Do we have to give up one life because the President did not get a second Security Council resolution? Wasn’t that second resolution all about authorizing war in the first place? So if the US had gotten the resolution, would that have changed anything? How can Daschle support the idea of military action, but blame Bush for deciding to take military action? This seems like a great contradiction to me.
In 1998, prior to Operation Desert Fox, Daschle said:
What made invasion proper in 1998, while there was a democratic president, but not now, when there is a republican president? Isn’t the case stronger now for military action than it was in 1998?
Am I missing something here? Or is Daschle just being partisan on the eve of war? We can scratch him off of the list of possible presidential candidates, I think.
I’m saddened, saddened that this poster failed so miserably at checking the spelling in his title and that we’re now forced to beg a kind mod to fix the title to refer to TOM Dashle instead of Tim Daschle, saddened that we have to make such a request because this poster couldn’t create the kind of editorial effort that was so critical for our message boards.
Tom, Tim, Tiny…whatever you want to call him, your idea is right on. The partisan Democrats have seized and run with the idea of a massive diplomatic failure on the part of Bush, which was gleefully pointed out to us by a devoted follower today on another board. It’s dubious, but it’s a way to deflect attention from Daschle’s overall contribution.
Tom Daschle (D, France) is just pandering to the radical leftists in the DNC. Not a very bright move, with a presidential election coming up, but who ever accused Daschle of being bright?
Daschle and Pelosi have long since abandoned Clinton’s very successfull centrist stance. Even the wicked witch of NY has wisened up, and is playing it cool. Other then taking votes from the Green Party, at the expense of centrist votes, playing to the ultra-left makes no sense.
Why is Daschle saying something of the sort, well aparently all he does is watch CNN, and go by what they say and what their polls, say. And with CNN being very left-sided, their polls are going to show more support for anti-war (anti-America) rallys.
SO…in turn, two words come to mind for what Daschle is trying to do. PUBLIC RATING (which he can gorget abouthaving any after that comment he made, sohe might as well forget about running for President.
“What made invasion proper in 1998, while there was a democratic president, but not now, when there is a republican president?”
In 1998 you had a policy of limited military strikes to bring Saddam under pressure. This is completely different from a massive ground war to effect regime change. Therefore there is no inconsistency.
Wow, only 7 replies and we’ve already got “This is no time to protest the war; we’re trying to go to war!” and “That durn lib’rul media!” and “If you aren’t for the war, you’re against America!” and gratuitous potshots at Hillary.
Slow down, guys. You have to save some cliches for the rest of the right-wing knee jerkers!
American diplomacy is not at fault. Our diplomatic efforts were and are superb. If they were not, we would not have basing rights in the region, British and Australian troops would not be participating, etc.
The UN Security Council suffered a massive failure at the hands of the French, and perhaps the Russians. But that is not the fault of American diplomacy. Don’t confuse the fact that the French effectively killed diplomacy within the framework of the UN with some sort of alleged American diplomatic failure.
Don’t be obtuse. Our failure to secure but the merest scintilla of global support (your “etc.” notwithstanding) is pathetic and leaves us with our Johnson swinging in the wind. Bush had fostered a nascent collaborative relationship with Putin, who now has to come out condemning our actions and affirming that he too would have used his veto against our resolution. We apparently couldn’t even pay Turkey enough to secure their cooperation. Our “uniter not a divider” has divided this country and the world in ways unimaginable, and only the most dim-witted and partisan would suggest that the “liberal” media had a thing to do with it. Failing to get cooperation is a failure of diplomacy. Apparently sometimes the apple does fall far from the tree.
Bush’s team certainly misjudged French willingness to push an anti-war stance to the detriment of a disarmament regime. Foreclosing any use of force resolution made the French look unreasonable to those that mattered. In a way, the French played right into Bush’s hands. So obviously running interference for the Iraqis by threatening a veto, the French legitimized for Bush his earlier reluctance to go to the UN.
