Daschle's commments

[stray bullet]

because it would have made the war appear less legal. It would have looked back to go right after getting vetoed

in addition, many countries may have felt it was pointless to vote and take the risk, when it was going to be vetoed anyways.

 

[Doctrine1st]

Yesterday at 02:49 PM panterapat said this in Post #1

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?

I think you mean to say that he gave support to the Prez to deal with terrorists. Unfortunately with 9-11 emotions running high at that time, nobody had dare ask the Prez to be more specific.

Daschle, as with Bush, and all politicians alike are concerned with what is or isn't political suicide, rather than what's right at the expense of it.

Bush and all politicians can't spell i-n-t-e-g-r-i-t-y, just as one shouldn't have let Clinton's ability to smooze fool ya, don't let Bush's home spun retardedness fool you either. He's down with the team, and I don't think any of us here on this board have enough money to get past the doors of practice, let alone play.

 

[brewmama]

Today at 02:52 AM Doctrine1st said this in Post #42



I think you mean to say that he gave support to the Prez to deal with terrorists. Unfortunately with 9-11 emotions running high at that time, nobody had dare ask the Prez to be more specific.

Daschle, as with Bush, and all politicians alike are concerned with what is or isn't political suicide, rather than what's right at the expense of it.

Bush and all politicians can't spell i-n-t-e-g-r-i-t-y, just as one shouldn't have let Clinton's ability to smooze fool ya, don't let Bush's home spun retardedness fool you either. He's down with the team, and I don't think any of us here on this board have enough money to get past the doors of practice, let alone play.

Um, what exactly did you just say?

 

[Doctrine1st]

Today at 06:50 AM brewmama said this in Post #43



Um, what exactly did you just say?

This is what I'm saying is; as long as the system of American politics remains one where money and loyalty to the organizations that put you power, transcends the need of others, or for example the need to overhaul that system, then there is no integrity in any of them no matter how people precieve them.

 

[panterapat]

Is an attack on Iraq legal? No.
Is it morally justified? Yes.
Will the world be a better place without Saddam? Yes.

 

[datan]

Today at 12:35 PM panterapat said this in Post #45

Is an attack on Iraq legal? No.
Is it morally justified? Yes.
Will the world be a better place without Saddam? Yes.

#1 and #3 I agree with you.
#2 I reserve judgement until US troops enter Baghdad and see what reception that receive.

 

[paulewog]

#1 = what happened to 1441

I don't think Bush is doing this for money.

Daschle contradicts himself too much.

 

[datan]

Today at 12:52 PM paulewog said this in Post #47

#1 = what happened to 1441

I don't think Bush is doing this for money.

Daschle contradicts himself too much.

your UN ambassador said this:

"This resolution contains no 'hidden triggers' and no 'automaticity' with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA, or a Member State, the matter will return to the council for discussion ..."

 

[rbaker7385]

Back to Daschle's comments. He would say anything oppose president Bush. If Bush said the sky was blue he would say it was green or if grass was green he would say it was blue ( and want to smoke it) Dash has no agenda but to oppose Bush. Second we only signed a cease fire with Iraq in 91 and they were to disarm and if they didn’t the war would resume.
Dash is the reason for lost seats in the last election

Daschle

 

[datan]

Second we only signed a cease fire with Iraq in 91 and they were to disarm and if they didn’t the war would resume.

the ceasefire was signed by the United Nations. Therefore, the United Nations (not the United States) should determine a breach of ceasefire conditions and allow for war to continue.

 

[rbaker7385]

I am looking at a picture right now of Norman Schwarzkopf signing the ceasfire in a tent on the desert

 

[datan]

Today at 01:19 PM rbaker7385 said this in Post #51

I am looking at a picture right now of Norman Schwarzkopf signing the ceasfire in a tent on the desert

on behalf of coalition forces

 

[paulewog]

I loev that guy's name.

 

[rbaker7385]

Datan what country are you from