Daschle and his posse...

[Ben E Lou]

These speak for themselves.

"I hope Saddam Hussein and those who are in control of the Iraqi government clearly understand the resolve and determination of this administration and this country. This may be a political year, . . . but on this issue there can be no disunity. There can be no lack of cohesion. We stand united, Republicans and Democrats, determined to send as clear a message with as clear a resolve as we can articulate: Saddam Hussein's actions will not be tolerated. His willingness to brutally attack Kurds in northern Iraq and abrogate U.N. resolutions is simply unacceptable. We intend to make that point clear with the use of force, with the use of legislative language, and with the use of other actions that the president and the Congress have at their disposal."
Tom Daschle – September 1996

"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."
Tom Daschle – February, 1998

"I am...saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to go to war.”
Tom Daschle, March, 2003

"I don't know what purpose it serves by attacking one another at this point. I mean, if ever there was a time for us to present a unified front to Iraq, this ought to be it. . . . Let's not . . . send all kinds of erroneous messages to Iraq about what kind of unity there is within the community."
Tom Daschle, March, 1998, responding to criticism of Trent Lott of Kofi Annan

"To those who would doubt the necessity of the actions by the president, one should pose the question as to what the consequences would be in the face of American inaction. First, clearly, no other country would take the lead. The signature of the current era is such that response to aggression will not be taken up by other powers in the absence of American leadership, unfortunately. This was the case in the invasion of Kuwait. It was the case in Bosnia when, after several years of Western inaction in the face of ethnic atrocities in Bosnia, only the United States, only the United States, could bring about a credible, effective implementation of peace in that sorry part of Europe. . . . It is American leadership which is decisive to the peace in these regions, and I commend President Clinton for his decisive action. It was necessary to weaken the Iraqi leader's ability to intimidate his neighbors, and to make it clear that he will pay a price for his aggression. "
Senator Robert Byrd, September 1996

"Today I weep for my country. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. ... Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. After war has ended the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe."
Senator Robert Byrd, March, 2003

"None of us knows why Saddam decided to test us now," Kerry said on September 5, 1996. "But if the history of the last six years has taught us anything, it is that Saddam Hussein does not understand diplomacy, he only understands power, and when he brandishes power in a manner that threatens our interests or violates internationally accepted standards of behavior, we must be prepared to respond--and with force if necessary." [emphasis added] Such force, Kerry went on, might well be used unilaterally: "The United States under President Bush and then President Clinton, led these earlier efforts to contain Saddam. Whereas some of our allies in the region are constrained from acting on this occasion, we are not."
Senator John Kerry, September, 1996.

“Rush to war.” “Hasty war talk.” “Erratic unilateralism and reluctant engagement.”
Senator John Kerry, March, 2003

[The Afoci]

Daschle is a fool. I don't know how else to say it.

[Craptacular]

I love politicians.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by Craptacular
I love politicians.

Exactly. I am sure you could do this for any politician, Republican, Democrat, or others. That being said I, as a libreal, am not too fond of Daschle.

[Ksyrup]

Daschle makes Gephardt look appealing. Nuff said.

[WSUCougar]

I’m not going to state my personal political views in this thread. I think they are irrelevant for the purposes of what I have to say. I am, however, quite weary of all the partisan garbage that dominates American politics, on both sides. It’s predictable, tit-for-tat nonsense.

Skydog, I respect you as the moderator of this board, I usually enjoy your postings, and you seem to be a good, upstanding guy. However, I am a bit disillusioned by the provocative nature of your politically-oriented postings. You are, of course, more than welcome to your opinion, but you seem to really be throwing down the gauntlet to the individuals who do not subscribe to your political views. It seems like your baiting liberals. Is now the time to be doing that, as our nation goes to war? What do you expect to engender by threads such as this?

[Havok]

Daschle's gonna find himself Jobless after his next elections.... you wait and see.

He's crossed the line to many times lately.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by WSUCougar
It seems like your baiting liberals.

That is not at all my intention.

[albionmoonlight]

As someone who would like Bush and pals out of office, I really wish that the Dems. could find someone--anyone--to present a credible threat to Bush.

The leadership of the Democratic party does not know what it is doing. I agree that new blood is needed. Bush should win in a landslide in 2004--despite the fact that there are several issues (abuse of civil liberties, enviromental protections, federal judiciary, international perception of America, economy) on which he could be profitably engaged. The Dems. have no one to engage him.

I miss Paul Wellstone.

[Edit to list of issues]

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
As someone who would like Bush and pals out of office, I really wish that the Dems. could find someone--anyone--to present a credible threat to Bush.

Well...they could always run Zell Miller...

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
Daschle makes Gephardt look appealing. Nuff said.

Yeah, I saw Gephardt (on Fox news believe it or not) yesterday make clear that he is behind the President on this 100%, and that he thought Daschle's comments were inappropriate. I don't like Geppie, but at least he is backing his original stance.

[JPhillips]

Its amazing how the conservative leadership now views questioning the president during military action as treasonous. In 1998 when our forces were active in Kosovo Tom Delay said this:

"The administration's campaign has been a disaster. ... [It] escalated a guerrilla warfare into a real war, and the real losers are the Kosovars and innocent civilians."

and this

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning. I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

and this

DeLay called [Clinton's refusal to negotiate directly with Milosevic] "really disappointing" and a failure of "leadership. ... The president ought to open up negotiations and come to some sort of diplomatic end."

and from Trent Lott(then Majority leader btw)

Lott implored Clinton to "give peace a chance" and, comparing the war with the recent Colorado high-school shootings, urged him to resolve the Kosovo conflict with "words, not weapons."

Don't tell me that the Republicans aren't just as partisan as the Democrats. While I find the remarks of Daschle unfortunate and ill-timed, those complaining need to take the Republican leaders to task as well. Otherwise, this is clearly just a partisan assault on the Democrats.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally posted by JPhillips
Its amazing how the conservative leadership now views questioning the president during military action as treasonous. In 1998 when our forces were active in Kosovo Tom Delay said this:

"The administration's campaign has been a disaster. ... [It] escalated a guerrilla warfare into a real war, and the real losers are the Kosovars and innocent civilians."

and this

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning. I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

and this

DeLay called [Clinton's refusal to negotiate directly with Milosevic] "really disappointing" and a failure of "leadership. ... The president ought to open up negotiations and come to some sort of diplomatic end."

and from Trent Lott(then Majority leader btw)

Lott implored Clinton to "give peace a chance" and, comparing the war with the recent Colorado high-school shootings, urged him to resolve the Kosovo conflict with "words, not weapons."

Don't tell me that the Republicans aren't just as partisan as the Democrats. While I find the remarks of Daschle unfortunate and ill-timed, those complaining need to take the Republican leaders to task as well. Otherwise, this is clearly just a partisan assault on the Democrats.

Here here!

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
I miss Paul Wellstone.

Uh, with all due respect to the late Senator, there's no way he could have ever competed in a national election. He was way too far left. Right or left, if you're too far one way or the other, you're not going to get the support you need to run for President.

[CamEdwards]

You're right. It's all about partisan politics.. on BOTH sides.

But the situation at hand dictates that if we want to end the partisan politics, Democratic leaders need to rally behind our president.

In two years, or six, or whenever we have a Democrat in office, I will expect nothing less from our Republican leadership.

It's (pardon my French.. I mean Freedom) bullshit, and it's got to stop.

[KWhit]

I wrote in another thread about my disgust with party politics, but I'm happy to do it again.

Every politician feels that one of the best ways to improve their chance of being re-elected is to make the other party look bad. It doesn't matter how trivial the issue or how important the issue.

Dems do it. Repubs do it. It's part of the game, and it sucks.

I think our system would be a much better place if the Founding Fathers would have listened to George Washington and never developed political parties.

[JPhillips]

Cam: Praise the Lord! We agree on something!!!

[CamEdwards]

Hey, I'm an American first, a conservative second.

[albionmoonlight]

Oh--I know that Wellstone would have NEVER come close to winning a national election. I just miss him is all.

[albionmoonlight]

Dola--nor do I think he would have made a good president--the conviction in his beliefs that I find so appealing would have made it hard for him to make the compromises necessary to be a good president.

[Ksyrup]

I really have no problem with a party distinguishing itself from the other by pointing out the other party's problems, along with pointing out your own party's positives. I think that is valid, and I don't consider it "dirty" or "partisan" politics to do so. When we make decisions, we look at both the positives and negatives of any situation - when I buy a car, I look at what I like and don't like and make an informed decision.

What I don't like is trying to make a political issue out of every little thing that happens. And both sides do it. For instance, although I'm a conservative, I don't particularly like the fact that Republicans are turning the Hispanic judge candidate issue, which from all objective appearances seems to be about whether he's too conservative for Dems to live with, into a "Dems are against Hispanics" issue. That kind of stuff is disengenuous.

But it works to some degree, so I don't expect it to cease in our lifetimes.

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
Dola--nor do I think he would have made a good president--the conviction in his beliefs that I find so appealing would have made it hard for him to make the compromises necessary to be a good president.

I thought you were saying that you missed him because he would have been your candidate of choice for 2004.

[digamma]

Originally posted by albionmoonlight
As someone who would like Bush and pals out of office, I really wish that the Dems. could find someone--anyone--to present a credible threat to Bush.

The leadership of the Democratic party does not know what it is doing. I agree that new blood is needed. Bush should win in a landslide in 2004--despite the fact that there are several issues (abuse of civil liberties, enviromental protections, federal judiciary, international perception of America, economy) on which he could be profitably engaged. The Dems. have no one to engage him.

His name is Howard Dean.

[Tarkus]

The best thing about Daschle's comments is that he is no longer a potential presidential candidate. Whatever aspirations he may have had along those lines are now dead.

Tarkus

[sterlingice]

In two years, or six, or whenever we have a Democrat in office, I will expect nothing less from our Republican leadership.

It's (pardon my French.. I mean Freedom) bullshit, and it's got to stop.

Should I point out that if Clinton had done this war, I'm 100% certain the shoe would be on the other foot. Somehow I doubt conservatives would be calling for unilateral support behind him. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.

SI

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by sterlingice
Should I point out that if Clinton had done this war, I'm 100% certain the shoe would be on the other foot. Somehow I doubt conservatives would be calling for unilateral support behind him. Anyone who thinks otherwise is naive.

SI

That was my point. Or were you just seconding my motion?

[tucker342]

Originally posted by JPhillips
Its amazing how the conservative leadership now views questioning the president during military action as treasonous. In 1998 when our forces were active in Kosovo Tom Delay said this:

"The administration's campaign has been a disaster. ... [It] escalated a guerrilla warfare into a real war, and the real losers are the Kosovars and innocent civilians."

and this

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning. I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

and this

DeLay called [Clinton's refusal to negotiate directly with Milosevic] "really disappointing" and a failure of "leadership. ... The president ought to open up negotiations and come to some sort of diplomatic end."

and from Trent Lott(then Majority leader btw)

Lott implored Clinton to "give peace a chance" and, comparing the war with the recent Colorado high-school shootings, urged him to resolve the Kosovo conflict with "words, not weapons."

Don't tell me that the Republicans aren't just as partisan as the Democrats. While I find the remarks of Daschle unfortunate and ill-timed, those complaining need to take the Republican leaders to task as well. Otherwise, this is clearly just a partisan assault on the Democrats.

agreed

[sterlingice]

Cam, I'm disagreeing with you (unless I'm reading your post wrong). If Clinton were conducting this war, Conservatives would be all over him, calling it a wasteful war and petty politics. Instead, since a Republican is in the While House, we hear the rallying cry to get behind the president from them. I've long since tired of blindly following our moron of a president. I support our troops. I don't support our president.

SI

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by sterlingice
Cam, I'm disagreeing with you (unless I'm reading your post wrong). If Clinton were conducting this war, Conservatives would be all over him, calling it a wasteful war and petty politics. Instead, since a Republican is in the While House, we hear the rallying cry to get behind the president from them.

SI

Yes, you're misreading me. What I said was that when the Democrats assume power (whenever that may be) I expect the Republicans to support the President if we wage war. Maybe I should have said "I hope". Do I think this is all partisan bullshit that also took place in 1998? Yep. Does it make any more right for the Democrats to be acting this way? Nope. Somebody's got to stop the partisanship, and since the Republicans are in charge, it's up to the Democrats for now.

[sterlingice]

Yes, you're misreading me. What I said was that when the Democrats assume power (whenever that may be) I expect the Republicans to support the President if we wage war. Maybe I should have said "I hope". Do I think this is all partisan bullshit that also took place in 1998? Yep. Does it make any more right for the Democrats to be acting this way? Nope. Somebody's got to stop the partisanship, and since the Republicans are in charge, it's up to the Democrats for now.

Cool- now I'm set straight. Still, I think it's a silly game of "we'll do it if you do it" which will just result in more broken promises. I'm not saying it's right- but I'm not going to fault them greatly. We all know that even if the Dems supported the Reps 100% (which would never happen), the Reps would not support the Dems the same way and that notion is what I am saying is naive.

I'm just tired of everyone getting called a CommieNazi just for disagreeing with our current president. Then again, if you want to check my complete views on this- check the torture thread from a few days ago. I'm behind our troops and military (my previous two roommates are Navy and Infantry reserve) but don't ask me to like that we're at war especially on the orders of a president who is doing a relatively just war but for all the wrong reasons.

SI

[Bonegavel]

Originally posted by KWhit
I wrote in another thread about my disgust with party politics, but I'm happy to do it again.

Every politician feels that one of the best ways to improve their chance of being re-elected is to make the other party look bad. It doesn't matter how trivial the issue or how important the issue.

Dems do it. Repubs do it. It's part of the game, and it sucks.

I think our system would be a much better place if the Founding Fathers would have listened to George Washington and never developed political parties.

Ok. Then what should they do? Make the other guy look good? It is a good policy to point out the other side's mistakes; as long as it is the truth. When the Democrats cried that the republicans were starving children because they raised the school lunch budget less than they wanted, they should have been ashamed of themselves. Or when the Dems accused the other side of trying to kill everyone and poison their drinking water.

That is bashing that I find offensive because it isn't true. If it were true... i would want to know.

[KWhit]

I notice you only point out the instances where Democrats have done that.

Just a guess - you're a Republican, right?

This makes my point for me.

[Bonegavel]

I wrote in another thread about my disgust with party politics, but I'm happy to do it again.

Every politician feels that one of the best ways to improve their chance of being re-elected is to make the other party look bad. It doesn't matter how trivial the issue or how important the issue.

Dems do it. Repubs do it. It's part of the game, and it sucks.

I think our system would be a much better place if the Founding Fathers would have listened to George Washington and never developed political parties.

How did my comment help make your point? These points were never used by any republican in a re-election campaign. The democrats attack with these types of blatantly untrue comments with disturbing alacrity and frequency.

The democrats are the most negative group of people I have ever had the pleasure of not voting for.

Neither party is perfect, we all understand that point. I even understand your point about reform and i wouldn't stop at your party suggestion. As for your comment about me being a republican, the answer is yes. They are the party that is most aligned with my views of personal responsibility and less intrusive government (though the office of homeland security and recent budget proposals puts this wish in jeopardy).

[KWhit]

Originally posted by BoneGavel
How did my comment help make your point? These points were never used by any republican in a re-election campaign. The democrats attack with these types of blatantly untrue comments with disturbing alacrity and frequency.

...

As for your comment about me being a republican, the answer is yes.

I didn't mean to criticize your choice of political affiliation. However, if you ask a Democrat, they will tell you the exact opposite. That Republicans are the lying party and they'll likely be able to give specific examples that help make their case.

