speaking of "Not wanting War"...

[j]

What gives with Tom Daschle? This guy is everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party. He, along with several other Democrats were all in favor, (and supporting the President), for the use of force to remove SH back in the fall.

Now he flip flops...what else is new?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with not wanting War. It is another thing entirely to attack the President of the United States as Daschle, Carter, and Clinton have done.

Here is evidence of Daschle's flip flop:

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, who earlier in the day had lashed out at President Bush, saying he had "failed so miserably" at diplomacy in the crisis with Iraq that the United States now stands on the brink of war.

Then..after the speech:

"If the President decides that force is the only remaining option to disarm Saddam Hussein, 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,"

[Guest]

I read that this morning "J" - was curious myself. The dream would be all members of Congress and Senate supported the President - even if the disagreed with what he is doing...

Just my two cents.
Patricia

[Rob-TheStormChaser]

Maybe Tom and many other people in higher offices are on this same list that have their own views and opinions on war. I certainly do, as do the rest of you. Just because he is deemed the 'minority' in all of this is no call to say you are right and he is wrong. Lets just see what happens and then we all can judge him differently in the end over who's right and who wasnt.

[j]

I wonder if Clinton and Carter will get off his back now??? hmmmm?

[rainstorm]

Maybe Tom and many other people in higher offices are on this same list that have their own views and opinions on war. I certainly do, as do the rest of you. Just because he is deemed the 'minority' in all of this is no call to say you are right and he is wrong. Lets just see what happens and then we all can judge him differently in the end over who's right and who wasnt.

he has the same attitude in not letting hispanics on the federal bench. tom did not say these things when clinton used force and failed to get un permission daschle is a dead on hypocrite.

[j]

An easy question for you Rob:

When the 1st rocket loaded up with Gas is lauched at our troops, or the first stock pile of Anthrax is found, will you be singing a different tune?

[Rob-TheStormChaser]

j, this has to happen 1st for your reasoning to becom valid. That is simply a possible scenario which everyone here keeps adding in their defense. J, when I was in Desert Storm in my Armored unit on the front lines I was scared to death over the use of chemical weapons since back then in 1991 it was a big deal to our troops as well. I'm glad to say we never encountered this gas and he was taken care of. His forces now are more depleted now than in 1991. He had over a million strong then...now 320,000. He cannot win and will run away if and when this starts and we hopefully will not encounter this gas and other weapons having it. It has to happen first to make me a true believer, since in 1991 he talked a mean game just like now, and nothing became of it. So we'll see what happens.

[mf_dolphin]

While Saddam chose not to use his chemical arsenal in the 91 conflict, he had that capability and had it in forward units. If he had chosen to use them then the scope of the war would have been expanded in response and he would have been taken from power then. We were very open that the expulsion of Iraqi troops from Kuwait was the goal and limit to the operations of that conflict. The scenario this time is different. Our stated goal is the removal of Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. I hope that once again they are not used but I also have no doubt that they exist. As you said Rob, time will tell.

[j]

I hear what your saying but..... weapons inspections were never fully allowed for nearly a decade. When they were permitted in, they were subsequently expelled. Why??? What else could it be other than they were interferring with his developement of WMD, or discovery of the same?

The ONLY reason we didn't find his WMD in 91 was because the resolution did not call for it. The mission was to liberate Kuwait if I'm not mistaken. The surrender of Iraq, or should I say withdrawel from Kuwait, was under conditions. These conditions have been ignored and violated over and over again. There is NO question as to whether he HAD these weapons, and also NO question as to whether he USED them before. This is well documented. If, he has not produced evidence that he has destroyed ALL the weapons we know he had, then why are you so convinced that we can sit back and wait for them to come to us?

[wx247]

I think Tom Daschle feels sort of the way I feel... not completely though so don't air your concerns about Daschle to me... there have been some inconsitencies in this administration's handling of this crisis to the general public, BUT if the president sends the war signal and our troops start to fight we must get behind the President and our troops.

[JQ Public]

He just said he was disappointed in the fact that he couldn't get diplomacy to work. He didn't say that he didn't support the war. And that is smthg that is very imp. Hopefully diplomacy will always remain the dominant solution over war.

[cycloneye]

I always prefer peace over war but sometimes to get the peace war must come and in this instance it is nessesary to liberate Iraq from that tyrant and to eliminate a potential terrorist atraction the WMD.

[JQ Public]

Yeh but violence begets more violence. Its a vicious cycle. If this wasn't true we wouldn't be on Orange Alert again...

[coriolis]

It's not like the Bush didn't TRY diplomacy. To his credit he did, and it's not Bush's fault that it didn't work. Sandman Hussein is bringing this on himself. The only reason that Hussein showed the minimal movement that he did, is that we were there breathing down his neck.

Maybe Rob is right. Maybe this is a huge poker game, and Bush will win simply by calling the others without even tipping his hand. Bush is definitely not bluffing, because he has a lot of high cards, and he is convinced that he can win. I think it would be great if this could build to the breaking point and then Hussein would fold. But I'd be suprised if that happened.

[Pburgh]

Ok, I'm new at this debate. All I know is that I love my freedom and I love honesty. I want all people to be free from tyrany. My father fought for that. My nephew fights for that as a Marine helicopter pilot. Some of you aught to get real close to the conflict. Not previously close, but present close. Remember 9/ll. I don't want to be that scared again. I don't care what it takes. Freedom rules

[wannabehippie]

what i think bush should have done, and should do in the future, is ignore france when it comes to any international diplomacy.

if you remember at first Putin supported Bush but got pressure at home. I think also, despite comments that he made, the chancellor of germany could have been brought over to the US side.

but instead bush concentrated on France, giving them the sense that they are important. and in an effort to show that france is a superpower (which they arent and havent been since the days of napoleon) chirac opposed bush from day 1.

diplomacy may have worked if we didnt bother with france who seemed more interested in flexing their own muscle rather than the common good.

peace
david

[vbhoutex]

It's not like the Bush didn't TRY diplomacy. To his credit he did, and it's not Bush's fault that it didn't work.....

....I think it would be great if this could build to the breaking point and then Hussein would fold. But I'd be suprised if that happened.

AMEN!!!! If that happened my Avatar would come to life in the streets!!!(now that could be a cause for war!!) Sadly, I fear(know) it will not happen.

[Rainband]

As Bush said WE ARE A SOVERIGN NATION>>AS SUCH WE DON"T HAVE TO HAVE PERMISSION FROM ANYONE TO DEFEND OUR FREEDOMThe United Nations was given every chance in the book to support 1441 because Bush wanted their resolution for once, to mean something. They seem so insignificant now and thats their own fault. Bush tried to save their reputation but they were too blind to see it.


Johnathan