has been all but unassailable for six months.

But does the Democratic Party really want to play this role when it comes to terrorism? If its leading politicians become naysayers and skeptics, that will open up the party to legitimate charges that its anti-war and pacifist legacy dating back to the 1960s is just too strong to be overcome.

E-mail: podhoretz@nypost.com