Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunthr on March 18, 2003, 07:48:55 PM
-
Here (http://daschle.senate.gov/)
My own email to him reads:
"Mr. Daschle;
You are a strutting, self-agrandizing ass.
You should be ashamed for yourself for your recent comments to the union organization that politisized the occasion of the USA going to war by taking a cheap shot at the President.
You don't deserve to shine his shoes.
You are nothing more than a hard bitten hypercritical loser.
Get out of here. Go to a country welcomes your views... you know which ones they are.
Sincerely,
NAME
ADDRESS
HOME PHONE NUMBER
WORK PHONE NUMBER
EMAIL ADDRESS"
-
well judging by the polls showing 70% support for the Bush policy, calling his efforts a failure may make Daschle look like a Chirac-follower to even a majority of the Democrats in the US.
-
i normally vote issues. not personalities.
regardless of the issues, if this guy gets on the ballot, he'll not get my vote.
-
He won't be on the ballot outside of South Dakota; he decided not to run for president. Regardless, if you vote for a Democrat for Senate next year, you are in effect voting for him for majority leader.
-
Well, I feel a whole lot better now :D
-
beg to differ rasker.
theres plenty of amazinhunks on both sides of the aisle. by yer argument, the only choice is NO vote. I ain't buying that.
-
dash-hole ain't worth a sec of my time
if there are enough ppl that still buy his toejame and keep him in office they, as he, ain't worth my crotch sweat
-
Bill Frist is majority leader now, seems ok to me
-
true. but the republicans have had some real toejamheads in the chair in the past too.
i wouldn't worry about dashel.. he won't last long; especially now.
-
depends on if the Dems lose more seats in the next elections, then he might do a "Gephardt" and book out.
-
Mr. Daschle,
Putting aside my political views, I tried to look objectively at your questionable comments regarding Bush's "diplomatic failure."
I do not agree with your statements, this much is obvious, but I wont waste your time explaining my point of view because the facts surrounding this conflict and who's "failure" it was are clear enough for anyone to understand and are available to you at any time. Beyond that, however, I think that you have embarressed this nation yet again with your rediculous, anti-Bush Administration comments.
During peacetime, you may feel free to engage in obstructionist politics and make a fool of yourself on national television, but during wartime, your job is to put aside partisan politics and stand behind your President and your country. This is not the time to argue or play power games. If the United States is to prevail in these troubling times, we must stand together.
If you need a reminder of why we are taking these steps in Iraq, Im sure you can find more than enough pictures of the World Trade Center towers collapsing on the internet to satisfy your curiosity.
As a leader of this nation, you should be ashamed of your actions and words regarding the current administration. How are the good citizens of South Dakota supposed to press on during this conflict with a unified, pro-American voice when the example youre setting is something akin to a child throwing a temper-tantrum when he doesnt get his apple juice before nap time?
Im not quite sure how an individual of your obviously exceptional character was elected to public office in this country, and I certainly hope your constituants reverse the mistake they made in the last election.
Nap time Mr. Daschle,
MRM
Find any grammer errors? Its late.
-
"rediculous"? think you caught that from reading what's his face :)
its "ridiculous"
-
diddly... guess that means my Email wont make Nightline, eh?
-
not bad, saur!
I'd give my eye-teeth to see the one Toad writes.
;)
-
2d para: embarrassed
5th para: you're
6th para: I'm; constituents
You might also mention how majority of his fellow rank-and-file Democrats agree with the Bush policy according to the latest ABC News Poll
I'd leave out the insults if I were writing the letter for you, those rarely seem to persuade anyone, but that's not as much fun, I guess. Might be more effective to write other Democratic Senators in support of replacing Daschle with Joe Lieberman, though, as a Republican, I might prefer keeping Daschle as Dem. Senate leader going into the next election, with a comment like that.
-
You've got to be kidding.
You might as well give Frist minority leadership to go along with the majority post.
I say kick all those dem popsicles out of office and elect some with a spine next election.
If any of them had any guts we wouldn't have that toejambird Bush in office.
-
Huh? We're already at war?
-
Daschle is just politicking.
De Lay did pretty much the same to Clinton during the "no UN authorization, violation of NATO Charter strike in Kosovo".
Dems and Reps aren't much different in that regard. Either side will go for the throat if they get an opening.
However, I'll probably drop Tommy a line just so his for/against E-Mail count goes the right way.
You gotta slap these politicians whenever they do this stuff, no matter what side of the aisle they're sitting on. Never hurts to remind them that some folks are actually listening.
-
Originally posted by Toad
De Lay did pretty much the same to Clinton during the "no UN authorization, violation of NATO Charter strike in Kosovo".
Yankee Go Home
Who's leading the anti-war movement? Congressional Republicans.
By William Saletan
Posted Friday, May 7, 1999, at 12:30 AM PT
http://www.slate.com
Every time the United States goes into battle, anti-war activists blame the causes and casualties of the conflict on the U.S. government. They excuse the enemy regime's aggression and insist that it can be trusted to negotiate and honor a fair resolution. While doing everything they can to hamstring the American administration's ability to wage the war, they argue that the war can never be won, that the administration's claims to the contrary are lies, and that the United States should trim its absurd demands and bug out with whatever face-saving deal it can get. In past wars, Republicans accused these domestic opponents of sabotaging American morale and aiding the enemy. But in this war, Republicans aren't bashing the anti-war movement. They're leading it.
Last weekend, three of the top five Republicans in Congress--Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas--went on television to discuss the war. Here's what they said.
1. The atrocities are America's fault. "Once the bombing commenced, I think then [Slobodan] Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started," Nickles said at a news conference after appearing on Meet the Press. "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." On Fox News Sunday, DeLay blamed the ethnic cleansing on U.S. intervention. "Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode," DeLay charged in a House floor speech replayed on Late Edition.
2. The failure of diplomacy to avert the war is America's fault. "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning," Lott offered on Late Edition. "I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." Nickles called NATO's prewar peace proposal to the Serbs "a very arrogant agreement" that "really caused this thing to escalate."
3. Congress should not support the war. When asked whether they would authorize Clinton "to use all necessary force to win this war, including ground troops," Lott and Nickles --who had voted a month ago, along with 70 percent of the Senate GOP, not to support the NATO air campaign--said they wouldn't. Nickles questioned the propriety of "NATO's objectives," calling its goal of "access to all of Serbia ... ludicrous." DeLay, meanwhile, voted not only against last week's House resolution authorizing Clinton to conduct the air war--which failed on a tie vote--but also in favor of legislation "directing the president ... to remove U.S. Armed Forces from their positions in connection with the present operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." When asked whether he had lobbied his colleagues to defeat the resolution authorizing the air war, as had been reported, DeLay conceded that he had "talked to a couple of members during the vote" but claimed not to have swayed anyone since it was "a vote of conscience."
4. We can't win. "I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag," warned Nickles. DeLay agreed: "He's stronger in Kosovo now than he was before the bombing. ... The Serbian people are rallying around him like never before. He's much stronger with his allies, Russians and others." Clinton "has no plan for the end" and "recognizes that Milosevic will still be in power," added DeLay. "The bombing was a mistake. ... And this president ought to show some leadership and admit it, and come to some sort of negotiated end."
5. Don't believe U.S. propaganda. On Meet the Press, Defense Secretary William Cohen argued that Yugoslavia had underestimated NATO's resolve more than NATO had underestimated Yugoslavia's, and Joint Chiefs vice chairman Gen. Joseph Ralston asserted that Milosevic "had already started his campaign of killing" before NATO intervened. Nickles dismissed both arguments. "This war is not going well," he declared. "I heard Secretary Cohen say, 'Well, Milosevic miscalculated how, you know, steadfast we would be in the bombing campaign.' But frankly ... we grossly miscalculated what Milosevic's response would be." Later, Nickles volunteered, "I would take a little issue with [what] Gen. Ralston said. ... The number of killings prior to the bombing, I think, has been exaggerated." Moreover, given NATO's desperate need to "bring Milosevic to the table," DeLay cautioned, "It is not helpful for the president's spin machine to be out there right now saying that Milosevic is weakening." The truth, said DeLay, is that "nothing has changed."
6. Give peace a chance. Cohen said it was "highly unlikely" that Clinton would meet with Milosevic in response to Yugoslavia's release of the three captured American soldiers over the weekend, since the Serbs were continuing their atrocities and weren't offering to meet NATO's conditions. DeLay called this refusal "really disappointing" and a failure of "leadership. ... The president ought to open up negotiations and come to some sort of diplomatic end." 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."
7. We have no choice but to compromise. Unless Clinton finds "a way to get the bombing stopped" and to "get Milosevic to pull back his troops" voluntarily, NATO faces "a quagmire ... a long, protracted, bloody war," warned Lott. Clinton "only has two choices," said DeLay--to "occupy Yugoslavia and take Milosevic out" or "to negotiate some sort of diplomatic end, diplomatic agreement in order to end this failed policy."
8. We're eager to compromise. NATO has insisted all along that Milosevic must allow a well-armed international force in Kosovo to protect the ethnic Albanians. When asked whether "the administration ought to insist" that these requirements "be met" as a condition of negotiation, DeLay twice ducked the question. Nickles advocated "a compromise," and Lott expressed interest in Yugoslavia's proposal for a "lightly armed" U.N. peacekeeping force in Kosovo rather than a fully equipped NATO force. "Surely there's wiggle room," said Lott. "Obviously, [the Serbs] don't want them heavily armed, but they've got to be armed sufficiently to protect themselves. ... So, I think something can be worked out."
9. We'll back off first. Nickles discounted the administration's demand that Yugoslavia halt its ethnic cleansing in order to halt NATO's bombardment: "Secretary Cohen says, 'Well, Mr. Milosevic has to do all these things, then we'll stop the bombing.' Tim, I strongly believe we need a simultaneous withdrawal of the Serbian aggressive forces, have a stopping of the bombing, and an insertion of international police-keeping force." Lott's formulation put NATO's withdrawal first: "Let's see if we can't find a way to get the bombing stopped, get Milosevic to pull back his troops, find a way to get the Kosovars [to] go back in." And DeLay suggested that the United States should pull out unilaterally: "When Ronald Reagan saw that he had made a mistake putting our soldiers in Lebanon ... he admitted the mistake, and he withdrew from Lebanon."
Some Democrats call Republicans who make these arguments unpatriotic. Republicans reply that they're serving their country by debunking and thwarting a bad policy administered by a bad president. You can be sure of only two things: Each party is arguing exactly the opposite of what it argued the last time a Republican president led the nation into war, and exactly the opposite of what it will argue next time.
-
hehehheh That's rich Montezuma. That's just way too funny.
Gunthr
Get out of here. Go to a country welcomes your views... you know which ones they are.
You would fit really well in NKVD in Stalinist russia. They actually put your wishes into action. Imagine, you could shoot those with different opinion in a back of the head, or send them for nice warm lifetime vacation in syberia. Ain't that sweet ?
Your comments are unbecomming of any freedom loving american. Stay away from the keyboard and think for a minute...
-
Daschle is a lefty!:)
-
Looks like Hillary has a knife in his ribs.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Daschle is a lefty!:)
who's behind ms cliton? move him outa the way and ya could kill three turds, er birds, with one bullet, er stone ... dashole, cliton and the drunk
-
I think Montezuma pretty much summed the whole thing up.
Hold the front page! Politicians acting like politicians! Oh, the humanity!
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get out of here. Go to a country welcomes your views... you know which ones they are. - Gunthr
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You would fit really well in NKVD in Stalinist russia. They actually put your wishes into action. Imagine, you could shoot those with different opinion in a back of the head, or send them for nice warm lifetime vacation in syberia. Ain't that sweet ?
Your comments are unbecomming of any freedom loving american. Stay away from the keyboard and think for a minute...
- fdski
__________________
Well, I thought about it before posting, Fdski. I still don't see how you make that leap from me exersizing my right to criticise an elected official to shooting him in the back of the head???
I did give my full name, address, and phone number at the bottom of my email.
-
just had to post this......
One Bush critic ridiculed the list. “While the president’s directive to Saddam to ‘Get out of Dodge by sundown’ is tough, the posse announced today is mighty weak,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat, in a statement. “It includes such military powerhouses as Eritrea and Estonia and pariahs like Uzbekistan with a human rights record as difficult to defend as Saddam Hussein’s. ... This list is an embarrassing indication of the administration’s foreign policy failure.”
copied from MSN.com
maybe a little truth to that statement?
-
hmm Mr. Doggett's "Axis of No" is formed around France Germany Russia and China, and varying degrees of opposition in there. I like our coalition of the willing better than his Axis of Obstruction. And why is it that our allies are always held to high standards, but our opponents are referred to as "world opinion" though most have never faced a free election and unfortunately may never face one.