+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 16 of 16

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    BAIRDI: THIS is what I mean

    This says it better than I can...this is the early 'fall-back' position about the vote to go into Iraq. Please note that it has NOTHING to do with actual beliefs, EVER. Daschle is , of course, lying about the exchange, as that has always been the tack taken by this creature. To beat him to death with a bat would be a waste of good wood. Oh, I'm sorry. Scratch that. Anyway, this is the opening covering-up salvo launched, appropriately, by the communist daily known as 'the l.a.times'.


    SIZE=5]Timing Entwined War Vote, Election[/SIZE]
    By Ronald Brownstein and Emma Vaughn, Times Staff Writers


    WASHINGTON — Tom Daschle, the former Democratic senator from South Dakota, remembers the exchange vividly.

    The time was September 2002. The place was the White House, at a meeting in which President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney pressed congressional leaders for a quick vote on a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

    But Daschle, who as Senate majority leader controlled the chamber's schedule, recalled recently that he asked Bush to delay the vote until after the impending midterm election.

    "I asked directly if we could delay this so we could depoliticize it. I said: 'Mr. President, I know this is urgent, but why the rush? Why do we have to do this now?' He looked at Cheney and he looked at me, and there was a half-smile on his face. And he said: 'We just have to do this now.' "

    Daschle's account, which White House officials said they could not confirm or deny, highlights a crucial factor that has drawn little attention amid rising controversy over the congressional vote that authorized the war in Iraq. The recent partisan dispute has focused almost entirely on the intelligence information legislators had as they cast their votes. But the debate may have been shaped as much by when Congress voted as by what it knew.

    Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, did not call for a vote authorizing the Persian Gulf War until after the 1990 midterm election. But the vote paving the way for the second war with Iraq came in mid-October of 2002 — at the height of an election campaign in which Republicans were systematically portraying Democrats as weak on national security.

    Few candidates sparred over the war resolution itself. But Republicans in states including Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota and Georgia strafed Democratic senators seeking reelection who had supported military spending cutbacks in the 1990s, accepted money from a liberal arms-control group, opposed Bush's preferred approach for organizing the new Department of Homeland Security, and voted in 1991 against the Persian Gulf War.

    With national security then such a flashpoint in so many campaigns, many Democrats believe, the vote's timing enormously increased pressure on their party's wavering senators to back the president, whose approval rating approached 70% at the time.

    "There was a sense I had from the very beginning that this was in part politically motivated, and they were going to maximize the timing to affect those who were having some doubt about this right before the election," Daschle said.

    White House counselor Dan Bartlett denied that charge, saying the vote's timing represented a desire to increase pressure on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, not Democrats.

    "The president, during the run-up to the war, went out of his way not to make it political," Bartlett said.

    Whatever the motivation for the vote's timing, the effect was to produce a clear contrast between the Democratic senators who sought reelection that November and those who did not.

    The Democrats not on the ballot split almost evenly, with 19 supporting the war resolution and 17 opposing it. Among those facing the voters, 10 voted for the resolution while only four opposed it. And of those four, only one — Sen. Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, who died in a plane crash a few weeks after the resolution vote — was in a seriously competitive race.

    "The political currents were extraordinarily strong for everybody involved," said Jim Jordan, then executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "I'm certainly not implying that Democrats had their finger to the wind and didn't make votes of conscience,(AHAHAHAHA) but it was a piece of the puzzle, clearly."

    It is, of course, impossible to say whether more Democrats would have opposed the war resolution — which passed the Senate 77 to 23 on Oct. 11, just hours after the House approved it 296 to 133 — if the vote had occurred after the 2002 election.

    Daschle, who voted for the resolution and was not up for reelection that year, said he did not think so, "given the circumstances, the environment, the sense that we were responding to 9/11, and all of the urgency that was created by the rhetoric and cajoling of the administration."

    But Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said recently that a delay might have prompted more Democrats to vote no by increasing the time available to study the evidence for war and by dissipating the political pressures surrounding the decision.

    "There was a stampede to vote on this," Kennedy said. "A lot of our people got caught up in it."

    Bartlett said that if some Democrats felt "like they would have made a different decision before the election or after, that doesn't speak very well of them, because the facts didn't change in the course of one month."

    Democrats themselves were divided over the vote's timing. Kennedy, Wellstone and Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) were among those who passionately urged Daschle to defer the vote until after the election, said several sources who requested anonymity when discussing the party's internal debate.



    http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ck=1&cset=true




    Unreal.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: BAIRDI: THIS is what I mean

    What this story shows me is that at least Daschle would prefer to vote as he wants things to go instead of how the pople would like things to go.

    Our system was set up as a representation of the people. It was never supposed to be what does on person think we should do. The one person has the right to let their voice be heard, but then the vote should be taken based on the way the American People wish for things to go.

    Wanting to postpone a vote until after an election is the same as saying "we know what the people want and disagree. Let us get elected again so we can then vote as we think things should be instead of how the poeple do and not risk any back lash."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: BAIRDI: THIS is what I mean

    Quote Originally Posted by RegulationE
    What this story shows me is that at least Daschle would prefer to vote as he wants things to go instead of how the pople would like things to go.

    Our system was set up as a representation of the people. It was never supposed to be what does on person think we should do. The one person has the right to let their voice be heard, but then the vote should be taken based on the way the American People wish for things to go.

    Wanting to postpone a vote until after an election is the same as saying "we know what the people want and disagree. Let us get elected again so we can then vote as we think things should be instead of how the poeple do and not risk any back lash."
    you are saying that when anyone has a chance to contemplate after the emotional wave of the moment that it is false!?that hindsight if you will is wrong!?or that truth cannot stand the test of time!?this will of the people is not a fluctuating thing!?so take opportune advantage!?how opportunistic is that!?is the truth a matter of opportunity and political persuasion!?well YES!!but only if you are on the winning side!!or think you are!!hehe!! :eek: :p :rolleyes:

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: BAIRDI: THIS is what I mean

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx
    you are saying that when anyone has a chance to contemplate after the emotional wave of the moment that it is false!?that hindsight if you will is wrong!?or that truth cannot stand the test of time!?this will of the people is not a fluctuating thing!?so take opportune advantage!?how opportunistic is that!?is the truth a matter of opportunity and political persuasion!?well YES!!but only if you are on the winning side!!or think you are!!hehe!! :eek: :p :rolleyes:
    No Lexx, what I am saying is that if you have a belief that differs fromt he majority of what the People believe it is your job to convince them you are right instead of wrong. Don't use the excuse that you can not vote with your consience because there is an election coming up.

    The people vote in the politicians to speak for us. We know they are not always going to vote the way we personally would like them to so we vote for the politicians that view things the way we do more then they don't.

    The will of the people is not always right either, but unless a politician is willing to stand up and say the people are wrong and point out where they are wrong and why they are wrong, then the polititician is weak and needs to get a backbone.

    Don't say none of them did, there where 123 who voted against the use of force in the House. They did not al lose their seat in the October elections. even those that voted against the use of force. While I do not agree with there position on that issue, I do respect them for being willing to "put their money where their mouth is" so to speak.

    You see lexx, I can respect a person who has a belief and is willing to voice that belief even in the face of losing their job. I actually respect the 3 people that voted to pull out of Iraq immediately. They where wrong, but I respect them just the same. They did not take the easy way out, they held fast to their beliefs, and they have the right now today to talk about how bad this war is going and how much the administration is doing wrong in Iraq. Only three of them have earned that right. They earned it with their vote.

    What most of the liberals on this board fail to realize, at least about me, is I have no problem with people dissagreeing with the President's actions. I have a problem with those that showed support when it was popular only to go back when times get a bit tough and claim they where lied to, even while they themselves where trumpeting the reasons to go into Iraq. Or the ones who say the never supported the idea in the first place, yet they voted for it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    1,222

    Re: BAIRDI: THIS is what I mean

    Pwrone
    Since you directed this thread toward me, I felt it necessary to comment. Let me just say that since Daschle lied, and I'm sure you can substantiate your accusation, then that makes this story a fabrication. In that case one cannot draw any conclusions from the article.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: BAIRDI: THIS is what I mean

    I can draw a conclusion here...

    It's just more second guessing and I for one am sick of it!

    We are there, so how about lets focus on winning the damn war instead of nit-picking through what got us there.

    .

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    121

    Re: BAIRDI: THIS is what I mean

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    We are there, so how about lets focus on winning the damn war instead of nit-picking through what got us there.
    Isn't that pretty similar to what those Bush ads on TV used to say back when the Iraq war first started?

    It was something like, "Go on with your lives, we can't let these terrorists disrupt our way of life or they've won."

    Or in other words "Ignore everything that's going on, just go about your business/lives and let us [the government] take care of everything and we'll all be fine."

  8. #8
    war_man's Avatar
    war_man is offline the gatekeeper of honesty and integrity in self
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    256

    Re: BAIRDI: THIS is what I mean

    It will never be fine or the same for those of us who loose someone they love over there all because we have little hitler for a president trying to draw the heat away from himself and send it to iraq, cause he wants less people to see what a sorry job his doing here running the country and little by little everyday the hole gets deeper and wider. We could have a great president in 2008 and not even know it untill 2015 if his making any diffrence at all, beacause of how long its gonna take us to dig out from under little bushs 8 years of noncognizance.
    war_on_scam

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,383

    Re: BAIRDI: THIS is what I mean

    Quote Originally Posted by war_man
    It will never be fine or the same for those of us who loose someone they love over there all because we have little hitler for a president trying to draw the heat away from himself and send it to iraq, cause he wants less people to see what a sorry job his doing here running the country and little by little everyday the hole gets deeper and wider. We could have a great president in 2008 and not even know it untill 2015 if his making any diffrence at all, beacause of how long its gonna take us to dig out from under little bushs 8 years of noncognizance.

    Yeah...you might want to hold off on revealing this part of your nefarious plan..LOL

    This is a pre-emptive strike against future criticism of a democrat president a decade into the future! Dissembling, are we? Already?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: BAIRDI: THIS is what I mean

    Quote Originally Posted by war_man
    We could have a great president in 2008 and not even know it untill 2015 if his making any diffrence at all, beacause of how long its gonna take us to dig out from under little bushs 8 years of noncognizance.
    This could easily read:

    We could have a great president in 2000 and not even know it untill 2007 if his making any diffrence at all, beacause of how long its gonna take us to dig out from under failing clintons 8 years of of selling secrets and bedroom deals.

    But that is another debate all together and one I would rather let rest because no matter how Clinton's action and inaction lead up to events we are dealing with now, the Democratic response is always, Bush lied about WMDs.

  11. #11
    war_man's Avatar
    war_man is offline the gatekeeper of honesty and integrity in self
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    256

    Re: BAIRDI: THIS is what I mean

    No matter what Clinton ever did in the bedroom our else where hollier than thous, He was 4 times the President we have now, you would probally even get some used to be die hard republicans to agree with that.
    Im not saying theres never been a decent Republican President cause we have had a few,, But this Presidents a disgrace to any meaning of the word... And should be impeached for presidential actions not like the latter for allowing some republican plant to blow him, and then having a Repug. lawyer like Star making way to big of an issue out of it,,, the country should come first,and in that regard Bush is not hair on Clintons ***...........
    WE all have our oppinons, and now im dropping the convo.........
    war_on_scam

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: BAIRDI: THIS is what I mean

    Quote Originally Posted by war_man
    No matter what Clinton ever did in the bedroom our else where hollier than thous, He was 4 times the President we have now, you would probally even get some used to be die hard republicans to agree with that.
    The bedroom deals I am speaking of are those cut with the Chinese, not the crap he pulled with Monica.

  13. #13
    war_man's Avatar
    war_man is offline the gatekeeper of honesty and integrity in self
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    256

    Re: BAIRDI: THIS is what I mean

    Okay well thats a new one to me, Theres alot i dont know i guess and ill admit it, But id still hold Clinton up as a good pres. anyday. nothing good be worse then the**** *** we got in there now. sorry for the little misinterpatation.....
    war_on_scam

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: BAIRDI: THIS is what I mean

    Quote Originally Posted by war_man
    Okay well thats a new one to me, Theres alot i dont know i guess and ill admit it, But id still hold Clinton up as a good pres. anyday. nothing good be worse then the**** *** we got in there now. sorry for the little misinterpatation.....
    Just as history will have something to say about teh Bush Presidency, it iwll have something to say about the Clinton reign as well.

