Them Dem's do it again..

[JBA]

Investors business Daily 3-19-03

Ambassador Daschle

Politics: In a perfunctory pledge of support for U.S.  Troops likely to fight a short war soon, Sen. Tom Dashle made a nasty and inexcusable comment.

Speaking Monday before the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union, The Senate Democratic leader said President Bush “Failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to war”

   The remark was made in the guise of assuring the country that “Democrats and Republicans will be unanimous in our strong support for our troops and for ensuring that they have all the tools and resources needed to be successful.” But that just makes it even more appalling. At this critical moment, couldn’t he resist making yet another dig at a political opponent?

   If anyone believes Daschle lashed out a Bush on principle, recall the hawkish joint statement he made with then House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri in December 1998. It was issued after Bill Clinton hit Iraq with air strikes on the eve of his impeachment vote. (450 cruise missiles)

   “The president has made the correct decision to undertake military action against Iraq at this time,” the statement said. “Any delay would have given Saddam Hussein time to reconstitute his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and undermine support for our efforts.”

   The man Daschel was covering for has also taken the opportunity to take some verbal punches at his successor. In A column written for Britain’s The Guardian, Clinton praises British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s role in the Iraqi situation but thinly disguises his charge that Bush has moved rashly.

   “Hawks in America have been pushing for an immediate attack on Iraq,” he wrote. “Some of them want regime change for reasons other than disarmament, and therefore, they have discredited the inspection process from the beginning; they did not want it to succeed.”

   Funny that both men think more talking would resolve the Iraqi problem, yet neither seems able to carry on civil discourse about their president and countryman. It’s truly sad if that means they have more respect for foreign leaders than they do Bush. Sadder still is how easy it is to believe that is the case.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clinton launched unilateral attacks on 5 nations. Were where all the protestors then…?

[2Slow]

I am a citizen of South Dakota.  Not a "resident" as the staff of Mr. Dashels office kept refering to me as.  I voiced my displeasure to them about his remarks.  By their reaction, I think I was just one of many disgruntled citizens.

[BGBMAW]

2slow..i salute u..good luck down there..Daschle is a maggot...but we have them to..I live in California..we have just as many maggots..they just were never as Hi up as your maggot:)


Salute
BiGB

[midnight Target]

Were where all the protestors then…?

in English class

[Charon]

Where was all this outrage when he had a chance to actually influence Bush policy? Too busy trying to avoid anything that remotely required leadership and involved political risk. What a tool. He gave up the right to be dismayed in Oct. 2002.

USA Today

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle put aside his misgivings Thursday and announced he will support President Bush's request for authority to use force against Iraq. "I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice," Daschle declared.

His announcement of support came as both chambers marched toward expected approval of the war resolution by wide bipartisan margins.

Daschle's support was crucial to the administration's hope for a substantial vote. He was the last holdout among major Democratic congressional leaders.

Previously, Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat, had not signed onto the agreement moving through Congress, which was the product of negotiations between the White House and House leaders.

Daschle said the measure still has shortcomings, but he called it an improvement over the administration's initial request for broad authority.

The bipartisan agreement gives the president most of the powers he asked for, allowing him to act without going through the United Nations. But in a concession to Democratic concerns, it encourages him to exhaust all diplomatic means first and requires he report to Congress every 60 days if he does take action.

Earlier, both houses brushed aside efforts to weaken the war resolution. The House was expected to pass the measure later Thursday. A Senate vote was expected by late Thursday or Friday.

By a 66-31 vote, the Senate rejected an amendment by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va. — the most outspoken Senate opponent of the war resolution that would have ended the authorization for him to use force against Iraq after two years.

Minutes later, the House also turned back, by 355-72, an alternative offered by Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., that would have committed the United States to the U.N. inspections process but not authorized unilateral force. "I plead with you to avoid this rush to war," Lee said.

Bipartisan support for Bush's request for war authority was growing steadily, and chances seemed good he'd have the measure on his desk by week's end to put the nation on combat-ready footing.

"The president hopes this will send a strong message to the world, and to Iraq, that if Iraq does not obey the U.N. resolutions, that the United States is prepared to enforce the peace," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said.

Bush, who has stressed that he has made no decision on launching a military strike against Baghdad, has urged Congress to stand with him as he presses the U.N. Security Council to approve a new resolution demanding that Iraq abide by comprehensive inspections and disarmament or face the consequences.

Progress was slower on the diplomatic front, where three members of the U.N. Security Council — France, Russia and China — continued to hold out against a U.S.-British proposal sanctioning military action if Iraq does not comply with coercive inspections.

A 25-minute telephone call between Bush and French President Jacques Chirac on Wednesday failed to yield a breakthrough over wording of a new Security Council resolution to disarm Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "This is intricate diplomacy and we are continuing our consultations," White House spokesman Sean McCormack said.

In Paris, Chirac spokeswoman Catherine Colonna said the French president was open to strengthening the powers of U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq, but still could not accept making military recourse an automatic response should they be hampered. In Moscow, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov relayed a similar stance.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, interviewed on CNN's "Larry King Live" program, said world leaders were coming together on Iraq. "There is a new determination, a new understanding within the international community that we cannot turn away from it this time, we cannot look away and trust Saddam Hussein to do the right thing," he said.

Debate in the House went deep into the night both Tuesday and Wednesday, with nearly every member intent on expressing the necessity, and gravity, of granting authority to send Americans into war.

"I know the heartache and pain of the families that are left behind," said a tearful Rep. Randy Cunningham, R-Calif., who was a pilot in the Vietnam War.

But Cunningham and almost every Republican backed the president. "It's time we go straight to the eye and dismantle the elements from which the storm of brutal, repressive tyranny and terrorism radiate," said Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., He said that as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, "I can attest to the evilness of Saddam Hussein."