Daschle says Bush has "Failed Miserably"

Tom Daschle said today in a news interview that "this president" [Bush] has "failed miserably at diplomacy."

Through diplomacy Bush was able to:

1) Gain congressional approval to use force against terrorists.
2) Rally all 15 members of the UN Security Council to pass Resolution 1441, which provided legal, ethical and moral justification to disarm Iraq, if indeed Saddam did not disarm himself.

Saddam Hussein has had 12 long years to comply with UN mandates. He has refused to do so. Yet, Bush is the one who has failed miserably?

 

Bush failed miserably at diplomacy. I don't think he was really trying to use diplomacy.

Neville Chamberlain - now there was a great diplomat. By not putting the boots to Hitler in 1938 or earlier he was, to a good degree, responsible for the death of at least 50,000,000 people.

 

I don't think Neville Chamberlain should be blamed for World War II deaths, since he had no way of knowing they would occur (and did all he knew how to do in hopes of preventing just such a catastrophe). It's easy to look back now and sneer at his appeasement strategy (and it was foolish no matter how one looks at it), but he didn't have the benefit of precognition. This is very much like saying that Adolf Hitler's babysitter should be held responsible for the Holocaust because she didn't kill him in his crib.

This is not to say that "don't do anything until our hand is forced" is always a moral strategy--again, look at what happened in Rwanda--but let's get real here. The proverbial road to hell isn't really paved with good intentions; it's paved with wicked ones. Good intentions are essential.


Peace,

 

There's lots of blame to go around, Chamberlain is certainly due some of it.

Hitler was to blame. The Nazi Party was to blame. The German people who elected them were to blame. The settlement imposed on Germany at the end of WWI was to blame. The abandonment of the British-German alliance was to blame. The rise of Germany as a European power, upsetting the traditional balance of power, was to blame.

Hitler had one diplomatic victory after another, buying time to actually develop an army. An early challenge would have been an easy victory. Germany wasn't even sure they could defeat the Czeck army but it caved, without a fight.

 

Tom Daschle is the biggest political opportunist I have EVER seen. The man jumps on ANY chance he sees to promote himself or the democratic party. Incredible.

Cy

 

Daschle is a hard man to figure out. I have never seen a man work so hard to alienate 66% of America in my life. Perhaps after he retires he would want to run the embassy in France, if we still have it.

 

I agree with that. Bush seems to me to be a man on a self-appointed mission, and nothing in the world will swerve him from his path.

I agree with Tom Head. Chamberlain has always seemed to me (I'm certainly not an historian) to have been a man in a no-win situation.

Suppose that he did as today's critics suggest: he refused to negotiate, stood up to Hitler and threatened war. Hitler would have happily given it to him. And succeeding generations (us) would be blaming Chamberlain for having forced World War II. We would be arguing that had diplomacy been given a chance, war conceivably might have been averted. Even if that were an empty hope, time would have been gained in which to prepare militarily for the coming conflagration.

Hitler was a fanatic. He intended to remake Western civilization and that ambition put him on a collision course with it. I don't think that anything short of assassination could have diverted him for very long. Diplomacy was kind of irrelevant from the beginning, I think, and the best it could hope to do was to borrow a little time.

 

I've never made any effort to study Daschle or to try to figure him out.

But based solely on impressions gained from glancing at headlines, the man strikes me as being an obstructionist. He doesn't seem to have any kind of positive vision for America, and seems motivated by a partisan desire to jab a stick into George Bush's spokes and to mess up whatever it is that the Republicans want to do, simply because they are Republicans.

That might not be fair to Daschle. It might be that the press only sees fit to cover his activities when he's complaining. (Opposition leaders always run the risk of that.) But I don't think that I'm alone in perceiving him this way. He needs to work on putting out a constructive message and on displaying some positive vision for the nation that the rest of us can admire.

 

Churchill on Chamberlain

Churchill was right then. Bush and Blair are right now.