    While Clinton did some decent things as President, and some very good things as President. History will go on to show his lack or response to the terrorist attacks on the US proved to be the cause to the effect we are seeing now.

    There are many things I would love to see different about our current President, don't think for a moment I believe he is doing the best job possible. Iraq may turn out to be a blimish on his record in history. However......

    Things that go unnoticed are the facts the economy was in a slide before Clinton left office. The Surpluses posted during the Clinton years where based on projections of tax revenue from then current income levels. The Internet Boom created a lot of "paper wealth" that was taxable, but it did not create nearly as much real money wealth. Budget numbers where based on this paper wealth and that is a big part of why they where unattainable when they where announced.

    9/11 attacks where planned during the Clinton administration. He knew of the threat and even made it a point to mention during the transition of power to the Bush administration. However, he did little to stop the planning. This lead to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and a more rapid decline in the economy.

    While most of the focus is on the Iraq war, ther have been a lot of major situations that have lead to the current deficit spending. There where 4 major hurricanes last year alone, two major hurricanes this year. One damaged or destroyed an area almost as large as France. The Attack on the towers lead to massive job lose imediately following and these companies where affected far more then simply losing their NY offices. These are just a few natural disasters and terrorist attacks that have taken place during the Bush term.

    Clinton's time in office had relatively few major natural disasters. A few mjor fires out west, a couple of minor hurricanes, but nothing very major to deal with. In fact he was quoted right after the attacks of 9/11 as saying he did not have a defining moment during his term where he could stand up and show his leadership skills.

  15. #15
    war_man's Avatar
    war_man is offline the gatekeeper of honesty and integrity in self
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    256

    Re: BAIRDI: THIS is what I mean

    Quote Originally Posted by RegulationE
    Just as history will have something to say about teh Bush Presidency, it iwll have something to say about the Clinton reign as well.

    While Clinton did some decent things as President, and some very good things as President. History will go on to show his lack or response to the terrorist attacks on the US proved to be the cause to the effect we are seeing now.

    There are many things I would love to see different about our current President, don't think for a moment I believe he is doing the best job possible. Iraq may turn out to be a blimish on his record in history. However......

    Things that go unnoticed are the facts the economy was in a slide before Clinton left office. The Surpluses posted during the Clinton years where based on projections of tax revenue from then current income levels. The Internet Boom created a lot of "paper wealth" that was taxable, but it did not create nearly as much real money wealth. Budget numbers where based on this paper wealth and that is a big part of why they where unattainable when they where announced.

    9/11 attacks where planned during the Clinton administration. He knew of the threat and even made it a point to mention during the transition of power to the Bush administration. However, he did little to stop the planning. This lead to the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and a more rapid decline in the economy.

    While most of the focus is on the Iraq war, ther have been a lot of major situations that have lead to the current deficit spending. There where 4 major hurricanes last year alone, two major hurricanes this year. One damaged or destroyed an area almost as large as France. The Attack on the towers lead to massive job lose imediately following and these companies where affected far more then simply losing their NY offices. These are just a few natural disasters and terrorist attacks that have taken place during the Bush term.

    Clinton's time in office had relatively few major natural disasters. A few mjor fires out west, a couple of minor hurricanes, but nothing very major to deal with. In fact he was quoted right after the attacks of 9/11 as saying he did not have a defining moment during his term where he could stand up and show his leadership skills.
    In that whole article you just wrote lays the diffrence between Clinton and the piece of crap we got in there now, Even the worst of the Republican or Clinton bashers has to say yea "Clinton did do some decent things as President" See to me theres the defining point in ever thanking about any comparrison between Clinton and Bush, I see nothing this Presidents done that was very decent it seems to be every bit the oppisite when it comes to doing the things to actually help our country. You made alot of points in your article that were good points, But some fall more in the excuse category, I refuse to believe the economy was that bad when Bush took it over, and now his driving it in the ground. I will say you are right about all of the disasters that have plaqued us as of late and have had some bearing on this presidents performance,But It merely took a bad President and made him look even worse in mine and in most peoples eyes...
    You are a very inteligent poster I will say that, But just like whats in any and all of us "lays an oppinion" and right or wrong in the eyes of each one of us as it pertains to other indviduals, We all are entitled this little luxuary.. So even though I most certainly dont agree with all that you have said,, Ill say its been nice talking to you, take care......
    war_on_scam

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    633

    Re: BAIRDI: THIS is what I mean

    Quote Originally Posted by war_man
    You are a very inteligent poster I will say that, But just like whats in any and all of us "lays an oppinion" and right or wrong in the eyes of each one of us as it pertains to other indviduals, We all are entitled this little luxuary.. So even though I most certainly dont agree with all that you have said,, Ill say its been nice talking to you, take care......
    Thank you for the compliment.

