By sanctioning Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., for his anti-Semitic outburst last week.
Pelsosi told reporters Friday that Moran's remarks "were offensive and have no place in the Democratic Party." She then gave him the boot from a minor party assignment that journalists are helpfully describing as "a leadership post."
Rep. Pelosi says there's no place for those sentiments on her side of Congress.
"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."
It was non other then little Tom Daschle. He said that when Clinton was President and confronting Iraq. Now compare that to what he said yesterday. I guess the difference between then and now is a President that talked a big game and one that means what he says. Or one was from his party and the other isn't. Either way, I hope the people of S.Dak. remember all of his little stunts and obstructions and votes his little ass out of office when his term is done.
"I hope the people of S.Dak. remember all of his little stunts and obstructions and votes his little ass out of office when his term is done. "
The Republicans gotta produce a candidate first.
Daschle probably learned most of his obstuction skills from Bob Dole. He wrote the book on cloakroom tactics and had the time of his life blocking Clinton legislation. Some of that, Democrats thought was pretty important and necessary.
When the president asks for money for this war, Daschle will vote for it like every other Senator.
That's called supporting the troops, in dollars and cents. Not the wrapped-in-the-flag lipservice you hear everywhere these days, by people who may be doing it just to make themeselves feel good.
If you want everyone singing the same tune, Wolvie, maybe you'd rather have 100 Republican Senators, 435 Republican Representatives and a Republican Presidnt.
I imagine they'll run Johnson , ( think was his name) who lost by very few votes. Even though dead people on Indian reservations voted. I think that's why they didn't push the recount issue. He still might have lost, the R's had a majority anyway and he got to look gracious. So I'm sure it was a calculated move. Daschle barely won last time and comments like that don't sit well with folks. So you'll see this guy running again and Daschle will have a battle on his hands. The state seems to be divided about as evenly as one state can be.
Rick, I remember before the election you were taking issue that some including myself were with the stories coming out of there reguarding fraud especially with absentee ballots. Had the situation been reversed I'm sure Al, Jesse and the ACLU would still be in S.Dakota talking "disenfranchisement".
If you want everyone singing the same tune, Wolvie, maybe you'd rather have 100 Republican Senators, 435 Republican Representatives and a Republican President.
Not what I am saying. Daschle knew full well what Bush was going to say. He was briefed prior to Bush's and his speech. There is a time and place for everything. There is also a more tactful way of saying it. Daschle just happen to cross those lines AGAIN. If he would have come out and said something along the lines of... I would have given diplomacy more time and tried to convince the security council more but if the President says we must act then I am behind him and the troops... I think it would have went over a lot better. The way we came off is petty and small. Just my opinion.
Gephart is on Fox right now and he is disagreeing with how Bush handled the U.N. (to some extent) but he is doing it diplomatically. Just the way I posted earlier.
I don't think he's enjoying it Bill. I really don't. Does he mind that Saddamm was sweating a bit and wondering when ? No, and neither do I frankly. If that piece of dung felt a little angst I don't care. From what I've seen and heard and the pics I've seen he doesn't seem to enjoy it.
I hope they did get him. And if not hope they will. I think it will be tough to verify for a while.
L. Lionne posted this on another thread. My apologies if it was already posted here.
Then vs. now
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
What is your opinion on Daschle's changing comments? To me, it seems odd that we had exhausted all diplomatic means during Clinton's time and now we weren't even close in Daschle's opinion. Wouldn't it be one way or the other, not both?
"What is your opinion on Daschle's changing comments?'
Daschle may be saying what he's saying because he doesn't like the President. I don't know. But would you want to be held to comments made at a different time and a totally different operation?
What can be said about world politics and foreign policy that has not been drastically changed since 9/11?
Was the United States out to take over and occupy Baghdad in 1998 assassinate the country's leader? Can you not see a vastly different operation today than the one Clinton carried out in years past?
Has there not been intense, bloody fighting between the Israalis and the Palistinians?
How many millions took to the streets in the 1990s. Would it be more like dozens?
Answer all those questions to yourself. Then ask yourself: Should that Senator's comments made five years ago, be chisled in stone and hung around his neck for the rest his life?
And if you say yes, you are playing the same partisan political game that you accuse him of doing.
And maybe, for your own edification, you should seek out what the Republicans were saying at the time. Was military action against Iraq getting vast Republican support ? Certainly not like it is now, I bet. Why would that be?
MR. LOTT SAYS BOTH THE TIMING AND THE POLICY ITSELF ARE SUBJECT TO QUESTION.
The timing he speaks of was the impeachment trials. He was worried that then president Clinton may be using the attacks as a way of diverting attention away from the impeachment headlines. Can't say as I totally agree with him, but can see where he is coming from.
