THEN VS. NOW. THE DEMOCRATS FULL-TIME CAMPAIGN
I thought I would include a few quotes for you today from our Democratic leaders. Note the dates. Funny how their opinions change based on whether or not there's a Democrat in the White House, isn't it?
I hope Saddam Hussein and those who are in control of the Iraqi government clearly understand the resolve and determination of this administration and this country. This may be a political year, . . . but on this issue there can be no disunity. There can be no lack of cohesion. We stand united, Republicans and Democrats, determined to send as clear a message with as clear a resolve as we can articulate: Saddam Hussein's actions will not be tolerated. His willingness to brutally attack Kurds in northern Iraq and abrogate U.N. resolutions is simply unacceptable. We intend to make that point clear with the use of force, with the use of legislative language, and with the use of other actions that the president and the Congress have at their disposal.
Tom Daschle – September 1996
"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."
Tom Daschle – February, 1998
"I am “.. saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to go to war.”
Tom Daschle, March, 2003
I don't know what purpose it serves by attacking one another at this point. I mean, if ever there was a time for us to present a unified front to Iraq, this ought to be it. . . . Let's not . . . send all kinds of erroneous messages to Iraq about what kind of unity there is within the community.
Tom Daschle, March, 1998, responding to criticism of Trent Lott of Kofi Annan
To those who would doubt the necessity of the actions by the president, one should pose the question as to what the consequences would be in the face of American inaction. First, clearly, no other country would take the lead. The signature of the current era is such that response to aggression will not be taken up by other powers in the absence of American leadership, unfortunately. This was the case in the invasion of Kuwait. It was the case in Bosnia when, after several years of Western inaction in the face of ethnic atrocities in Bosnia, only the United States, only the United States, could bring about a credible, effective implementation of peace in that sorry part of Europe. . . . It is American leadership which is decisive to the peace in these regions, and I commend President Clinton for his decisive action. It was necessary to weaken the Iraqi leader's ability to intimidate his neighbors, and to make it clear that he will pay a price for his aggression.
Senator Robert Byrd, September 1996
"Today I weep for my country. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. ... Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. After war has ended the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe."
Senator Robert Byrd, March, 2003
"None of us knows why Saddam decided to test us now," Kerry said on September 5, 1996. "But if the history of the last six years has taught us anything, it is that Saddam Hussein does not understand diplomacy, he only understands power, and when he brandishes power in a manner that threatens our interests or violates internationally accepted standards of behavior, we must be prepared to respond--and with force if necessary." [emphasis added] Such force, Kerry went on, might well be used unilaterally: "The United States under President Bush and then President Clinton, led these earlier efforts to contain Saddam. Whereas some of our allies in the region are constrained from acting on this occasion, we are not."
Senator John Kerry, September, 1996.
“Rush to war.” “Hasty war talk.” “Erratic unilateralism and reluctant engagement.”
Senator John Kerry, March, 2003
RANDOM THOUGHTS
Appeasement protestors have vowed to shut down San Francisco’s financial district today. Thus far they have issued no statements critical of Saddam Hussein.
Putin also says that an international crisis like this should be handled by the United Nations. The United nations had 12 years to handle this crisis. It didn’t. In other words, the U.N. handled this crisis pretty much the same way it handled Rwanda, Kosovo and Somalia.
You gotta love it when Tom Daschle talks of the “small coalition of nations” supporting Bush’s actions. The last count shows over 35 nations supporting U.S. and British actions. That’s a larger coalition than Clinton had in 1998. By the way, in 1998 France, Russia and China opposed Clinton’s actions.
I THOUGHT I WOULD POST THIS HERE AND NOW SO WHEN YOU WONDER WHY DEMOCRATS GET BLISTERED IN THE NEXT ELECTIONS YOU KNOW WHY.
I thought I would include a few quotes for you today from our Democratic leaders. Note the dates. Funny how their opinions change based on whether or not there's a Democrat in the White House, isn't it?
I hope Saddam Hussein and those who are in control of the Iraqi government clearly understand the resolve and determination of this administration and this country. This may be a political year, . . . but on this issue there can be no disunity. There can be no lack of cohesion. We stand united, Republicans and Democrats, determined to send as clear a message with as clear a resolve as we can articulate: Saddam Hussein's actions will not be tolerated. His willingness to brutally attack Kurds in northern Iraq and abrogate U.N. resolutions is simply unacceptable. We intend to make that point clear with the use of force, with the use of legislative language, and with the use of other actions that the president and the Congress have at their disposal.
Tom Daschle – September 1996
"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."
Tom Daschle – February, 1998
"I am “.. saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to go to war.”
Tom Daschle, March, 2003
I don't know what purpose it serves by attacking one another at this point. I mean, if ever there was a time for us to present a unified front to Iraq, this ought to be it. . . . Let's not . . . send all kinds of erroneous messages to Iraq about what kind of unity there is within the community.
Tom Daschle, March, 1998, responding to criticism of Trent Lott of Kofi Annan
To those who would doubt the necessity of the actions by the president, one should pose the question as to what the consequences would be in the face of American inaction. First, clearly, no other country would take the lead. The signature of the current era is such that response to aggression will not be taken up by other powers in the absence of American leadership, unfortunately. This was the case in the invasion of Kuwait. It was the case in Bosnia when, after several years of Western inaction in the face of ethnic atrocities in Bosnia, only the United States, only the United States, could bring about a credible, effective implementation of peace in that sorry part of Europe. . . . It is American leadership which is decisive to the peace in these regions, and I commend President Clinton for his decisive action. It was necessary to weaken the Iraqi leader's ability to intimidate his neighbors, and to make it clear that he will pay a price for his aggression.
Senator Robert Byrd, September 1996
"Today I weep for my country. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. ... Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. After war has ended the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe."
Senator Robert Byrd, March, 2003
"None of us knows why Saddam decided to test us now," Kerry said on September 5, 1996. "But if the history of the last six years has taught us anything, it is that Saddam Hussein does not understand diplomacy, he only understands power, and when he brandishes power in a manner that threatens our interests or violates internationally accepted standards of behavior, we must be prepared to respond--and with force if necessary." [emphasis added] Such force, Kerry went on, might well be used unilaterally: "The United States under President Bush and then President Clinton, led these earlier efforts to contain Saddam. Whereas some of our allies in the region are constrained from acting on this occasion, we are not."
Senator John Kerry, September, 1996.
“Rush to war.” “Hasty war talk.” “Erratic unilateralism and reluctant engagement.”
Senator John Kerry, March, 2003
RANDOM THOUGHTS
Appeasement protestors have vowed to shut down San Francisco’s financial district today. Thus far they have issued no statements critical of Saddam Hussein.
Putin also says that an international crisis like this should be handled by the United Nations. The United nations had 12 years to handle this crisis. It didn’t. In other words, the U.N. handled this crisis pretty much the same way it handled Rwanda, Kosovo and Somalia.
You gotta love it when Tom Daschle talks of the “small coalition of nations” supporting Bush’s actions. The last count shows over 35 nations supporting U.S. and British actions. That’s a larger coalition than Clinton had in 1998. By the way, in 1998 France, Russia and China opposed Clinton’s actions.
I THOUGHT I WOULD POST THIS HERE AND NOW SO WHEN YOU WONDER WHY DEMOCRATS GET BLISTERED IN THE NEXT ELECTIONS YOU KNOW WHY.