Everyone does realize that France openly playing the veto card took the responsibility out of GWB’s hands, right? Unless you think he was supposed to send a team of fluffers to Paris on the Concorde with tubs of gold and jewels.
Moreover, in the long run, the so-called failure in diplomacy will not matter. The prosecution of the war - which is no small matter and could backfire - is how Bush will be judged. By the war, what is discovered, and the peace that follows.
If the US uncovers huge caches of chemical weapons, a bioweapons program, and a nuclear program, most people will consider the diplomacy to have been a big dangerous circle jerk anyway. Those who downplayed every bit of evidence and obsessed on the quasi-mythological “Smoking Gun” will have some 'splanin to do.
So, to wind this up, Daschle so viscerally hates GWB it overwhelms his judgment and political instincts. Daschle’s oversimple view of the diplomacy is one example.
Ignorant, lying, or overdramatic? What is a ‘scintilla of global support’ in your book? In my book, 45 countries are more then plenty.
And GW has done nothing to ‘divide’ anything. Llike the street-matching bongo-bangers (and the French), would support Bush if he recommended we all go out for a latte’, much less take down a brutal dictator. The ‘division’ has existed for a long, long time. That people are now showing their true colors is all that is different.
I suppose what bothers me is not whether this was a foreign policy debacle (which I think is a debatable proposition), but that ultimately, the only way to avoid war was for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and nothing that I have seen or read about him indicates that he is the type of person to do so. Certainly, everything he has done since the cease fire in 1991 has been aimed at doing anything but disarming. So how can the ultimate result be called Bush’s fault? How can Daschle lay blame without even referring to the progenitor of this entire situation, Saddam Hussein? How can he blame Bush for now taking an action that he himself voted to authorize? I think that under the circumstances, not only was it illogical and indenfensible, but in very poor taste.
I don’t believe it was a massive failure. I’m going by the opinions given by Madeline Albright and James Schlesinger and others, who oughtta know, on 3/17 that the effort at diplomacy was a good one. It didn’t bring the desired result of a second resolution, so it failed in that regard. But in Daschle’s words, “this president failed so miserably” is in effect ignoring Chirac’s contribution to the whole thing by painting himself into an opposing corner. It takes two to have a breakdown in diplomacy in other words. And particularly in light of Daschle’s next words: “we believe now as we did back then that Saddam poses very serious threats to this country…” he’s not backing that opposing UN view at all. So…unless Daschle or somebody offers an alternate scenario of how they would have done things and succeeded, what I see is nothing more than a flurry of basic CYA statements to the press.
General opinion of those I’ve spoken with agree that when you complain that loudly, you ought to be able to point to a very consistent record and be able to make suggestions and lead, rather than create dissent.
Daschle has crossed over from someone voicing concern to a ‘bitcher and moaner’.
Bitching and moaning happens at the water cooler, at the lunch table at work, in locker rooms by overpaid spoiled athletes, and by anyone who just wants to complain without stepping up and leading by example., or offering viable alternatives.
Dem and Republicans do it. No party is immune from it. But right now, Daschle has carved out an little reputation for himself, and he’s been quite good at it. He might be the best bitcher and moaner going right now who is able to get the headlines.
Let me know when he starts bitching and moaning about Iraq.
You can’t be serious. Compare 2002-2003 with 1990-1991. Where is the vast collation of developed nations who financially and militarily supported the Gulf Campaign? Compare that with the paltry support this adventure is receiving. The obvious difference is the Doctrine of Preemption this administration has embraced. You cannot expect developed states to rush to the support of a nation which has as a declared policy that it has the right to marginalize other countries and attack any that might detract from its preeminence. It was the administration’s job to sooth and persuade–not only did it fail, it didn’t seriously try.
Senator Daschle’s comments were pretty moderate. He did not question the legitimacy of the invasion of Iraq. He merely said that there had been a failure of diplomacy. No matter what Representative Delay and the boys might think or say, there has been a diplomatic failure.
Where is it written that now is the time to fall on the ground and proclaim the infallibility of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfewitz, et al?