    The economic indicators will back up my posts for both Clinton and Bush. And honestly I don't mind when people have the opinion that Bush has done some things that, at least at this point, do not look positive for this country.

    Just as I can find some things that Clinton did well, there are just as many things that Bush has done well. In my mind, the things that stand out regarding Clinton are the dealings with the Chinese and the hands off approach to dealing with the terrorist attacks on our country while he was in office. (minor, yet terrorist attacks just the same).

    Most people you refer to are so caught up in the Iraq War, they will not allow themselves to see anything this President has done that is good. They fail to give him credit for anything.

    I believe Nixon was trash, but I also think he did some good things. Same goes for each and every President in my life time that I have memory of. Reagan is an example of a President who will go done as one of the best in this countries history. However there was plenty of things he did that I don't agree with and possibly where on the edge of criminal.

    It has been nice talking with you as well.

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
000, 2008, 2015, accepted, account, accusation, action, actions, administration, admit, ads, aff, age, agree, allowing, alot, america, american, announced, another, approval, approved, arms, article, ation, attacks, attention, authorized, away, back, backs, bad, based, bashers, bat, beat, best, bet, better, bit, blue, brow, campaign, cannot, care, case, cast, caught, cer, chance, cheney, claim, cli, clinto, clintons, coming, commit, communist, con, congressional, contrast, countries, country, crap, crash, credit, cse, current, dakota, dam, damn, dan, dea, death, debate, decision, democrat, democratic, democrats, denied, department, des, desire, destroyed, dick, didn, different, dig, ding, director, disasters, discussing, disgrace, disrupt, doesn, don, dont, dropping, ear, early, earned, easily, easy, economic, edge, edition, edward, effect, elec, elected, electio, election, elections, environment, eyes, fabrication, face, facing, factor, fail, fall, false, fast, father, felt, focus, force, fra, france, front, future, george, george h.w. bush, georgia, gonna, good, great, grim, ground, group, had, hands, hard, heard, held, help, hey, him, his, hole, homeland, hose, hours, house, hurricanes, hussein, ial, iced, idea, ignore, ill, ime, impeached, income, inteligen, intelligence, inter, internal, involved, ion, iowa, iraq, issue, ist, jim, job, jordan, just, kennedy, knew, large, last, launched, lead, leaders, led, lets, lexx, liberal, liberals, lied, lives, long, loose, lose, losing, lot, lying, make, makes, making, many, mass, massive, matter, maximize, mea, meaning, meeting, memory, mention, mind, minnesota, moment, money, monica, month, more, national, national security, nice, nixon, note, november, now, numbers, october, office, officials, ones, only, opportunity, page, paper, part, party, passed, paul, people, performance, persia, person, personally, piece, place, plane, plane crash, planned, planning, plant, plenty, point, political, politically, popular, por, pos, position, positive, posted, poster, postpone, posts, power, prefer, presiden, presidency, president, pressed, pretty, problem, proved, pull, pulled, quick, quote, race, rapid, read, reagan, real, reasons, regarding, respect, response, rest, revealing, rising, risk, robert, run, rush, secrets, selling, senate, senators, sense, september, set, showed, shows, side, simply, sitio, sorry, sources, speaking, split, staff, stand, star, states, stein, stop, story, strike, subs, such, support, supported, supporting, system, take, taken, talk, talking, terrorist, test, themselves, they, thing, thread, time, times, timing, today, tom, ton, tough, towers, transition, tries, truth, une, unis, urged, urgent, url, vaughn, vice, view, vince, voice, vote, voted, votes, war, waste, weak, weeks, wells, west, whats, win, winning, won, worse, worst, wrong, year, years, ymi, your

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •