BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out

Subject: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Armen Tanzerian
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 04:29 PM

Today in the Senate, Tom Daschle said:

No one here needs to be reminded of the consequences of war. No one here should have to be admonished about politicizing the debate about war. But Mr. President, increasingly, over the course of the last several weeks, reports have surfaced which have led me to believe that indeed there are those who would politicize this war.

... I listen to reports of the vice president, the vice president comes to fund-raisers, as he did just recently in Kansas. The headline written in the paper the next day about the speech he gave to that fund-raiser was, "Cheney Talks About War: Electing Taft Would Aid War effort."

And then we find a diskette discovered in Lafayette Park, a computer diskette that was lost somewhere between a Republican strategy meeting in the White House and the White House. — Advice was given by Karl Rove, and the quote in the disk was "focus on war."

I guess right from the beginning, I felt, well, first it was pollsters, then it was White House staff, and then it was the vice president, and all along I was asked, are you concerned about whether or not this war is politicized, and my answer on every occasion was yes. And then the follow-up question is, is the White House politicizing the war? And I said without question, I can't bring myself to believe that it is. I can't believe any president or any administration would politicize the war.

But then I read in the paper this morning. Now, even the president. The president is quoted in The Washington Post this morning as saying that Democratic -- the Democratic-controlled Senate is not interested in the security of the American people. Not interested in the security of the American people? You tell Senator Inouye he is not interested in the security of the American people. You tell those who fought in Vietnam and in World War Two they are not interested in the security of the American people. That is outrageous, outrageous.

The president ought to apologize to Senator Inouye and every veteran who fought in every war who is a Democrat in the United States Senate. He ought to apologize to the American people. That is wrong. We ought not politicize this war. We ought not to politicize the rhetoric about war in life and death.

I was in Normandy just last year. I've been in national cemeteries all over this country, and I have never seen anything but stars, the Star of David, and crosses on those markers. I have never seen Republican and Democrat.

This has got to end, Mr. President. We've got get on with the business of our country. We've got to rise to a higher level. Our founding fathers would be embarrassed by what they are seeing going on right now. We've got to do better than this. Our standard of deportment ought to be better. Those who died gave their lives for better than what we are giving now.

So, Mr. President, it's not too late it end this politicization. It's not too late to forget the pollsters, forget the campaign fund-raisers, forget making accusations about how interested in national security Democrats are, and let's get this job done right, let's rise to the occasion. That's what American people are expecting. And we ought to give them no less. _________________________________________________________

At last, real impassioned truth in contrast to smarmy, smirky innuendo. And on the same day, it's announced that real middle-class income is down and poverty is up for the first time in 11 years.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: DougR
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 04:42 PM

If you listened to CSPAN this morning, Armen, you will have learned by now that Daschle was basing his remarks on a story he read in a Kansas newspaper. It was pointed out by the Senator from Kansas on the Senate floor, who was present (Daschle was not), that the remarks reported in the newspaper were false. I think Daschel will come out of this with a "red face" which he so richly deserves in my opinion.

The Democrats, not the Republicans, are politicizing the Home Security Bill.

DougR

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 04:54 PM

what we don't need are democrats falling for this republican trap, and then trying to prove how macho gung- ho they are. No need for a huge department of homeland security, under Bush's control. WE NEED A CABINET LEVEL DEPARTMENT OF PEACE. peace doesn't just happen, and it is not the opposite or absence of war, peace is a state of harmony and good will that must be cultivated and nurtured and nourished and protected. and it is what we all deserve by birthright, not by income or status, not by religious affiliation or political leanings. Regime change starts at home.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 04:56 PM

Doug, sometimes you can be such an .............

You call sticking up for working men and women "politicizing" the debate. It is the same old load of shite that the disgraced Newt Gingrich did. It is the same hijacking of patriotism that you folks have been foisting on people for a long time. As a patriotic Democrat, I tire of your inane "ownership" of the issue. Get this right...........it is the ultimate expression of patriotism to question the administration. It is why the Founding Fathers that you folks are so found of claiming to know, put the checks/balances/debates in the Constitution. Politicizing the debate is when you blame others who have a differing opinion of the situation of "jeopardizing the security" of the nation.

Lay off Doug.

Mick

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: GUEST,Just Amy
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 04:56 PM

DougR

I am a voting, card carrying Republican. I used to be proud to say that but not now. The President is leading us into an unwanted and unwarrented war with a country just because his father couldn't do it. The rest of the world thinks we are crazy. They think that we are big bullies and now I have to agree that we are. I have written to both my Senators and my Congressman and asked them to do what they can to stop this "war." It has nothing to do with Homeland Security and everything to do with politics.

Amy

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Susanne (skw)
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 05:27 PM

I don't quite understand what either side means by accusing the other side of 'politicising the war'. An imminent war IS politics, and no one could de-politicise it! All I know is, any war is bad politics. A war of aggression (which at this state of affairs, give or take the odd dossier of 'facts', the U.S. government is promoting) is extremely bad politics. (And will do less than nothing to make the U.S. safer from terrorist attacks!) I do hope the people responsible (on ALL sides) will see sense in time.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Armen Tanzerian
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 05:28 PM

Wait 'til you see Daschle's speech leading the news tonight. Even the Bush-worshiping networks won't be able to dampen the effect. The contrast between his outrage and smirky smarmy George will say it all. And then comes the ever-worsening economic news. I don't care that much for Dick Gephart, but it will be refreshing to have a new Speaker.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 05:51 PM

Well I'll be danged? A Democrat speaking up! Ain;t that somenthing? Hmmmmmmm? What next/ The gonna propose a DEPARTMNET OF PEACE, like Bill Kennedy and this ol' hillbilly are very much for? Heck no!

But I'm glad that Junior is taking a few shots. He's the entire nation in the corner, pounding away for 13 months now, with his "my way or the highway/ you're either with us or against us" crap and... hey, he don't happen to have the market captured on patriotism!

I hope that stanglehold is broken now and the country can go back to disagreeing with Junior without being branded a demon or traitor. This has been a sad 13 months of American history and absolutely disgracefull. Hey, I may be Greenie, but good for Tom Daschle. Now maybe some of the others will come out from underneath their beds and face tomorrow as a day of possibilities rather than another day to be browbeaten by a thief.

Bobert

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Mudlark
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 05:53 PM

Big Mick...thanks for putting it so succinctly, so forcefully and so truthfully.

Just Amy...Thanks for letting these guys know what you think. It will surely carry more weight (unfortunately) coming from a R than a D.

And I think Daschle's last point that graves are not marked by political affiliation is important, and stands on it's own.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: DougR
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 06:14 PM

"Lay off," Mick? Hmmm. I read the papers regularly, and watch TV, and I don't recall reading or seeing that you were elected King.

You, who champion the right of free expression so eloquently are telling me to shut up?

Isn't the right to debate and question, what you and those who share your belief are criticizing the President for?

If this forum is to become a haven only for those of you who believe you are always right, and those that believe the way I do are always wrong, why don't you all petition Max to ban posts for the like of me? That way you could all just support each other, because there would be no one around to challenge you! That would be a comfortable position to be in I suppose, but I rather enjoy hearing your sides point of view, and would miss it if I could not participate. Nevertheless, were Max to tell me I'm no longer welcome, and that my POV is not welcome. I'd leave. But as long as I am here, I will post when I want to whatever thread I want. I'm a bit surprised by your post, but mostly disappointed.

DougR

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 07:00 PM

I imagine there's a sign in party headquarters saying "It's the War, stupid!"

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Amos
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 07:21 PM

Doug:

Chill, man, let us cleave to the facts. Mick was not telling you to "lay off" communicating. He was asserting that you, and those for whom you take stands, were guilty of something he thought was wrong, and he was asserting that you should lay off that practice.

I am not going to speak to the charge he raised, either way -- but in all fairness you might want to do so rather than accusing him of trying to shut you up.

That isn't what he said is it?

A

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 07:37 PM

George W Bush is a spoiled rich asshole who has failed at everything he ever did, and, he will have his little war, and, he will have it before the elections.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: kendall
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 07:40 PM

I just saw Bush on tv, and I believe what he said was "The Senate is not interested etc.." Once again, he failed to look presidential.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 07:40 PM

Dougie: Yeah, come on over here and get a hug, Big Guy. I'm sorry that ya' got your tummy all twisted over this patriotism thing. Now, perhaps you have just a little sense that a lot of us have had for the last 13 months. Hey, no one's trying to be mean to ya' 'cause deep down inside most of us love you. (Not that way...) but your guy has taken out this position that if anyone says he's wrong on something then that person is a terrorist or demon. Now, you're geeting just a little taste and it ain't so yummy, is it Doug?

Mick wasn't tellin' you to shut up but he was telling you that we're tired of being told to shut up. Get it? Can't you just for one moment of your life look at how folks on the other side might feel after 13 months of being told to shut up?

Hey, you're my friend and it is so difficult to say these things to you because I like arguing with you, but I don't ever want you to be personally offended and believe me, no personal offense was intended.

Bobert

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 07:42 PM

It's about time Daschle said something; many Dems were not speaking out because of his apparent lack of support for any opposition to Bush.

Personally, I think we should mandatory drug-testing for Bush, esp. for alcohol. I finally realised one reason I cannot stand to listen to him is he sounds half-drunk all of the time.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 07:50 PM

This according to CNN.COM: "Bush was speaking about the debate over creating a new Department of Homeland Security on Monday, when he said, "The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people."

"Top White House aides stressed that Bush had not used the term "Democratic-controlled" -- the newspaper used that term. And they noted that Daschle failed to mention these remarks by the president in the same speech: "And people are working hard in Washington to get it right in Washington, both Republicans and Democrats. See, this isn't a partisan issue. This is an American issue."

Still a stupid comment, in my personal opinion, but please let's make sure we are commenting on the CORRECT stupid comment.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Armen Tanzerian
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 07:54 PM

Oh, no, no, no, no. It is forbidden to make reference to the president's drinking habits. Or, for that matter, to ask how he spent the ten years of his life before he surfaced as a hard-nosed (larcenous) oil exec.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 08:13 PM

Awww, heck, I probably shouldn't even bring this uyp but since, at least for today, it's okay to blast away on the administration on this patriotism thing I just have one more thing to get off my chest. (Iknow you all think I don't hold anything back but I do...)

But there have been several posts from folks who happen to think that Bush is doing this great job that have eluded to America showing to be soft during Clinton's term and that was part of the cause of 9-11. This perception has been thrown around on several occasions by folks whose memories are as sharp as their intent on making Bush look good.

What I'm leading up to here is Beruit, April 18th, 1983 under Reagan's watch when the US embassey was bombed and 63 people were killed and, if that didn't send a message, Beruit, October 23rd the same year when a Marine barracks was bombed killing 242 Marines.

I don't know why this feels like the right time to bring these things up but it's been in my mind and it just never seemed patriotic to bring these very sad events up without over politicizing my arguements.

I would hope that we don't have to listen to the "Democrats are soft on terrorism" crap anymore and you folks know who I am speaking to on this one...

No matter, I'm still a Greenie. Just like level playing fields.

Bobert

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: DougR
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 08:24 PM

Not the way I read it, Amos, Bobert. Sure sounds to me as though Mick, when he said "Lay off Doug," was saying "shut up."

Art reported the quote correctly. Bush did not say "The democratically controlled senate" and he was not talking about the war with Iraq. The Democrats are scared to death they are going to lose their majority in the senate. I don't blame them. I hope they do! But I think when they point the finger at the republicans and cry fowl and accuse them of politicizing the war, it's the pot calling the kettle black. If they were truly interested in Homeland Security, why wouldn't Daschle allow the Graham/Miller amendment to the Homeland Security Bill, which has the approval of the White House, come to a vote? The only amendment he will allow to come to a vote is one that was drafted by members of his own party.

It's not that I mind getting dumped on Bobert, I'm use to that. I do think the forum would be less interesting, however, if only one point of view was presented. Just my opinion of course.

DougR

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 08:44 PM

...And if the patriot lives for war
Without assessing what it's for
Democracy becomes folklore
And fascists lead the way once more

Informed and free democracy
We disagree in unity
But sharing facts, opinions me
And all of us... can plainly see

But holding secrets in the dark
Resisting those with Able's mark
Retains a tyrants testy bark
"Life and Liberty" is not a lark...

ttr

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: kendall
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 09:42 PM

Doug, I'm not just hoping the democrats retain control of the senate, I'm PRAYING for it! If Trent Lott gets to be majority leader, Bath Iron works will be a big loser. He will make sure Ingalls Shipyard in LA. will get the Lion's share of the ship building. Then of course, there's Roe v Wade. It will be a one way trip back to the dark ages. No thanks. btw, I sent you an e mail and got it back. Did you switch servers?

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: curmudgeon
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 10:07 PM

DougR -- You have disappointed me greatly. I had considered you to be a rare voice of tolerance and reason among those of the Repunlican persuasion. Your overreaction to Mick's comments is almost inexcusable. "Lay off' does not so much mean "stop" as it does mean "temper."

If elderly memory serves me correctly, I have seen relatively little criticism of Republicans per se, but rather criticism of the illiterati who now compose the administration. Colin Powell, the only man of conscience and wisdon in this cabal has long been strung up by the puppeteers.

This administration is totally bereft of any shred of humanity -- Tom

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Sep 02 - 11:15 PM

Here is one of the replies I received to my ACTION for Peace, today, i.e. telephoning senators and representatives whom I had listed in the taking Action for peace thread.

From Rep. Doggett (D):

Dear Kat:


Thank you for expressing your opposition to an invasion of Iraq.
Based on the information available to me at present, I strongly
agree.


There are many reasons why the United States should not start a
war, but I believe one simple litmus test for such decisions should
be: "Will it make our families more secure?" From what we know
today, I believe the apparent Administration approach fails that
test, and that a unilateral attack to topple a despicable dictator
would be viewed by many as an attack on Islam with all of the
associated prolonged danger to the world.


The case has not been made that Iraq's Saddam Hussein poses an
imminent threat to America's security requiring an unprecedented
military invasion where American taxpayers do all the paying and
young American men and women do almost all the dying to
achieve his defeat. Our President should unite our country and the
world to eliminate weapons of mass destruction; not divide us by
making war the first instrument of our foreign policy.


As President Bush's own special envoy to the Mideast, retired
General Anthony Zinni, said so bluntly and correctly, "We need to
quit making enemies that we don't need to make enemies out of.
It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way, and
all the others who have never fired a shot and are hot to go to war
see it another way."


Attached below are excerpts from some of the speeches I have
made on the House floor on this important issue.


I welcome your continued counsel.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett
The Costs of War
September 19, 2002


Members of Congress must thoughtfully reflect on their neighbors'
concerns and not serve as a mere speed bump on a fast road to war.
This Administration has failed to provide evidence to us here in the
Congress, either secretly or publicly, that Saddam Hussein, a
despicable dictator, represents an imminent threat to Americans,
that he had a role in the tragedy of 9-11, or is in any way directly
linked to the al Qaeda terrorist network, or that his danger to the
world has significantly changed since 9-11. If such evidence
exists, the President should come forward and ask for a declaration
of war. Instead, the President has today submitted to the Congress
the draft of a sweeping resolution that would, if approved and
implemented fully by the Administration, commit thousands to
death and extract billions from the pockets of American taxpayers.


It is interesting to contrast this resolution with that enacted in
August of 1964 upon which the Vietnam War was fought, the Gulf
of Tonkin resolution. At minimum, this Congress would do well
to narrow the President's request today to the overly expansive
language of the Gulf of Tonkin, which did at least limit the
Commander in Chief "to take all necessary measures to repel any
armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent
further aggression." The resolution also provided that we would
react if a member state of a particular defense treaty of which we
were a member was "requesting assistance in defense of its own
freedom." President Bush is seeking much, much greater authority
than the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.


I believe that it is very important for Americans to realize that
launching a war against Saddam Hussein, despot that he is, will
entail costs far beyond the battlefield. In addition to questioning
why young Americans will be almost alone to die in order to win
this war, there will be extraordinary costs that will touch the lives
of every family in America   costs that will certainly require
reaching into the pocket of every taxpayer in this country.


This week [September 17, 2002] on the front page of no less a
publication than the Wall Street Journal, President Bush's top
economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, estimated that the cost of
waging this war in which this Nation is about to embark may rise
as high as $200 billion. That is "billion" with a "B." That is
billions that take away the hopes and dreams of so many of us for
the opportunities that this country could afford.


So I would urge our colleagues to review this resolution very
closely, offer their ideas, informed by their constituencies, and seek
to work with President Bush to bring us together in favor of
effective international arms inspection, instead of leading us into a
war that cannot be justified based on present evidence.


Rep. Lloyd Doggett
September 4, 2002


Mr. Speaker, overshadowing all of our hopes and dreams for our
families and for our country is the daily talk of war. This
Administration's apparent intent to launch a "go it alone" invasion
of another country is unprecedented in American history; it is
unprecedented in ignoring the warnings of military experts,
unprecedented in rejecting the advice of our allies and, most
importantly, unprecedented in the dangers posed for the safety of
American families everywhere.


At one time "regime change" was the now abandoned goal of our
foreign policy toward an island 90 miles off our shores. Immediate
success is even less certain for a regime on the other side of the
world through a means uniformly rejected at present by the
countries of the region. Of course, Saddam Hussein is a menace,
as was Libya's Muammar Qaddafi, as was Josef Stalin. But able
policymakers of both parties found ways to contain such threats
without starting what could become another world war.


Mr. President, unite our country and the world to eliminate
weapons of mass destruction; do not divide us by making war the
first instrument of your foreign policy.


Lloyd Doggett

328 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

[phone], [phone]

www.house.gov/doggett

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Tweed
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 12:02 AM

Kat, you have a human being representing you!! What does that feel like?

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: DougR
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 01:13 AM

Tom: I'm sorry to have disappointed you. Kat wishes to reserve this post for messages of the type she has just reproduced, therefore I will not reply to your post here. I want to respect her wishes.

DougR

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: DougR
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 01:16 AM

Oops, Tom. Wrong thread. Again, sorry to have disappointed you, but Mick's message evidently meant one thing to me, and another thing to others. I am not familiar with the term, "Lay off" and assumed that meant shut up. No point in belaboring the subject.

DougR

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Troll
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 04:29 AM

"Lay off", to me, means "stop what you are doing", eg.,"Shut up."
Maybe Mick meant to say "back off" or "ease up". I would hate to think that he was trying to stifle debate. It would be completely out of character.

troll

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Blues=Life
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 08:32 AM

Tom, got to kind of agree with the last few posts. When I say lay off, it means shut up. I, too, was suprised by Mick's comments, and telling someone to lay off in a debate indicates you just don't want to hear anymore. If he had meant "Temper", maybe he should have shown a more even temper himself, as his opening line of "Doug, sometimes you can be such an ............." shows a bit of anger and ad hominum. Now, I may be wrong, but that's how I read it too.

Let's keep talking, not shouting.

Peace, Blues

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 09:01 AM

Bobert, not just just a Democrat speaking out. A Republican too. Bravo, Amy. Bravo!

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Art Thieme
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 09:38 AM

Stifling debate? Hell no. A man unelected is given the presidency by the corrupt court system and in the name of homeland security incarcerates everyone on the enemies list and effectively ignores the Constitution of the land.

No, there's no stifling of debate here in these United States that I can see!?!?

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 10:33 AM

It is interesting that no one has brought up the fact that Abraham Lincoln did everything in his power to make sure that the South fired the first shots of the civil war at Fort Sumter. Probably a tad too sensitive still. yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 10:53 AM

Peter T. - your point being????....

so, Saddam is doing everything in his power to get us to fire the first shots?

or, Bush is doing everything in his power to get the Democrats to fire the first shot?

I don't get the connection.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 11:00 AM

Fionn: Yeah, amazing. A few Repubs are starting to come out of the woodwork against Bush's plans for going to war, most notably Ron Paul, from Bush's home state of Texas.

I think that the debate has shifted over the last 24 hours more toward a slower approach. Tom Daschle, though, has boxed himself into a corner with his dsire to get the resolution thru Congress quickly si the Bush won't have have it become the center piece of the election. Bad move on Dsacle's part but given his recent speech on patiotism, I'm looking for him to do an about face over the course of the next two or three days and say something to the effect of: " We have to let democracy work here, and my constituants are telling me that we're moving too fast."

No matter, there is no doubt that the Bush war wagon just hit a speed bump. And there's now doubt there are a few more out there looking to be hit...

Bobert

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 11:08 AM

The Connection.

Perhaps Bush 'ignored' the known plots, and never dreaming that such a fantasticly demonic plot would ensue, and was maybe willing to 'let' something happen in order to clean up the world and take over... I have no proof... Zero... none. If the terrorists got a hold of such information... I'm simply playing 'devil's advocate here... september eleventh was the worst thing that has ever happened on American soil in the last 135 years...

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 11:43 AM

Tweed! I wish!! Somehow Texas produced Doggett!!!

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 11:53 AM

"The war on terror is not a war on terror at all. Terror isn't an enemy, it's a feeling. Your terror is what the enemy wants you to feel. Describing our efforts in terms of an emotional abstraction not only obscures the face of our adversary, but the nature of our mission. The enemy in this is the radical Islamist who argues that all non-believers in their faith must be killed." Religious wars have been with us for a very long time, and they certainly are more complex than the wars of nations or dynasties. I do not see that we as a nation are properly instructed in the nature of this one. The aim of the Palestinians is to erase Israel, as they have often said in both Arabic and English. That aspect of the current conflict is clear enough, but once a bunch of crazy Saudis blows up major office buildings on the other side of the world from their specific interests, killing thousands of people who did not even know that they were at risk, it becomes our principle and immediate problem to locate and identify the physical enemy. Those people we can kill. Their notion - that we are "kaffirs" and thus worthy of death under all circumstances - is, of course, a psychological problem rather than a military one.

Those people on the other side seem to do a great deal of praying. Let us pray that their god will show them the error of their ways so that, pending that time, we can get them out in the open where they may serve as proper targets.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 12:10 PM

Guest - this is not a war against Islam or practitioners of Islam, and none of your examples could be used to justify such a thing if it were at all justifiable, which it is not

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 12:17 PM

"I do think the forum would be less interesting, however, if only one point of view was presented."

Exactly so, Doug! I would not presume to speak for Big Mick (nor for that matter does he necessarily speak for me), but perhaps in the heat of the moment he did not chose his words as carefully as he might have.

I feel that the purpose of debate is to hear and consider other viewpoints and to stimulate thought. Please don't "lay off." In the words of the not-so-immortal MacBeth, "Lay ON. . . !

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: John Hardly
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 12:24 PM

I agree with PeterT at least to the extent that t'other side must strike first. If not we will never unite over our own defense (and even then, if we don't do it quickly there will be those who will regroup, and then point out that retaliation is unnecessary in that Hussein has now expended his arsenal and is therfore no longer a threat :^) ).

The wierd irony I found in the reporting of the Daschle story was....
...the new was saying that, wheras the Democrats were ready to take up and support Bush on homeland security.....now they aren't.Now I may be dense.......but that means....

The Democrats were going to support Bush because they were finally convinced that our best security interests were in doing so. Now that Bush offended them........our security will again take a back seat to their desire for political vengence.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 12:55 PM

Dear Guest Bill Kennedy, It is a war against radical Islamics, and I stand by what I posted. Debate it if you will, but do not instruct me on how to think or behave. When they kill more people, will you stand and watch? or agree to take action and prevent murder? I can assure you that action will be required; but it will never be condoned or desired by a civilized people of any religion or race.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: GUEST,Bill Kennedy
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 01:14 PM

Guest - I never instructed you how to think or behave, just expressed my view, and said your arguments do not convince me. When we kill more people should I stand and watch? Does our evil actions outweigh thiers? because our god is the true god? no thank you, I do not agree.

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 01:34 PM

GUEST: I am always suspect of folks who think that every problem has at its core a single cause.

With that said, your generalizations about people and their motives, I hold a different opinion. The world is not all black and white, good and evil. I don't think it is fair to say that the "aim of the Palestinians is to erase Isreal" because there is an implication that *all* Palestinians want to erase Isreal and this is not true. Most Palestinians are moderate in their beliefs and interpret jahad as man's "struggle" to to be good people in the eyes of Allah, just as their counterparts in the Christain world work on becoming good people thru confession, forgiveness and the Bible's instructions to "sin no more".

I partially agree with you that fundamentalists on both sides of the divide would like to have all conflict blamed on religious differences. But this dog don't hunt either. There are economic differences. There a foriegn policy differences. There are cultural difference. Educational differences and lots of other differences that can't be blamed on religion.

Bobert

Subject: RE: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 02:04 PM

Bobert, while you negotiate and discuss peacefully, the radicals merely re-group and attack again with greater violence. I did not attach any culpability to a nation or race, I stated clearly and concisely, radical Islamics are the root cause of this clear and present danger. You can discuss and negotiate peacefully with any rational nation and race that posses a government that recognizes human rights; but when some of those people intend to attack without regard for the sanctity of human life, or obeying any recognized rules of engagement and levels of force, military action must be swift and decisive. Had the former Bush done his job properly the people of Iraq (some I have met and admire greatly) would be free of a dictatorial and inhumane leader/regime. The ideals and philosophy of the indoctrinated radicals cannot be changed purely by inaction. The USA has tried education and co-operation in international diplomacy, but still has to face a resolute enemy who will have to be stopped by direct military action. The world progresses in time and technology but with little wisdom. Tolerance, international co-operation, and education, will in time win over hearts and minds; but dont forget that we are condemned to repeat this history because we failed to do this with full international support under a previous administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 02:32 PM

Gosh, GUEST. It sounds like you have Saddam as the only bad guy on your demon list. Hmmmmmm? no one else on the list. It is implisic to think that if Bush Senior had just gotten a regime change that the world would be one big ol' Walton's family. I would suggest that the US's foriegn policy of using folks when we need them or their resources and then dumping them had a lot to do with situations in which the counties of the world find themselves. Not to mention Bush, Junior's turning his back on the Isreali/Palestinian conflict early in his term. And one needs to also look at the poverty that a lot of folks around the world, including the US, in times when the inhabitants of the planet are becoming more tribalized and know just how much the US consumes. Yes, we have become an exclusionary nation and have given folks, who are extremeists, lots of fuel ihn their recruiting efforts of young folks. No, we are hardly involved with our own poor, let alone the impoverished of other nations.

So, yes, until we develop inclusionary foriegn and econmic policies towards the rest of the world, we will continue to have more Saddam's and Bin Ladens, both of whom used to be our buddies before we closed the doors on them.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: kendall
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 02:58 PM

It takes a real man to apologize, so, forget it Tom. Anyone ever heard that right wing raving lunatic, Michael Savage? I'd love a few minutes with that asshole.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: Peter T.
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 03:59 PM

I was simply pointing out that there is a considerable moral advantage to absorbing a first strike against you: the moral advantage is that, over time, your ability to defend yourself in democracies wins out, not necessarily by superior armament, but by solidarity. This is cold comfort, for example, to the Poles in World War II, or --as I said in another thread -- if one is attacked by a new generation of weapons. It raises new questions. Nevertheless, Lincoln went out of his way not to be the first to fire during the Civil War: he saw the moral advantage, in spite of the difficult position he knew it would put the people already in harm's way.

yours, Peter T.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: NicoleC
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 05:18 PM

Can I just point out one more time that: IRAQ IS NOT A FUNDAMENTALIST MUSLIM COUNTRY!

Iraq is governed by a secular government. Most of the "opposition" forces in Iraq ARE Islamic fundamentalists. Saddam can't stand the fundamentalists and they can't stand him.

You may want Saddam to take a long walk off a short plank, but you can't pin that one on him.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 08:37 PM

During all of this debate, has anyone actually considered that it is this Iraqi leader and regime that is the target and not the people of Iraq? Bush has been trying to get (that miserable failure) the UN to enforce weapons inspections; and it is Saddam and his regime that prevents it. It is the radical Islamic fanatics that are the danger to world peace. Any decent nation would not condone such activity. The problem we have is that regardless of international laws and standards, the only effective means to achieve peace has been NATO. Debate on friends, I enjoy reading it and certainly enjoy stirring your pot on the odd occasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Finally: Daschle speaks out
From: DougR
Date: 26 Sep 02 - 08:52 PM

John Hardly: "I agree with Peter T., at least to the extent that the other side must strike first."

I would agree, except for one thing. Weapons of mass destruction.

In the "old" days weapons that would cause the large number of deaths in a population were not as readily available as they are today.

If Iraq has WMDs, and we are all aware that Saddam did not hesitate, in the past, to use them as he did with his own people and the Iranians, then we would have to be prepared to lose thousands of lives, possibly, before we could respond. I hate the idea of our attacking first. But it is a very close call, in my opinion. These times, they are not only a-changing, they have already changed beyond anything we might have imagined even ten years ago. If the president determines through intelligence sources that Saddam has the bomb, or the means to even deliver Anthrax, Smallpox, or any other dread disease that might kill thousands of Americans or ANY of our allies, then I think we may have to go after him first.

Ideally, the weapons inspectors will be allowed back in under very stringent rules that Saddam cannot tamper with, and the answer to the question of whether or not Iraq has WMD might be answered. If they can be located and destroyed, the question of our invading Iraq is a moot point.

Don thanks for the kind words.

DougR