As for the policy part...
THE MAJORITY LEADER SAYS THAT INSTEAD OF WHAT HE CALLS A CURSORY AIRSTRIKE, HE WANTS AN INTENSIVE CAMPAIGN, WITH THE GOAL OF TOPPLING PRESIDENT SADDAM HUSSEIN.
Sounds like he is more for the type of war that we are engaged in now.
SPEARFISH -- Stepping back from comments he made last week that President Bush failed "miserably" in diplomatic efforts to avoid war with Iraq, Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D. said Thursday, "My timing wasn't the best."
Does anyone believe this? I don't! Because of the simple fact that the very next day he said that he meant what he said and that he fully backed his comment.
In an interview from his Washington office this morning, Daschle indicated that he did not know the timing of the start of military action when he made the critical remarks. He added, "It's time to move past this."
This is an out right lie. He was briefed by the President on the very day that he said those comments and he was briefed prior to him making those comments. This man is nothing more than a coniving little weasel that needs to be tossed out the next time he is up for election. The only reason he is back tracking is because those comments blew up in his face and no one would back him on it.
No thanks to countries like France, Germany, and Russia.
Do you think administration wanted a diplomatic solution?
Well they certainly bent over backwards trying to get it didn't they? Wasn't it the Democrats that asked Bush to go to the U.N.? He did didn't he? He managed to get resolution 1441 with all security council members agreeing. They only would not back it up. Bush and his admin tried damn hard to get U.N. backing and a diplomatic solution. To say otherwise denies the facts of what happened.
The Democrats are good at saying this. Moving on is important IF you do so having been enlightened to your mistakes and accepting them. No point in beating a dead horse. But, speaking of dead horses, ever since Clinton started using the phrase it has become a mantra among the Democrats. But they mean "The jury will disregard that last remark."
Engulfed by a firestorm of outrage over his comments suggesting that U.S. troops were deliberately killing women and children in Iraq, Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-NY, said Friday that he should have been more careful with his words.
"There is no question that if I had a chance to reword that, that I would have done a much better job," the embattled Democrat told nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity.
A chastened Rangel appeared on Hannity's radio show in a bid to clarify his statement. Under intense questioning the top House Democrat was combative at first, maintaining for 15 minutes that his words were being distorted. But then he finally relented.
"I have no argument with your statement that our men and women that are in combat put themselves more in harms way by the precautions they are taking to avoid the injury to innocent people, innocent civilians and women," he told Hannity. "There is no question in my mind that I did not say nor did I mean that the injury of the women and children was deliberate."
The antiwar congressman then attempted to revise his words:
"What I wish I had said is that I am against the war, that the war is because of the violation of the United Nations resolution, [and] that I wish that we allowed the United Nations to enforce the breach of that resolution. As a result we didn't do it, we are in war, it means combat, it means collateral damage.
"And as a result of that, the pain is not only the pain that our men and women are facing. But they are [sic] the pain of innocent people, that although not deliberate, bombs fall on them. Many times it's the bombs of the Iraqis that fall on them as they're shooting at our planes."
That'd been tough for my Dad. He was disabled and we relied on the VA to get medication and oxygen for his emphysema.
There is nothing wrong with charity. It is the entitlements for people that can pay their own way that is the problem.
To me it's 2 separate issues. The benefits veterans get was part of the deal. Nationalizing healthcare for everyone is a horrid idea.
The benefits veterans get was part of the deal. Nationalizing healthcare for everyone is a horrid idea.
Exactly. I wasn't speaking of veterans whom earned their promised benefits.
By sanctioning Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., for his anti-Semitic outburst last week.
Pelsosi told reporters Friday that Moran's remarks "were offensive and have no place in the Democratic Party." She then gave him the boot from a minor party assignment that journalists are helpfully describing as "a leadership post."
Rep. Pelosi says there's no place for those sentiments on her side of Congress.
Kudos to Pelosi!
http://www.jerseygop.com/R_babes/index.html
Republican babe of the week:
Democrat babe of the week:
Kathy Ireland. Republican Babe of the Week
That is a cryin' shame.
What's happened to my country?????
LOL
I was just playing with ya, I'm sure there's plenty of Democrat babes.
I'm sure there's plenty of Democrat babies.
"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."
Any guess to who said this?
Hmmmm, I bet it wasn't Chirac, Shcroeder or Putin.
It was non other then little Tom Daschle. He said that when Clinton was President and confronting Iraq. Now compare that to what he said yesterday. I guess the difference between then and now is a President that talked a big game and one that means what he says. Or one was from his party and the other isn't. Either way, I hope the people of S.Dak. remember all of his little stunts and obstructions and votes his little ass out of office when his term is done.
"I hope the people of S.Dak. remember all of his little stunts and obstructions and votes his little ass out of office when his term is done. "
The Republicans gotta produce a candidate first.
Daschle probably learned most of his obstuction skills from Bob Dole. He wrote the book on cloakroom tactics and had the time of his life blocking Clinton legislation. Some of that, Democrats thought was pretty important and necessary.
When the president asks for money for this war, Daschle will vote for it like every other Senator.
That's called supporting the troops, in dollars and cents. Not the wrapped-in-the-flag lipservice you hear everywhere these days, by people who may be doing it just to make themeselves feel good.
If you want everyone singing the same tune, Wolvie, maybe you'd rather have 100 Republican Senators, 435 Republican Representatives and a Republican Presidnt.
Otherwise expect some opposition.
Rick,
I imagine they'll run Johnson , ( think was his name) who lost by very few votes. Even though dead people on Indian reservations voted. I think that's why they didn't push the recount issue. He still might have lost, the R's had a majority anyway and he got to look gracious. So I'm sure it was a calculated move. Daschle barely won last time and comments like that don't sit well with folks. So you'll see this guy running again and Daschle will have a battle on his hands. The state seems to be divided about as evenly as one state can be.
Yes, it was a rigged election that got very little news copy.
Of course....
Rick 3/19/03 8:30am
Rick, I remember before the election you were taking issue that some including myself were with the stories coming out of there reguarding fraud especially with absentee ballots. Had the situation been reversed I'm sure Al, Jesse and the ACLU would still be in S.Dakota talking "disenfranchisement".
If you want everyone singing the same tune, Wolvie, maybe you'd rather have 100 Republican Senators, 435 Republican Representatives and a Republican President.
Not what I am saying. Daschle knew full well what Bush was going to say. He was briefed prior to Bush's and his speech. There is a time and place for everything. There is also a more tactful way of saying it. Daschle just happen to cross those lines AGAIN. If he would have come out and said something along the lines of... I would have given diplomacy more time and tried to convince the security council more but if the President says we must act then I am behind him and the troops... I think it would have went over a lot better. The way we came off is petty and small. Just my opinion.
Gephart is on Fox right now and he is disagreeing with how Bush handled the U.N. (to some extent) but he is doing it diplomatically. Just the way I posted earlier.
Tom and Natalie are formin' a new group. The Daschle Chicks.
I don't think he's enjoying it Bill. I really don't. Does he mind that Saddamm was sweating a bit and wondering when ? No, and neither do I frankly. If that piece of dung felt a little angst I don't care. From what I've seen and heard and the pics I've seen he doesn't seem to enjoy it.
I hope they did get him. And if not hope they will. I think it will be tough to verify for a while.
L. Lionne posted this on another thread. My apologies if it was already posted here.
Then vs. now
http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm
3100 Joe
Rob, I followed your link and couldn't find the quotes. Where did I go wrong?
I don't know Muskwa, it was posted on another thread. I clicked on the link and got in to the sight. Wish I could be of more help.
I got into the site allright, just couldn't find the quotes. No matter.
Try this link. About half way down the page.
Got it -- thanks, Dan.
Thanks from me as well Dan.
Can you make a non-partisan post, Dan?
Hello pot this is kettle, you're black.
Wrong. I'm incredibly open compared to Dan.
Do I frame every debate in colors of Democrat and Republican?
You should read what I said about Sen. Smoothytoday.
Find the last time I criticized the president. I even stood up for Trent Lott , for Heaven's sake.
That's bull. I don't spin like that.
Can you make a non-partisan post, Dan?
They were having trouble finding an internet link and I helped them out. I made no comments about the link one way or the other. How is that partisan?
You should read what I said about Sen. Smoothy today.
Calling a senator childish names isn't partisan, but helping posters with a linking problem is?
Sorry, Dan. Thought you were referring to Boortz's comments about Democrats about halfway down his page.
Sorry, Dan.
Appology accepted.
What is your opinion on Daschle's changing comments? To me, it seems odd that we had exhausted all diplomatic means during Clinton's time and now we weren't even close in Daschle's opinion. Wouldn't it be one way or the other, not both?
A protestor who just doesn't get it.
An Iraqi man who does.
More who get it.
And another.
An Iraqi soldier who is learning what this is all about.
"What is your opinion on Daschle's changing comments?'
Daschle may be saying what he's saying because he doesn't like the President. I don't know. But would you want to be held to comments made at a different time and a totally different operation?
What can be said about world politics and foreign policy that has not been drastically changed since 9/11?
Was the United States out to take over and occupy Baghdad in 1998 assassinate the country's leader? Can you not see a vastly different operation today than the one Clinton carried out in years past?
Has there not been intense, bloody fighting between the Israalis and the Palistinians?
How many millions took to the streets in the 1990s. Would it be more like dozens?
Answer all those questions to yourself. Then ask yourself: Should that Senator's comments made five years ago, be chisled in stone and hung around his neck for the rest his life?
And if you say yes, you are playing the same partisan political game that you accuse him of doing.
And maybe, for your own edification, you should seek out what the Republicans were saying at the time. Was military action against Iraq getting vast Republican support ? Certainly not like it is now, I bet. Why would that be?
Lott was against it
From your link...
MR. LOTT SAYS BOTH THE TIMING AND THE POLICY ITSELF ARE SUBJECT TO QUESTION.
The timing he speaks of was the impeachment trials. He was worried that then president Clinton may be using the attacks as a way of diverting attention away from the impeachment headlines. Can't say as I totally agree with him, but can see where he is coming from.
As for the policy part...
THE MAJORITY LEADER SAYS THAT INSTEAD OF WHAT HE CALLS A CURSORY AIRSTRIKE, HE WANTS AN INTENSIVE CAMPAIGN, WITH THE GOAL OF TOPPLING PRESIDENT SADDAM HUSSEIN.
Sounds like he is more for the type of war that we are engaged in now.
SPEARFISH -- Stepping back from comments he made last week that President Bush failed "miserably" in diplomatic efforts to avoid war with Iraq, Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D. said Thursday, "My timing wasn't the best."
Does anyone believe this? I don't! Because of the simple fact that the very next day he said that he meant what he said and that he fully backed his comment.
In an interview from his Washington office this morning, Daschle indicated that he did not know the timing of the start of military action when he made the critical remarks. He added, "It's time to move past this."
This is an out right lie. He was briefed by the President on the very day that he said those comments and he was briefed prior to him making those comments. This man is nothing more than a coniving little weasel that needs to be tossed out the next time he is up for election. The only reason he is back tracking is because those comments blew up in his face and no one would back him on it.
Link to the lying weasel.
That is true, but he tries to make it sound like it was no big deal or that he really did not mean that. To which I say BS!
Did diplomacy succeed?
Do you think administration wanted a diplomatic solution?
Did diplomacy succeed?
No thanks to countries like France, Germany, and Russia.
Do you think administration wanted a diplomatic solution?
Well they certainly bent over backwards trying to get it didn't they? Wasn't it the Democrats that asked Bush to go to the U.N.? He did didn't he? He managed to get resolution 1441 with all security council members agreeing. They only would not back it up. Bush and his admin tried damn hard to get U.N. backing and a diplomatic solution. To say otherwise denies the facts of what happened.
Do you think administration wanted a diplomatic solution?
I don't believe so.
If they didn't, it will come out someday.
Perhaps after Colin Powell quits, which could come after the war.
"It's time to move past this."
The Democrats are good at saying this. Moving on is important IF you do so having been enlightened to your mistakes and accepting them. No point in beating a dead horse. But, speaking of dead horses, ever since Clinton started using the phrase it has become a mantra among the Democrats. But they mean "The jury will disregard that last remark."
Engulfed by a firestorm of outrage over his comments suggesting that U.S. troops were deliberately killing women and children in Iraq, Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-NY, said Friday that he should have been more careful with his words.
"There is no question that if I had a chance to reword that, that I would have done a much better job," the embattled Democrat told nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity.
A chastened Rangel appeared on Hannity's radio show in a bid to clarify his statement. Under intense questioning the top House Democrat was combative at first, maintaining for 15 minutes that his words were being distorted. But then he finally relented.
"I have no argument with your statement that our men and women that are in combat put themselves more in harms way by the precautions they are taking to avoid the injury to innocent people, innocent civilians and women," he told Hannity. "There is no question in my mind that I did not say nor did I mean that the injury of the women and children was deliberate."
The antiwar congressman then attempted to revise his words:
"What I wish I had said is that I am against the war, that the war is because of the violation of the United Nations resolution, [and] that I wish that we allowed the United Nations to enforce the breach of that resolution. As a result we didn't do it, we are in war, it means combat, it means collateral damage.
"And as a result of that, the pain is not only the pain that our men and women are facing. But they are [sic] the pain of innocent people, that although not deliberate, bombs fall on them. Many times it's the bombs of the Iraqis that fall on them as they're shooting at our planes."
Rangel is a piece of garbage.
No he isn't.
Stop listening to the Savage Nation. Wolvie. You're starting to use the same language Mike Savage does.