Heard a funny slip of the tounge last night during the NPR commentary on Bush's speech. One of the commentators spoke about this statement of Daschle's, but reffered to him as Senate Majority Leader. The error was never corrected.



To Daniel Shore and the rest: Sorry guys, thanks for the laughs though.

Read what Daschle had to say about Saddam and his weapons back when Bill Clinton was president:



"Look, we have exhausted virtually 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."



And what is Daschle saying now? Now that we have a Republican in the White House who is finally going to do what Clinton should have done ten years ago. That’s quite a switch from his Clinton era pronouncements.



These people have no shame!!!!

I think Bush the 1st would have done a better job in getting an alliance together but I doubt the result would have been any different whatever the case.

Daschle may be right on his assessment of the upside/downside of Daschle's comments. Of course, to the extent that comments like these go unchallenged in the mainstream media (dream on) how much can they really hurt? In fact, in this context, Daschle is showing tremedous confidence in his ability to mislead or lead astray (perhaps both)with editorial impunity.



Contrast this with a much more devious Bill Clinton, who has spend the bulk of the last six months criticizing the President (but mostly in obscure fora) only to come out today with a clever "Trust Bush and Blair" op-ed. Only his wife beats him in this category.

Ali:



Bush '41 DID do a better job getting a coalition together. But the price for that coalition was retaining Saddam.



The choice seems to be rather stark: Fight in a coalition, and have VERY limited aims, or fight with a smaller coalition, and go after the "root causes."

MG - You're absolutely right that Daschle won't be challenged by the mainstream media. In fact, the NYTimes has an editorial today taking more or less the same line (quel surprise). But Daschle's statement are being given prominent play on the same day the Washington Post is leading with a poll saying that 71%, including a majority of Democrats, support the President's ultimatum. There is hope.

The only important thing is that the voters in South Dakota are paying attention and hand Daschle his walking papers in '04.

Ali --



In hindsight, what must surprise is not that GHWB was able to build such a large international coalition, but that so few Democrats managed to get away with not supporting it. (Remember the 52-47 vote in the Senate.)



GHWB's task broke no real new diplomatic or realpolitik ground in terms of its being in response to clear and unambiguous agression andof its innational/international interest to do so. There was no entrenched opposition from permamnet members of the UNSC. The rest is just momentum: with the big ones aboard, and not tugging you every which way, were else would the Guineas, Camerrons, etc. go. Most of the Arab world was too scared (of Saddam) not to jump on the bandwagon.



In contrast, GWB's agenda has forced the world to challenge the risk/consequences of inaction anywhere anarchy meets WPM. The famous pre-emption doctrine that most of the world can't seem to accept. (But, tellingly, the leadership of some of that same world can.) Worse, when you end up accepting this agenda intellectually, you often have to conclude that the only party that can realistically claim or should claim this right is the party that seems to be willing to also bear the costs for all of its implications: The US or at most the Anglosphere.



Having to deliver bad news (the world you bequeath me sucks), and worse news (you are mostly irrelevant) to the international diplomatic elites is never easy. No wonder GHWB never had to confront diplomatic opposition (if not betrayal) like GWB has. And given the stakes here, no wonder he made mincemeat of it.

Somehow, I believe the administration's diplomatic results during the past year have been an overwhelming success for this nation and ultimately for those in the world who are seeking clarity and decisiveness in making this old spaceship a safer place for humanity. As far as the Democrats going left ... they've gone. It's amazing to me how George the "moron" and his administration have simply made so much become so clear; have revealed to the world who our real allies are. What great execution.

To today's NY Times Op/Ed I say:

Bwahahahaha!

No more Democratic state than Hawaii, and the idea that Dems are just making political calculations may be true elsewhere, but I know these guys and they absolutely believe their own rot.



In fact, if they didn't, they'd be covering their butts right now -- Hawaii also has just about the highest proportion of citizens with military service, thanks partly to the influence of the Old Hawaii, a warrior society -- and they aren't.

Harry - I accept the fact that many of them believe it, although I'm having trouble figuring out what "it" is. But remember, Congress voted strongly for the war resolution, Daschle voted for the war resolution and a majority of Dems voted for the war resolution. I think its fair to suggest that they did so in a (failed) attempt to get the subject off the table before the mid-term elections. Now they've taken another turn. Is it political calculation or what they really believe or, as I think likely, a bad political calculation warped by what they really believe.

I'm not saying the Mainland Dems believe what they say. I'm just talking about the locals, guys I know well and listen to when they have their hair down.



As for Daschle, I distrust all politicians with undertaker voices -- Reagan, Daschle, Nixon at times. Give me Dirksen any day.