Prophet of Truth

1938

"Distressed by proGerman and anti-French propaganda in Britain, he flew to France to advocate an Anglo-French alliance. When he was received with full honours by the French, the Cabinet let it be known that he spoke only for himself and not the Government. He believed that "if France broke then everything would break, and the Nazi domination of Europe, and potentially of a large part of the world, would seem to be inevitable." In April, Leon Blum's Government fell and Edouard Daladier became Premier. "A capable and sincere man," said Churchill.
When an agreement was signed by Britain and Italy which recognized Italian control over Ethiopia, Churchill called it "a complete triumph for Mussolini." The Government also negotiated an agreement with Ireland to end British naval rights at several Irish ports. Churchill saw this as another example of appeasement. He equated it to a withdrawal from Gibraltar or Malta but his criticisms further alienated him from the Conservative Party.
In May he met with Conrad Henlein, the leader of the Sudeten Germans, who Churchill called "the best treated minority in Europe." He approved of a Henlein plan for a federal system in Czechoslovakia but informed Henlein that "if Germany attacked Czechoslovakia, France and then England would come to the latter's assistance."
When Lord Swinton resigned as Secretary of State for Air it was assumed by many that Churchill would join the Cabinet. But Chamberlain was still not inclined to offer a position to his principal critic. For his part, Churchill professed to be reluctant to come aboard. "The present majority will remain dumb to the end," he said."

http://www.winstonchurchill.org

"Since we last met, the House has suffered a very grievous loss in the death of one of its most distinguished Members, and of a statesman and public servant who, during the best part of three memorable years, was first Minister of the Crown."


http://www.winstonchurchill.org/speeches/chamberlain.htm

 

The time to stop Hitler was not 1938. The time to stop Hitler was 1936, when he marched into the Rhineland and re-militarized it. He'd just violated the treaty limits on his army, and was surprised when the Allies failed to confront him. By 1938, the only alternative to appeasement was world war. In fact, appeasement might have actually helped, if you accept the inevitability of word war. It gave Britain time to arm, and gave the U.S. time to help them through the Lend Lease Act.

Daschle is an obstructionist as any member of the "loyal opposition" should be. The Republicans have majorities in both houses of Congress, but with rail-thin majorities. They have a President elected by the narrowest of margins (and failing the popular vote). They have a Supreme Court that is very inclined to support their agenda. So, either they have control and can't exercise it, or they don't really have control because of the narrow majorities in Congress and the paltry mandate offered to Bush by the electorate. Neither is a pretty scenario. But blaming the minority party for the majority's inability to exercise its agenda is lame.

The Senate isn't controlled with 51 votes. It is controlled with 60.

The Democrats hardly have a corner on the market when it comes to politicking, BTW. And the Republicans don't have a monopoly on integrity, loyalty, patriotism, or any of the other virtues some might wish to assign exclusively to them.

 

I don't think Bill was blaming Daschle for Republican leadership or failure. He was merely stating the lack of vision the man has. From the War to Medicare his only idea is Bush stinks. Blaming Bush's lack of diplomacy for the UN is merely an anti-Bush statement. How would the brilliant Senator have kept France from a veto?

Bush has pushed on because of morality and virtue. Basically because we are right. Daschle made his remarks (which he will deny in a year and a half) out of hopes he can retake his beloved Congress because America will be angry. The DNC has not issued one statement on Bush's movement to war. This year they have not released one official statement either way. Their entire policy statement is economic. That way in two years if the war does not go as planned, and Osama is unaccounted for it will be a failure. If it's good, they were supportive.

Daschle's tactic is following a plan that won them the White House after the first Gulf War. Choosing your words to attack the war, but choosing them so you can look supportive if the action turns out to be correct. Smart Politics? Yes! Integrity? Patriotic? Loyal?

I am reminded of a speech by Marc Anthony "and Brutus was an honorable man." Long live the triumvirate Daschle, Clinton, and McCauliffe. With friends like them, who needs France?

 

That's why the best you can do is look out for your own national interests. Hilter's fanaticism made it clear that it was in England's national interest to stop him, sooner rather than later. Had Chamberlain taken the advice of Leo Blum, and ended the nonintervention policy in 1938 (rather than replacing Blum with Edouard Daladier, who along with Chamberlain, formulated the policy of appeasment), perhaps England's national interests would have been better served, and the larger war may have even been averted.

The relativists are often bewildered by this logic. They'll ask, "Well, doesn't Saddam have a right to look out for his national interests, too?" That's were discernment comes in. As Tom Head says, good intentions are essential. Evil intentions *absolutely must* be punished.

 

You may well be right in all of this but I can't help but think that if it was Al Gore sitting in the White House making the decision to go to war then Daschle would be behind him 100%. Obviously, there can be no proof of this, it's just my sense of the man based on the news coverage. To me this goes well beyond his role as a member of the "loyal opposition." The term "opportunist" is perhaps the kindest I can come up with at the moment. I believe that there are issues that transcend partisan politics. I also believe that Daschle feels otherwise.
Jack

 

Very keen insight, Jack!

 

Daschle was 100% behind Clinton in the previous bombings. he refused to vote for force during the 1991 Gulf War. In 1998 he said the threat was immediate, in 2003 it is not as bad.

I say Rep Sanchez (D-California) talk last night about not giving diplomacy a chance. When she was reminded she supported Clinton's bombings she said "I don't recall that". When reminded she stated Clinton did not need the UN to approve she gave a blank look.

The Democrats are opportunists here. They are using talking points memo's on a strategy to re-win the White House and Senate. It is shameful and disgraceful. The DNC has not shown a position on the War (look at their website) so that if it goes badly they can attack to retake Congress. They say Bush has made a big gamble. At least he has done it because of conviction.

Saying "failed diplomacy" caused the war is simply setting up to give a body count in 2004 and saying "it was Bush". I am sorry for the tone of this, but it should sicken every American what Daschle and Pelosy are doing for power. at least they "support the troops".

 

Daschle is not a real leader. He sits back and is critical of whatever the president trys to do. To Daschle, right or wrong is not the issue. The issue is democrat or republican. The problem with that type of stance is that it does not base decisions on whether something is right or wrong, but on a party bias or the feelings of other countries.

Based on some of Clinton's and Daschles latest jabs at Bush i also think a relativistic world view plays a role in how they look at things. In their eyes who are we to attack? What gives us the right? We should wait and see what everyone else wants to do.

This is not leadership. Leadership makes tough decisions after having weighed all the evidence.
We must lead. We are the strongest country on this planet. We should seek advice from others but only advice.

I am thankful that we have a president that has a morality that sees right or wrong and good and evil.


Robert

 

For the record, Brutus WAS an honorable man.

 

I agree with you concerning the President. I may not always agree with him on some issues, but I commend the man for following what he believes. This is a sign of a leader. For some reason, here in America as well as in a lot of the West, some people don't understand personal conviction, ethics, and morality as driving a person. It can be misconstrued as ego, or arrogance.

This is the result of the pluralistic world we live in. Many are so worried about not offending people that they sway back and forth with no real conviction, except to strongly disagree on NOT to have convictions apart from theirs, or their lack thereof. It used to be majority rules. Now you must make concessions for the one. If 99 people agree but one doesn't then we must change for the one so they won't be offended.

Bush, in making a stand and having personal convictions really gets under some people's skin. I just hope that in his confidence and conviction that he remains compassionate, and open to good counsel.


Kevin

 

Are you referring to the majority of the popular vote won by Al Gore vs. the one swing vote in the Supreme Court that gave Bush the Presidency?

 

Hi!

No, I was speaking about general issues in public life. Sorry if I confused the issue.


Kevin