Another inconsisteny issue with Daschle: If Diplomacy would have gotten more countries involved and a new resolution passed that gives a deadline and time for military action, wouldn’t American military lives still be at risk?
If he wants to talk about the sadness of losing American lives because of failed diplomacy, then he is implying that the diplomacy alone would have prevented any conflict, but he apparently doesn’t think this because he supposedly supports the military.
He’s inconsistent.
From Barbarian man:
This whole thing is just as much SadDAMN’s fault as you think it’s Bush’s. And you know it. Sadamn has screwed up his country and diplomacy. And now whether you like it or not we are at war and it’s not all the fault of the USA!
Brutus: "Tom Daschle (D, France) is just pandering to the radical leftists in the DNC.
"?
What exactly qualifies as a radical leftist in your view? Someone who supports UN approval in time of war, doesn’t want to drill in Alaska, and who thinks privatizing social security is a bad idea?
If the answer is yes, I hate to tell you that these positions are those of a majority of Americans. Think Paris, Texas. 
I hope you were joking. Otherwise, you need to unwind a few notches. There is no rule against using fucking language that you may dislike in GD, just against using personal insults. It’s not like he told you to suck his swinging Johnson.
quote:
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.
Quite a sexist remark.
Ah, it’s come full circle. Apparently “liberal” is a general pejorative now, ranking up there with “gay” and (in extra-backwards areas) “jewish”.
“Hey man, you wanna see that new Terminator movie?”
“Nah, it doesn’t even have Arnold.”
“For real? That’s liberal. Fuck it, let’s go watch a tractor pull.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH…tee hee hee…[wipes away tear]
Maybe he was pandering to the Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/current/iraq/index.html
He should have been, since apparently being conservative means that if you object to the war and criticize the President, your patriotism isn’t in question, and you won’t be labeled a traitor.
I find Mr. DeLay’s recent reponse to Daschle particularly amusing considering this:
Of course, if any Democrats feel inclined to complain overmuch that criticisms of Daschle as being dangerous and unpatriotic, I’m sure I can dig up some comments from that era that undercut that criticism as well. 
Just the usual band of Bush-apologizing conservatives, who somehow manage to see G.W.'s amazing ability to piss off three-quarters of the world’s leaders as a good thing…
To get back to the original question of this thread: Yes, Daschle is inconsistent.
To diverge, I’m saddened that Tom Daschle is a member of Congress.
I don’t think you can get away with a statement like that in GD without referencing the 3/4s of the world leaders.
France and Russia had veto power, and France refused to even look over a new resolution. France was the only country talking veto, while Russia might not have voted.
Failure to convert stubborn minded France - and Russia to a lesser degree - hardly constitutes 3/4 of the world’s leaders.
It’s likely that converting France will have resulted in a UN Resolution that would have prevented the label of 'unilateral attackers" on the U.S., and it is likely that some of this type of criticism would never be presented.
The spoken coalition is at least 30 countries, and the silent behind-closed-doors coalition is at 15 (who have internal diplomacy issues with their own people and they’d rather not take to firm a stand on the issue publicly).
We had a diplomatic failure between the U.S. and France.
When Daschle and others can offer SUGGESTIONS and ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGY, then criticism of the US/French diplomatic effort is valid.
Until then, Daschle sits out there and continues to be exposed as the inconsistent bitcher and moaner that is begging for the criticism in as much as G. W. is begging for some of his criticism.
"We had a diplomatic failure between the U.S. and France.
"
From this Reuter’s article:
“Barely three hours after the first U.S. missiles struck Baghdad, a crowd that organizers put at 40,000 and which police said numbered ``tens of thousands’’ brought Australia’s second largest city, Melbourne, to a standstill.”
"Thousands more were expected to take part in a march to the U.S. embassy in Rome in the afternoon. Public sector workers declared a day-long strike while Italy’s three biggest unions, with a combined 11 million members, said they would strike for two hours to protest against the attacks.
In Greece, where there is bitter public and government opposition to the attack on Iraq, the center of Athens was turned into a huge protest arena. Nearly 10,000 people including many schoolchildren gathered to march to the U.S. embassy. Greek police rushed reinforcements to the embassy to protect it."
“Anti-American sentiment was stronger still in Muslim Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan, where many saw the attack as the beginning of an American campaign to subjugate the Islamic world and seize control of oil.”
Outside of the United States, there is hardly a single a country whose public supports this war on these terms. Inside the US there is substantial dissent.
It is patently absurd to say that the leaders of, for example, Chile and Mexico (countries on the Security Council that tried to urge a compromise), Canada (a country off the Security Council that tried to urge a compromise), Russia and China (countries who would have voted against the US/UK’s second resolution), Germany (strongly opposed to war), Turkey (as yet unwilling to provide air space), plus a host of countries in Africa and Asia are in favor of this war. Indeed, it is almost delusional to suggest that their combined resistance, and the even greater resistance of some of their peoples, can be reduced to “failure to conver stubborn minded France.”
3/4 of the world’s leaders is a generous assessment of the extent of the damage to this country’s credibility. The actual damage is probably closer to 9/10 of the world’s people.
As to alternative methodology, that is an almost risible request. Alternatives were on the table from several countries. Some asked for as little as an extension of three weeks. Even if in practice, due to weather considerations, that might have amounted to a delay of months, where was the imminent threat to US security? No case was ever made for that.
Of course, anyone who chooses can turn on Fox News from this point on, or even CNN, and dream that Bush has done the US a favor.
Some more information for Philster.
"Saudi Arabia said it regretted the outbreak of war. The United States closed embassies in Jordan and Pakistan and urged Americans to leave Lebanon.
China surprised analysts who expected it to issue only moderate criticism for the sake of good relations with Washington. Instead it called for a halt to ``a violation of the U.N. Charter and the basic norms of international law.’’
India said the attack lacked justification and Vietnam vehemently condemned it."
Yep, it’s looking more and more as though Bush’s diplomatic failure is limited to our temperamental allies on the Seine.
Ooops. Source for the above excerpt is this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-iraq-reaction.html
sixseven, you can quote text by using the quote tags: