Daschle and Byrd, Byrd and Daschle v.2

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
NOTICE: The last thread was locked because people couldn't stop the excessive personal attacks. I have received the O.K. to start another one. Please keep it half-way civil or it will be locked faster than the doors in Saddam's bunker tonight....thanks.



Original Post:



"Daschle is under increasing fire for his most recent, outrageous statements on the brink of war.



Link...from Fox News...but you are used to that!



Thoughts? I think it is:



1. Politically, unbelievably stupid.

2. Grossly disprectful on the brink of war.



BTW, some of the Republican response was hilarious.



"Senator Daschle clearly articulated the French position". ---Santorum"



--SDW2001









Now, Byrd has chimed in. IMO, highly inappropriate when we are literally hours from conflict. I can't find his quote. It was was just as bad, though.



To add to the Daschle thing: Some have said he has the right and duty to criticize policy. That's not what he did, though. He said the President has failed "miserably" and implied that Bush was putting servicemen at risk unnecessarily, just hours before Bush orders troops into battle. It is not the same thing. It is not like he said "I disagree with the President".
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 33
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001



    To add to the Daschle thing: Some have said he has the right and duty to criticize policy. That's not what he did, though. He said the President has failed "miserably" and implied that Bush was putting servicemen at risk unnecessarily, just hours before Bush orders troops into battle.




    But since it's the truth, it's good that he spoke up. Even if he's wrong, a lot of people agree. It's open to debate.
  • Reply 2 of 33
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    If you think about it Daschle's comment make's no sense at all.



    "failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war."





    Now Bush's final "failure" was that he couldn't get the French to go along and as a result others would not either. No UN resolution. But the end result is the same. Military action to get rid of Saddam. So if Bush were successful at that we would be doing the same thing. So Daschle's contention that this "forced" us to go to war is bogus.



    BUT! Maybe Daschle means that Bush's "failed" diplomacy somehow caused the inspections to not work. This is clearly bogus because anyone with half brain knows that 1441 was doomed because Saddam would never allow full cooperation. That's not Bush's fault. It's Saddam's fault.





    Also remember that Daschle voted for regime change and military action on Iraq.



    So no matter which way you slice it Daschle's comment is bogus. Big Surprise!? Or maybe I missed a slice somewhere? Daschle is pure politics and his comments do not serve him or his party well.
  • Reply 3 of 33
    Interesting issue:



    Congressional Republicans expect Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle to unequivocally support President Bush's decision to invade Iraq. The Republicans are playing politics here by accusing Daschle of playing politics. That's all this is- just heading off criticism at home.



    I've got news for Republicans: Mr. Daschle believes Mr. Bush's diplomacy has failed. So do I. So do most Europeans. So does the Arab League. Most certainly does the UN Security Council believe so.



    It's not quite shocking that high level politicians like Mr. Cook and Mr. Daschle could disagree with their respective leaders. Really. It's not that hard.



    The following quote emphasizes the belief of unequivocal support of the president:



    He (Frist) added, ?our men and women literally are in a countdown before fighting is initiated, and any remarks that their lives have in some way been compromised by the president of the United States is irresponsible.?



    Criticism of the president is irresponsible... Should we have continued inspections? Shh! Can't talk about that! Anything said can and will be used against you by the conservative press.



    There are bigger issues in the world right now than Ari Fleischer whining about someone disagreeing with the President. We've all been down this road before- now we've got a war- so we can expect democracy to shut up and unequivocal support for our President to take precedent.
  • Reply 4 of 33
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    So when Daschle said in 1998 that there was no other choice but to force Iraq to disarm militarily he was lying? Or he's lying now?
  • Reply 5 of 33
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    First of all, what link?



    Second of all, Daschle did vote for military action and a regime change in Iraq, but he, like most Democrats who supported this vote in November, thought that the UN would be supporting action as well.



    He has been fairly vocal in his opinions that the UN should be involved in this. In this regard, Bush failed miserably. Instead of being a diplomat, he tried to force the other nations to go along with us. Let's face it- Bush is not Clinton when it comes to diplomacy. It's a major difference in administrations. Clinton could articulate his points and could connect with people. Bush is definitely lacking in this department. His speeches come off as being fairly stale and he comes across to most of the world as smug or arrogant.



