To: JohnM who wrote (83550 ) 3/19/2003 12:52:09 AM From: LindyBill Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500 I realize that it is a bad day for the antiwar crowd, so here is a little ray of sunshine from Will. :>) Excerpt: >>>>many elements of the Democratic Party, including most of its base and many of its most conspicuous leaders, seem deranged, unhinged by the toxic fumes of hatred and contempt they emit for the president. From what does this arise? It cannot just be Florida, the grievance that Democrats, assiduous cultivators of victimhood, love to nurse. No, many Democrats' problem, which threatens to disqualify their party from presidential responsibilities for a generation, is their incontinent love of snobbery and nostalgia -- condescension toward a president they consider ignorant, and a longing for the fun of antiwar days of yore. The Vietnam antiwar movement began to burgeon in 1965. It reached its apogee in 1972 with the capture of the Democratic Party and the nomination of the movement's choice for president. When that nominee, George McGovern, proceeded to lose 49 states, the movement, with the imperviousness to evidence that fanaticism confers, was unshaken in its belief that it was the moral majority. That derangement is now being reprised in the likes of Tom Daschle. The Senate minority leader is the most prominent national Democrat and will remain such until a presidential nominee is chosen. Daschle, who five years ago voted with a unanimous Senate to endorse regime change as U.S. policy regarding Iraq, and who five months ago voted with a majority of Senate Democrats for a resolution that did not mention the need for French or U.N. approval in authorizing the use of force -- the incredible shrinking Daschle from George McGovern's South Dakota -- now says that the president of the United States, not the president of Iraq, is the cause of war. Monday, a few hours before the president spoke, Daschle said the president had "failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war." Well. Presumably Daschle meant that Bush has failed to secure the support of the French and a majority of other Security Council members for enforcing the plain meaning of Resolution 1441, which the French co-authored and which the Security Council unanimously adopted. But had the president succeeded, the result would have been the "serious consequences" that 1441 calls for: war. The French and everyone else, including Daschle -- the regime-change-endorsing, use-of-force-authorizing Daschle -- understood that. So Daschle's position is: America is "forced to war" because presidential diplomacy failed to produce a broader coalition for war. With that descent into absurdity, Daschle would have forfeited his reputation for seriousness, if he had one.<<<washingtonpost.com