And I would say you're both right! I personally think both parties are full of lying cheating bastards, so I have to really look hard at each individual candidate before deciding whom to support.

The reason I say you helped make my point was the fact that people who consider themselves a Republican overlook most all of the problems with politicians of their party - no matter how egregious. But any slip by a member of an opposing party and their all over it!

If politicians didn't have a damn (D) or (R) beside their name all the time, we would all be much more subjective, IMO.

And I'm not bashing you, personally. Everyone does it. That's the problem.

[Fritz]

I don't know if you can have a "no party." I just don't think it would function.

One thing that I certainly do not want is a multi-party system ala many European democracies. Talk about a mess.


edit:

what would difference between NO party and ONE party be?

[stkelly52]

Actually the US does have many parties just like most of the rest of the world. It is just that most of them don't get enough votes to make a particle bit of difference. it wouldn't take much to have oneof those parties grow big enough to make a difference though

[qmpz]

Don't know if it matters anymore, but the original quotes are from very different times, meaning the pro-war quotes are from a time when Saddam was kicking inspectors out of Iraq wereas the later quotes are from a time when inspectors were gaining (arguably) more and more cooperation from Saddam. I think it's unfair to judge the two sets on equal terms. Just my $.02.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by digamma

His name is Howard Dean.

Worst. Call. Ever.

[Flasch186]

daschle and Delay both suck and should be gone....

[stevew]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Worst. Call. Ever.

Eeeeeeeyaaaaaaawwwwwwhhhhhhh

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

daschle and Delay both suck and should be gone....

1 down. As a person who more frequently sides with the Republicans on issues, i wouldnt mind Delay becoming someones bitch in prison.

[KWhit]

Skydog must be bored today.

[Peregrine]

Is there some kind of "I'm Feeling Lucky?" button like Google here which pulls up random old threads?

[Ben E Lou]

As I mentioned in the other thread, I was doing a search for something else, and ran across this, and I couldn't resist giving digamma a hard time about the Howard Dean call.

[Tigercat]

I don't know, considering the time of the call I don't think its a bad call from what was at least somewhat of a limb. In early 2003 many would have said that Dean is too liberal on certain issues to lead the Democratic party anywhere, but for a number of months he lead the party on the campaign trail, and now hes the chair of the party. Now if the call would have been for Clark, that would have been a bad call.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

I don't know, considering the time of the call I don't think its a bad call from what was at least somewhat of a limb. In early 2003 many would have said that Dean is too liberal on certain issues to lead the Democratic party anywhere, but for a number of months he lead the party on the campaign trail, and now hes the chair of the party. Now if the call would have been for Clark, that would have been a bad call.

I actually think Clark would have been the Dem's best chance to win the election. Of course, he never had any chance at all of getting the nomination.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You're right. It's all about partisan politics.. on BOTH sides.

But the situation at hand dictates that if we want to end the partisan politics, Democratic leaders need to rally behind our president.

In two years, or six, or whenever we have a Democrat in office, I will expect nothing less from our Republican leadership.

It's (pardon my French.. I mean Freedom) bullshit, and it's got to stop.

Well said, sleepless one.

[Havok]

Originally Posted by Havok

Daschle's gonna find himself Jobless after his next elections.... you wait and see.

He's crossed the line to many times lately.

hey look... i was right!

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

I don't know, considering the time of the call I don't think its a bad call from what was at least somewhat of a limb. In early 2003 many would have said that Dean is too liberal on certain issues to lead the Democratic party anywhere, but for a number of months he lead the party on the campaign trail, and now hes the chair of the party. Now if the call would have been for Clark, that would have been a bad call.

You're taking my teasing *far* too seriously.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by stevew

1 down. As a person who more frequently sides with the Republicans on issues, i wouldnt mind Delay becoming someones bitch in prison.

Here Here!

Or would it be Hear Hear? Or maybe Hear here?

I was happy to read this, but now I am just confused.