    Plus, we've now seen what happens when people don't kowtow to the Bush Administration- they are ridiculed. Seriously. France is the key example of this. It's truly embarassing that the US Government would try and get France to go along with anything by calling them chickens and attempting to dump their products. Renaming French Fries and French Toast as Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast is just plain stupid. France is not our enemy, but it seems that the Bush Administration would have you think that they were. Asking things like, "What is France hiding?" and such. It's like the Communist witch hunts that the Republicans used to have.



    I don't know why it is so hard for some people to accept the fact that the war would have much more support than it does if there was more international support. Daschle, I'm sure, would not be as opposed to this war if there had been a UN resolution approving military action.



    But this is all pointless discussion now. War has begun. Political squabbles from either party are pointless. How can you say, "Shame on you Tom Daschle" for playing politics when just saying that is playing politics too?



    So turn on CNN and watch if you want. We can only hope that this is a very brief war and that our troops come home safely as soon as possible.
  • Reply 6 of 33
    To say that Bush is not like Clinton in foreign policy would be accurate. But what really emphasizes just how different he is is that Bush is not even like Bush in foreign policy. Please, read Salon.com's article on the subject: Bush vs. Bush, written by Jake Tapper, explores just how different he is from his father in foreign policy.
  • Reply 7 of 33
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,937member
    Daschle was out of line....on the eve of war. Debate time is over.



    And goverat is right. You would not believe the comments Daschle, the Democratic Leadership and Clinton himself made in 1998. They sounded EXACTLY like Bush now. If you read the statements and didn't know who said them...you would not know the difference.



    It was purely political. Worse, it wasn't even SMART to say. The same people who supported action in 1998 now don't. Hmmm.
  • Reply 8 of 33
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Fran:



    Link for you.



    How can I be playing politics against Daschle when I'm not a Republican.
  • Reply 9 of 33
    Honestly, I would like to see the quote in its original context. Clicking on the link within the link Groverat submitted only takes you an article written by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ). Not to diminish the esteemed Senator's reputation, I just think Kyl might have a different take on Senator Dashle's comments than the Senator himself may have had.
  • Reply 10 of 33
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    As posted in the thread that was locked by the Evil Moderator...



    "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? That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply militarily." - Tom Daschle

    link



    How about Daschle supporting regime change in the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998?



    Politicians are liars by trade, and Daschle might be one of the (if not THE) worst in the beltway.
  • Reply 11 of 33
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    I think it's horrible the way Daschle forced us into war. I mean, there's no proof!
  • Reply 12 of 33
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Daschle was out of line....on the eve of war. Debate time is over.



    That's just blind. The more war there is, the more debate there should be. If you don't question, you're blind.



    What I don't like about Daschle's statement is the idea that we're not "forced" into war. That's a load of crap. He should have had the balls to just say the truth instead of trying to straddle the line.



    It's absolutely legitimate to question the war, especially now. While others stick their heads in the sand and tie yellow ribbons around trees, some of us are still concerned.
  • Reply 13 of 33
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Daschle was out of line....on the eve of war. Debate time is over.



    And goverat is right. You would not believe the comments Daschle, the Democratic Leadership and Clinton himself made in 1998. They sounded EXACTLY like Bush now. If you read the statements and didn't know who said them...you would not know the difference.



    It was purely political. Worse, it wasn't even SMART to say. The same people who supported action in 1998 now don't. Hmmm.




    You can't compare action in 1998 and now. We didn't have 250,000 Americans ready to fight and die in combat against Iraqi troops. There is a huge difference between air strikes and all out invasion. If Iraq really does have these chemical and biological weapons, our troops are in real danger. It's obvious as to why someone would agree to air strikes to get a country to comply versus an all out invasion when the lives of more troops are in jeopardy.



    But I will also say that it was Daschle's last opportunity to voice his opinion before the war actually began. It's not as bad to say that you think the action is wrong before the war begins as it is after it starts.



    If Daschle had said these things today, after Iraq tried to kill our troops with 2 scud missiles, it would be a much different story. But this has been way overblown by the conservative media, which should have better things to do, by the way, then go after Daschle 'on the eve of war'.



