Many have been arguing that President Bush is fighting this war against the will of not only the world, but America as well. How quickly we forget. On October 11, Congress authorized the president to "military force, if necessary, to compel Iraq to get rid of its biological and chemical weapons and disband its nuclear weapons program." - Link to ABC News article from February 11, 2003. "The resolution emphasizes the need to work with the United Nations and exhaust diplomatic measures before resorting to force but allows the president to act with or without the United Nations. There was a sense that war was inevitable." The vote passed by a wide margin - "The House approved the resolution by a strong 296-133 margin Thursday. The Senate vote, coming early Friday, was 77-23." - Link to voting breakdown from Vote.com Some of the president's opponents voiced their displeasure, but agreed to act in the best interest of the country. Tom 'Puff' Daschle was quoted as saying, ""I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice. It is neither a Democratic resolution nor a Republican resolution. It is now a statement of American resolve and values." Here is another Daschle quote, this one taken from 1998, showing suppport for American military intervention (source - AZ Senator John Kyl's website ), "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." How quickly some forget. But not everyone, however. Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee had this to say on Larry King Live last night - Link to LKL 3/17 transcript, "The men and women of our military are not just following orders of the commander in chief if they go to war. They are now implementing a decision of a democratically elected Congress. I did not agree with that decision to proceed unilaterally. I thought the president should come back to Congress if he did not this key U.N. resolution that he has sought. But I was outvoted. And the majority, the majority spoke in both houses. And now the men and women in our military are not just implementing an order of a commander in chief. They are actually carrying out the democratic will of the Congress, whether we agree with it or in the majority or not. Some people have decided to turn their back on their pledge, however. The aforementioned Mr. Daschle now had this to say - clip taken from LKL transcript - Warner is referring to Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who was another guest on last night's program , "March 17, 2003 (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), MINORITY LEADER: I'm going the White House this afternoon. And I have a pretty good understanding, a pretty good idea of what I'm going to hear. And I'm saddened. Saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country. But we will work. We will do all that we can to get through this crisis like we have gotten through so many. (END VIDEO CLIP) KING: What did you make of that Senator Warner? WARNER: Well, Larry, I didn't see him at the meeting with the president. KING: He didn't come? WARNER: Not to my knowledge. I didn't see him in the room." The cause was not even important enough for Daschle to attend the meeting that he was so riled up about.
Brilliant and well reasoned and supported post. I have been wanting to make that same post for ages. Limbaugh would whip quotes from Daschle out of his archive and the transparency of that man is obsurd.
Thanks Chance. I would like to throw in a couple of additional items. First, I would like to point out that Daschle voted yes on the Senate resolution to use force, which makes his current posturing all the more questionable. Secondly, I would like to correct an error - the initial ABC News link is from October 11, 2002 and not February 11, 2003.
I don't think Rush has lost enough weight that we can actually call him transparent. But yeah, you can see Rush's motives and agenda from about the distance of the Andromeda galaxy.
fortunately daschle, who is an actual subject of this thread, is so thoughtful and balanced that we're all proud to call him one of our nation's leaders.
I hate Daschle, but not for his views. He's a crappy no-talent politician who's always one step too slow. He should have fought this from the start, or stipulated UN support more clearly. But MadMax, can you really expect me to not swing when I see a big, fat Limbaugh meatball thrown over the center of the plate? I am too weak to resist that.
i suppose not..but limbaugh lets you know what his agenda is...he's not hiding anything at all. sorta like james carville. only no one would give that guy 3 hours a day for a radio show.
On a parallel note I think its interesting this is being called a unilateral action by opponents when there are THIRTY countries including countries from Europe, the Middle East, and Asia on board for action.
(okay, I'm gonna have just one nasty post...) hiding anything? How about facts, logic, and respect for the minds of his listeners or anyone who would dare to engage him in something resembling intelligent discourse? Those aspects are all hidden somewhere between his ass flaps. But we can get back to bashing Daschle. I have no idea why Limbaugh was brought up at all. But I'm never going to accept Limbaugh's take as any part of a useful discussion. He's not smart or honest or sincere, so what use is he?
A coalition of beggars, waiting for pResident Moneybags to pay them off like warlords in Afghanistan.
We are? I suggest you stop trying to put words into other people's mouths. If you were a mindreader, you would be able to read my mind. Instead you're just guessing.
I find this a dominant and interesting misperception about the alleged difference between this coalition and the coalition in the first Gulf War. It is a fact that, for example, Egypt had international loans forgiven for their support in GW1, and Syria was given promises of forgiveness for prior actions for their support. There is really no difference between the method used to accumulate support in GW1 and this one. And in the end, what difference does it make? Each of those countries has perogative to lend or not lend their support to the effort. It does not become LESS legitimate because they receive concessions in return. Just as people forget there were mass 'peace' demonstrations before Gulf War 1, they forget HOW that coalition came into being.
Thank god...this is from the always entertaining ScrappleFace.com: Dixie Chicks and Daschle Release New Single (2003-03-18) -- The Dixie Chicks have teamed with U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle, D-SD, on the new single "Ashamed and Saddened." The song, to be released only in parts of Europe, Russia and China, is expected to chart at No. 1 in its first week. The lyrics are based on a recent comment by the Dixie Chicks and yesterday's remarks by the Senate minority leader. "I'm saddened," Daschle told a union convention, "Saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country. But we will work, and we will do all we can to get through this crisis like we've gotten through so many." A spokesman for Sen. Daschle said he was too saddened to talk about his part of the song. "That's just the way the Senator is," said the spokesman. "He doesn't get mad. He doesn't get even. He gets saddened. There's no Senator more saddened than he is. And of course, along with the Dixie Chicks, he's also ashamed. That's what makes him a great American."
Bush's Hypocritical War? Yep Bush Backs Into Nation Building By Terry M. Neal washingtonpost.com Staff Writer Wednesday, February 26, 2003; 8:08 PM Speaking to a cheering crowd in Chattanooga, Tenn., one day before the Nov. 7, 2000, election, George W. Bush repeated a line that had by then been a standard part of the stump speech for many, many months--and one that now seems, in the face of looming U.S. military action in Iraq, quite contradictory. "Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place." The line was an explicit condemnation of Clinton/Gore foreign policy--specifically that the White House had stretched the military too thin with peacekeeping mission in Haiti, Somalia and the Balkans. President Clinton and Vice President Gore, his Democratic opponent, had strayed from the central mission of the military: to fight and win wars, Bush said. That line proved to be among the most popular in the stump speech, guaranteed to evoke an eruption of applause from the conservatives who packed Bush's campaign rallies. Bush's campaign rhetoric already rankled allies in Europe by seeming to suggest that U.S. soldiers were doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in the region, and indicating that he would withdraw American forces if he became president. The Europeans noted that U.S. soldiers constituted less than one-fifth of the peacekeeping force, and argued that America, which led allied forces in Kosovo, had a significant strategic interest in the stability of the region. Fast forward to the present. Details have begun emerging in recent days about the Bush administration's vision for postwar Iraq, and clearly the White House has abandoned its aversion to nation building, as it plans for what appears to be the biggest American-led, rebuilding project since the Marshall Plan in the early 1950s. Last week, Washington Post reporter Karen DeYoung's byline topped an astonishing story with this headline Full U.S. Control Planned for Iraq. "The Bush administration plans to take complete, unilateral control of a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, with an interim administration headed by a yet-to-be named American civilian who would direct the reconstruction of the country and the creation of a 'representative' Iraqi government, according to a now-finalized blueprint described by U.S. officials and other sources," DeYoung reported. Speaking to the American Enterprise Institute in Washington D.C. on Wednesday night, the president alluded to his postwar vision of Iraq, declaring that America had a major interest in stabilizing the country and could help create the first democracy, outside of Israel, in the Middle East. And for the first time, the president linked removal of Hussein, and the postwar reconstruction efforts to not only the greater stability of the region, but to the first stage of the resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. "Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: We will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before -- in the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home," Bush said. Shifting Policy The difference between Bush's rhetoric and policy goes to prove the old adage that talking about governing, and actually doing it, are two very different things. Under grilling from reporters, administration officials, apparently not yet equipped with talking points, have struggled to maintain that Bush's views have not changed. Bush's critics have jumped on the apparent shift as proof that an inexperienced candidate had merely manufactured a foreign policy criticism that sounded good to his base of voters. At a press briefing on Monday with deputy assistant secretary of Defense Joe Collins and National Security Council senior director Elliott Abrams, a reporter asked: "I remember a campaign pledge about nation building. Isn't that what this is. ... Isn't this nation-building?" Collins took the question: "I've always been of the opinion that the indigenous people build their own nations. I'm not sure what the right phrase for what we are engaged in is. We speak about -- in two different phases, humanitarian relief and reconstruction. And I would prefer to leave it at that." Abrams also took a stab at an answer: "I think that's right. The responsibility for turning Iraq into a stable, peaceful democracy falls to the people of Iraq. The most we can do is get--if this conflict occurs, is get this monstrous regime that is preventing them from doing that out of the way." But is that all the administration is planning, getting a "monstrous regime" out of the way? DeYoung reported that "once security was established and weapons of mass destruction were located and disabled, a U.S. administrator would run the civilian government and direct reconstruction and humanitarian aid." In the event of an invasion, Gen. Tommy Franks, head of the U.S. Central Command, would maintain military control, and the humanitarian effort would be led by retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner. But how does that plan square with Bush's comment in a 2000 debate with Gore that "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'" It doesn't, says Leon Fuerth, Gore's long-time foreign policy adviser. "This just shows that in the campaign they hyped any issue they could, first of all because they had convinced themselves that they were right," said Fuerth, now a professor at George Washington University. "Back then, they felt that they had to tear down the Clinton/Gore policy to make up for the lack of experience that their own candidate had. That was then. This is now. This is the school of hard knocks." Tucker Eskew, former director of the White House Office of Global Communications, said that times had changed. What makes Iraq different, he said, was that nation's ability to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction. "9/11 did awaken the president to this threat, as it did everyone," Eskew said. "The president has said it himself. ... The point I think that was being made during the campaign about nation building concerned the idea that, in the context of those times, it had not always seen in our national interest." Some Key Differences The debate over nation building was a significant one in the 2000 campaign. Bush took the position that the Clinton administration had failed to prioritize strategic interests, acting as if U.S. interests in Haiti, Somalia and Kosovo were as great as in the Middle East, Western Europe or Asia. Gore responded that Bush's view of the world was overly simplistic and ignored the complexities of foreign entanglements. Speaking to reporters at the White House on Wednesday, Ari Fleischer said, "The president will talk in the speech about what the future may hold, not only for the people of Iraq, once liberated and allowed to become on their own democratic, but also what it means for the security of the region, because the president believes that a free Iraq will lead to a more stable Mideast." Clinton made similar arguments about stabilizing the Balkans and promoting democracy in Haiti -- our own backyard. Bush's critics will argue that the difference is oil -- Iraq has it. Haiti, Somalia and the Balkans do not. Bush's defenders angrily deride that notion. The president, said Eskew, will explain that nation building in Iraq is necessary, "because [Saddam Hussein] has weapons of mass murder, because he has used them before, because he has attacked his own people and his neighbors and because he has ties to terror."
Yes it's plain enough that Bush has done a 180 on this issue. I think in the end he sees that as a candidate he didn't know what the job would require. Gore did know, and somehow I think that counted against Gore, becuase it added to his condecending and know-it-all image that people didn't like.
