Replies

For the record -- Tom Daschle's "previous" statements -- "I urge the President to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." "Look, we have exhausted virtually all 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? That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply militarily." Tom Daschle 1998 What's the difference now? Why is this administration's diplomacy a dismal failure and Clinton's was not? The party that is in the white house and the people in that party who want to be there.

Diplomacy to a Leader abd to twit are two very different things.

To Tom Dashle, diplomacy is asking France and begging 4 third world and 5 second world countries for permission to defend your country, or to really make a show, to hell with the country.

To President Bush, and I must include too, Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and our military, diplomacy is knowing where they are, and convincing their army to not fight. Right now Saddam is either dead, came close to being dead, some his head honchos are toast. Now he knows we can find him and eventually will. Shock and Awe may not be all about a massive onslaught, but to say "we know where've you have been, where you might go, and eventually you are done. Perhaps really shocking is that someone tried to give him up this morning.

Clueless Tommy.