    But as I said before, discussion on this now is fairly pointless now that the war has begun. I doubt any amount of protesting is going to make Bush change his mind at this late hour. The important thing is trying to get our troops back home as quick as possible. But let me point out that it's un-American to demand one of our leaders kowtow to another because we are going to war. We are lucky to be able to voice our opinions and I'm glad our leaders can speak up on our behalf. People have the right to protest, people have the right to speak out, and people have the right to complain. God Bless America for this. None of this needs to change even though there is a war. It might not change what's going on, but at least people have the chance to be heard and feel like they are doing what they feel is right.



    Honestly. What's the harm in that?
  • Reply 14 of 33
    enaena Posts: 667member
    Which of you is ready to say the Daschle's comments are purley from principle---and have no political component?



    Also---which of you can say that he would be saying the SAME things if a member of his party were President?
  • Reply 15 of 33
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    That's ridiculous though. Who would know what would be going on if Al Gore was President. Would we even be involved in a land war with Iraq? The truth is that we don't know. We can only deal with the situation as it is now.



    But can Republicans say why they say the Democrats have to say nothing now to 'support our troops' when they were screaming 'WAG THE DOG' back when Clinton was President?
  • Reply 16 of 33
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,937member
    Fran and bunge, that's ridiculous. There is a time for debate...then there is a time to win war. The debate is over. It's time to do everything needed to win. As I said, you may think I'm a hawk....but I wasn't all the way on board 6-8 months ago. After seeing Saddam's BS declaration and further games, not to mention the total, criminal inaction by the security council, I go on board...fast. It is the only way.



    Daschle is a hypocrit. You can't defend him by saying his comments in 1998 may have been out-of-context. That's insane...he was expressing a philosphy on Iraq. Now, it has changed. He thought diplomacy had failed in 1998. He didn't personally attack President Clinton at the time. He supported the action! Where were the war protesters in 1998? Where was Senator Byrd? You can't defend them by saying that now it is a different thing to actually invade. It is still a major military action.



    This is the unbelievable hypocrisy of the extreme Left. The Democrats desperately need to get rid Daschle.
  • Reply 17 of 33
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Fran and bunge, that's ridiculous. There is a time for debate...then there is a time to win war. The debate is over. It's time to do everything needed to win.



    That's just patently wrong. When someone is wrongfully convicted and put on death row, do you stop debate because the courts have already ruled? No. You debate until the switch is pulled. The debate can and should continue even after the fact so as to not let history repeat itself when the present day actions are so horrendous.
  • Reply 18 of 33
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Fran and bunge, that's ridiculous. There is a time for debate...then there is a time to win war. The debate is over. It's time to do everything needed to win. As I said, you may think I'm a hawk....but I wasn't all the way on board 6-8 months ago. After seeing Saddam's BS declaration and further games, not to mention the total, criminal inaction by the security council, I go on board...fast. It is the only way.



    Daschle is a hypocrit. You can't defend him by saying his comments in 1998 may have been out-of-context. That's insane...he was expressing a philosphy on Iraq. Now, it has changed. He thought diplomacy had failed in 1998. He didn't personally attack President Clinton at the time. He supported the action! Where were the war protesters in 1998? Where was Senator Byrd? You can't defend them by saying that now it is a different thing to actually invade. It is still a major military action.



    This is the unbelievable hypocrisy of the extreme Left. The Democrats desperately need to get rid Daschle.




    I have only one question for you. Have you ever changed your mind in your life?
  • Reply 19 of 33
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    SDW, like I said, if you think the Democrats are being hypocritical, you must think that the Republicans are being hypocritical as well, being on the opposite side of the debate themselves back in 1998. After all, they were screaming "WAG THE DOG" as much as they could.



    It's a double standard if you want to say the rhetoric is the same but that it was okay for Republicans to question Clinton.
  • Reply 20 of 33
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Of course Republicans gave Clinton crap in '98, they are politicians. ALL POLITICIANS ARE LIARS.



    I cannot believe how you guys can just brush past that blatant hypocrisy... just stunning.
Sign In or Register to comment.