Daschle's commments

panterapat · Mar 18, 2003

DASCHLE: 'This president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war'...

I think his comments are shameful. He voted to give the president authorization to deal with Saddam. He stated that he would vote the same way again. It looks like he is attempting to play both sides of the fence.

What do you think?

ephod · Mar 18, 2003

panterapat · Mar 18, 2003

Would that be TWO faces you'd be adding???

ephod · Mar 18, 2003

fragmentsofdreams · Mar 18, 2003

Daschle is a hypocrite. His support and opposition to the war is geared to more of what he currently thinks will help Democrats in the next election rather than any principles.

ACougar · Mar 18, 2003

Religious and political leaders from the Pope to Jimmy Carter condemn this war, while longtime supporters of the United States like Canada and Germany also stand opposed to war. There can only be two reasons for this, either the President is wrong and war isn't neccessary or he's done a miserable job at diplomacy. It seems Daschle almost wants to come out in suport of this war at times and simply critizises Bushes diplomacy. I think the Republicans should be relieved he didn't come out and call him a criminal for threatening to invade a sovern country without UN support.

MichaelFJF · Mar 18, 2003

Today at 08:26 AM ACougar said this in Post #6

Religious and political leaders from the Pope to Jimmy Carter condemn this war, while longtime supporters of the United States like Canada and Germany also stand opposed to war. There can only be two reasons for this, either the President is wrong and war isn't neccessary or he's done a miserable job at diplomacy. It seems Daschle almost wants to come out in suport of this war at times and simply critizises Bushes diplomacy. I think the Republicans should be relieved he didn't come out and call him a criminal for threatening to invade a sovern country without UN support.

Only 2 reasons? Why? Because you say so? Carter is no expert. He's an expert in 18% interest rates and peanut farming. That's it. How he got the peace prize is beyond any thinking human. The pope is (hellllloooo) ALWAYS against war. It's his job. Germany is in the same situation as France - oil and other deals with the devil - er - I mean Hussein. There's no accounting for Canada. M

stray bullet · Mar 18, 2003

Today at 10:26 AM ACougar said this in Post #6

Religious and political leaders from the Pope to Jimmy Carter condemn this war, while longtime supporters of the United States like Canada and Germany also stand opposed to war. There can only be two reasons for this, either the President is wrong and war isn't neccessary or he's done a miserable job at diplomacy. It seems Daschle almost wants to come out in suport of this war at times and simply critizises Bushes diplomacy. I think the Republicans should be relieved he didn't come out and call him a criminal for threatening to invade a sovern country without UN support.

UN has three resolutions that gives the US permission to attack Iraq.

ACougar · Mar 18, 2003

Today at 09:31 AM MichaelFJF said this in Post #7

Only 2 reasons? Why? Because you say so? Carter is no expert. He's an expert in 18% interest rates and peanut farming. That's it. How he got the peace prize is beyond any thinking human. The pope is (hellllloooo) ALWAYS against war. It's his job. Germany is in the same situation as France - oil and other deals with the devil - er - I mean Hussein. There's no accounting for Canada. M

Carters actions speak for themselves I suggest you do a little research.  I could be wrong, however i don't remember the Pope condemning War against Iraq while they were sitting in Kuwait.  Every Industrial power in the world has some economic interest in the situation one way or the other, however I'm not cynical enough to believe thats the primary reason most nations choose to oppose this war.

 

ACougar · Mar 18, 2003

Today at 09:38 AM stray bullet said this in Post #8

UN has three resolutions that gives the US permission to attack Iraq.

If those resolutions were all we needed then why were we trying to get another one?  We agreed with the rest of the world that another resolution was needed until we realized that we were not going to get it. 

MichaelFJF · Mar 18, 2003

Carters actions speak for themselves

Yes, they do - glad you agree.

 

 

i don't remember the Pope condemning War against Iraq while they were sitting in Kuwait. 

Now who needs to do research?

 

 

Every Industrial power in the world has some economic interest in the situation one way or the other, however I'm not cynical enough to believe thats the primary reason most nations choose to oppose this war.

Again, more research. The loudest voices against disarming Hussein come from the countries with the fattest contracts - and not just oil. M

stray bullet · Mar 18, 2003

Today at 11:23 AM ACougar said this in Post #10

If those resolutions were all we needed then why were we trying to get another one?  We agreed with the rest of the world that another resolution was needed until we realized that we were not going to get it. 

We wanted to get another UN resolution to simply help Britain out. However, France's actions have sealed that another resolution is impossible.

The US attacked Iraq in 1998 without a UN resolution to do so, in fact... the Secretary General said it was perfectly ok for us to do so and it didn't violate anything.

Now, for some reason, it's less legal now. What's the difference? The president attacking Iraq.

Morat · Mar 18, 2003

Cougar, we certainly did think we needed another resolution. Here's the proof:

U.S. officials said Thursday's concession on the language showed that the United States is genuinely committed to a multilateral process.

"There's no 'automaticity' and this is a two-stage process, and in that regard we have met the principal concerns that have been expressed for the resolution," U.S. Ambassador John D. Negroponte said. "Whatever violation there is, or is judged to exist, will be dealt with in the council, and the council will have an opportunity to consider the matter before any other action is taken."

seebs · Mar 18, 2003

Today at 10:23 AM ACougar said this in Post #10
If those resolutions were all we needed then why were we trying to get another one?  We agreed with the rest of the world that another resolution was needed until we realized that we were not going to get it. 

No, we thought it would be nice to make it utterly clear. The existing resolutions authorize force if there is reason to believe force is necessary to successfully disarm Hussein; Bush feels there is such reason.

I think that, if there is a war, when the U.S. troops start interviewing people whose families aren't being "guarded" by Saddam's soldiers, that they will probably find that he was right. Probably. It's a gamble, but then, life is always a gamble.

datan · Mar 18, 2003

Today at 05:38 PM MichaelFJF said this in Post

Again, more research. The loudest voices against disarming Hussein come from the countries with the fattest contracts - and not just oil. M

conversely, the countries--France, Germany, Russia--are the ones who have had enemy troops on their soil. When was the last time the United States had enemy troops on their soil? Have you considered the possibility that it is precisely they have witnessed first-hand the death and destruction that war brings that they wish to avoid war as far as possible.

On the other hand, America in modern times has never has had enemy troops on her soil. She has never seen the death and destruction that war brings up close. She has never had her cities bombed night after night after night. She has never has her cities utterly destroyed by door-to-door urban fighting.

Could that be why she is so eager to go to war?

datan · Mar 18, 2003

Today at 05:48 PM stray bullet said this in Post #12

We wanted to get another UN resolution to simply help Britain out. However, France's actions have sealed that another resolution is impossible.

The US attacked Iraq in 1998 without a UN resolution to do so, in fact... the Secretary General said it was perfectly ok for us to do so and it didn't violate anything.

Now, for some reason, it's less legal now. What's the difference? The president attacking Iraq.

Well, firstly, France offered another 120-day plan. you turned that flat down because other countries refuse to rubberstamp your war plan.
Secondly, you wouldn't even have gotten 9 votes, and France would not have needed to use their veto.
Thirdly, the difference now is that you are invading another country with the express purpose of disposing their government, and occupying that country for years.

datan · Mar 18, 2003

Today at 05:54 PM seebs said this in Post #14

No, we thought it would be nice to make it utterly clear.

so I guess it's not utterly clear now that you don't have your second resolution?

waterwizard · Mar 18, 2003

<P class=MsoNormal>"Look, we have exhausted virtually all 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."
<P class=MsoNormal>Tom Daschle said this around ten years ago, when You Know Who was President.

Hmmm....
<P class=MsoNormal> 
<P class=MsoNormal>I give up.  Can't get rid of the tags.

stray bullet · Mar 18, 2003

Today at 12:56 PM datan said this in Post #16

Well, firstly, France offered another 120-day plan. you turned that flat down because other countries refuse to rubberstamp your war plan.
Secondly, you wouldn't even have gotten 9 votes, and France would not have needed to use their veto.

Click to expand...

France says they would veto any resolution that supporting going to war for failure on behalf of Iraq. All they wanted was further delay, and you know it.

Speculation suggests we would have gotten 10 votes. Since there was no vote and no announcement of which way they would have voted, you can't continue to claim how much support the US would have gotten.

Thirdly, the difference now is that you are invading another country with the express purpose of disposing their government, and occupying that country for years.

Click to expand...

Wrong. The US attacked iraq in 1998. The US can use force to disarm Iraq of WMDs if they want to, as is stated under UN resolutions.

The difference between now and then is the President.

datan · Mar 18, 2003

Today at 06:53 PM stray bullet said this in Post

Speculation suggests we would have gotten 10 votes. Since there was no vote and no announcement of which way they would have voted, you can't continue to claim how much support the US would have gotten.

Click to expand...

Could you cite your source for the 'speculation'?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41838-2003Mar17.html

Earlier in the day, British and U.S. diplomats, facing certain defeat on the Security Council, withdrew a resolution that would have cleared the way for war. Though Bush on Sunday vowed another day of "working the phones," it quickly became clear that as many of 11 of 15 council members remained opposed. The effort was abandoned by 10 a.m.

The withdrawal of the resolution without a vote was a double climb-down for Bush. On Feb. 22, he had predicted victory at the United Nations, and on March 6 he said he wanted a vote regardless of the outcome.

Daschle's commments

Praise God in all things!

Active Member

Praise God in all things!

Active Member

Critical loyalist

U.S. Army Retired

Well-Known Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

U.S. Army Retired

U.S. Army Retired

Well-Known Member

God Made Me A Skeptic

Untitled One

God Made Me A Skeptic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

God Made Me A Skeptic

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency