'Saddened' by Daschle's anti-war statement

Back to the Dashole Liar Page

Jonah Goldberg

Jewish World Review
March 19, 2003 /15 Adar II, 5763

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | So, it's going to be war. In his somber but forceful address to the nation, President Bush "showed his cards," as he likes to say, and now everybody else is showing theirs, too.

Within 24 hours of the president's announcement our friends rallied to our cause, including the Japanese, the Israelis, the Australians and several East European nations. The Turks turned on a dime and announced they were going to do everything they could to help out. Prime Minister Tony Blair told his party and his parliament that the United Kingdom must stand "shoulder to shoulder" with the United States or stand alone without him as prime minister.

Meanwhile, the French whined that they were being unfairly singled out for forcing the failure of diplomacy at the United Nations, saying, in effect, "the Russians did it, too!" Also, staying true to their weasely form, the French announced that if Saddam Hussein used chemical or biological weapons on the United States they would, in effect, come to our rescue.

The French may think they're doing us a big favor. But, at this point, they shouldn't do us any favors. If Saddam can be deterred by the French military juggernaut, but not by the U.S. 101st Airborne, then he's even more of a madman than we were all led to believe.

But it was Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle's read-'em-and-weep statement that was the most outrageous. A few hours before President Bush addressed the nation, Daschle had been tipped off to what Bush would say. In turn, Daschle told a meeting of union leaders, "I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country."

Now, I have no doubt that Daschle is truly "saddened, saddened" by Bush's decision. After all, that's a pretty low threshold for Daschle. Being "saddened" is his favorite rhetorical device. George W. Bush could pet a puppy and Daschle would hold a press conference sighing, in that stage whisper of his, that he's "saddened and disappointed that President Bush couldn't muster more than a token level of affection" for the poor creature.

But someone needs to explain to me how we've been "forced into war" because Bush "failed so miserably at diplomacy." I largely agree that Bush failed at diplomacy, though this was forced by the French when they announced they'd veto any diplomatic compromise. It's hard to play a game fairly when another player says he'll take the ball and go home no matter what you do.

But what does Daschle think Bush was employing diplomacy for? For the last month or more, Bush wasn't employing diplomacy in order to forestall war, he was employing diplomacy in order to corral more allies for a war that was going to happen so long as Saddam continued to flout his obligations. "Failed diplomacy" didn't force war, it merely forced war with fewer allies.

Surely, Daschle doesn't believe that more deft diplomacy would have convinced Saddam Hussein to finally disarm and abide by 17 U.N. resolutions? Surely, he doesn't believe that if Colin Powell had only succeeded in winning passage of an 18th resolution telling Saddam "for the last time we really mean it" that -abracadabra! -Saddam would suddenly become the Arab Gandhi and shed his weapons of mass destruction like a snake shedding its skin? Twelve years of sanctions, no fly zones, cruise missile attacks and international condemnation amount to a whole lot of "diplomacy" in my book.

We know Daschle is aware of this because twice in the last five years he's supported a U.S. president to use force against Iraq. In 1998, he defended President Clinton's Iraq policy to reporters: "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? … This is the key question. And the answer is, we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

Again, last fall, Daschle supported the use of force when he voted to authorize President Bush to disarm Iraq if he deemed it necessary. And with that vote in his pocket, George W. Bush went to the United Nations and extracted a 15-0 vote from the Security Council telling Saddam -for the 17th time -to disarm.

Saddam refused, and the president tried to get the French and others to support him. He failed at that because the French showed their cards: opposing Bush is more important than their integrity. It's sad to say, but it looks like Daschle is holding the same cards.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

To comment on JWR contributor Jonah Goldberg's column click here.

Jonah Goldberg Archives

© 2002, TMS

Diplomatic debacle? Not so … Countering the president's critics

Jewish World Review
March 21, 2003 / 17 Adar II, 5763

Michael Barone

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
"I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country." Those were the words of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle speaking to a union audience on Monday, March 17, after it was announced that President George W. Bush would speak to the nation that evening.

These are startlingly harsh words from an opposition leader as the nation is on the brink of war. They are a vivid contrast to the words of Michael Ancram, the Conservative Party shadow foreign minister, who in the House of Commons rose and praised the diplomatic efforts of Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Minister Jack Straw. Like a vulture hovering over the battlefield, Daschle is seeking gains from deaths in war. It is not an attractive posture.

But his complaint ought to be dealt with. Has the administration failed miserably at diplomacy? Even some who back the administration's policy in Iraq say so. It seems to me that there are two complaints about the Bush administration's diplomacy, one general, one specific. The general complaint in my view has no validity. The specific complaint has something to it but is less important.

The general complaint is that George W. Bush and his administration have been throwing sand in the eyes of the Europeans for two years, and so it is no wonder that the United Nations Security Council failed to agree on an 18th resolution condemning Iraq. This administration has baldly rejected the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court treaty; it abrogated the antiballistic missile treaty of 1972. It has shown contempt for international projects dear to European hearts and so has alienated Europeans to the point that they have rejected our call for military action to disarm Saddam Hussein.

The problem with this complaint is that it is just not true.

The list of European governments supporting us on Iraq is long. It is worth repeating. First and foremost, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Spain. Portugal. Italy. Denmark. The Netherlands. Ireland. Poland. The Czech Republic. Hungary. Estonia. Latvia. Lithuania. Slovenia. Slovakia. Romania. Bulgaria.

And who is against? France. Germany. Belgium.

And was their opposition caused by our rejection of Kyoto, the ICC and the ABM treaty? Not at all.

Germany is opposed because Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was in danger of losing the September election. He decided to appeal to the very small number of German voters who support the neo-Nazi and former Communist parties by opposing the United States and making nationalist sounds. He succeeded, narrowly. Analysis of the election returns shows that he reduced the percentages the neo-Nazi and former Communist parties got just enough to give his Social Democrats a narrow parliamentary majority.

Up until August 2002, Schroeder had solidly supported the United States on Iraq. He assured George W. Bush in Berlin and in the Oval Office that he would stick with him on the issue. When I was in Berlin in July, I was assured by high-level Social Democrats and Christian Democrats, including the then defense minister, that the consensus in Germany was to support the United States on Iraq. Schroeder switched in August in a cheap political maneuver to win the votes of people who believe in totalitarian government. This was not a principled response to Bush administration diplomacy. This was the response of a second-rate, shifty politician on the verge of a well-deserved electoral defeat. It tells us nothing about long-term German policy. Schroeder's party has since been repudiated in state elections. It is unlikely that he will be chancellor very much longer. It is not at all clear that his current position will be followed by later German governments.

France is different. On November 8 France voted for Resolution 1441, which recognized that Iraq was in material breach of its obligations under other United Nations resolutions, which demanded immediate compliance with them, and which stated that in the absence of complete compliance there would be "serious consequences." In other words, Iraq must immediately disarm or we would be justified in going to war. Then this year, France denied that Resolution 1441 meant what it said. It announced last week that it would oppose any resolution which called for military action in response to noncompliance. On an intellectual level the French position was inconsistent with its support of 1441. The motive was clear: France wants to cabin in the power of the United States. It sees us as a "hyperpower" whose strength is inconsistent with French interests.

There is nothing in France's position to indicate that it would have done anything else if the Bush administration had made approving cooing noises about the Kyoto Treaty, if it had said it just wanted some minor modification in the International Criminal Court, if it had refrained from saying out loud that it was abrogating the ABM treaty. The French objection is more fundamental. It is opposing the United States because it is the United States. No amount of appeasement on these other issues would have changed its mind.

As for Belgium, it is a corrupt and powerless country which sails along in the wake of France. It is not worth serious comment.

Note that all or almost all of the European countries that support us on Iraq nonetheless disagree with the Bush administration's positions on Kyoto, the ICC, and the ABM treaty. Those positions did not prevent them from supporting us on Iraq. And those issues were not decisive with Germany, which was motivated by cheap political considerations that are likely to become obsolete soon, or France, which was motivated by a grand ambition to cabin in American power.

So the general argument that the Bush administration's diplomacy has been disastrous is without merit.

What about the specific argument? That argument is that the United States was unwise to get itself in a position where it could not win support in the Security Council for an 18th resolution condemning Iraq. The embarrassing withdrawal of that resolution Monday morning in the face of sure rejection showed, the argument goes, that the administration miscalculated and put itself in a position where its critics and enemies could argue that our military action does not have the approval of the world.

There is a little something to this. We are now proceeding to war under the claim that national self-defense and Resolutions 678 and 687, passed in 1991, and Resolution 1441 justify military action. It is a strong legal position. If so, why not just have eschewed the attempt to get an 18th resolution?

A good question. And there is a fairly good answer. George W. Bush didn't particularly want an 18th resolution, as he made clear in his joint press conference with Tony Blair at Camp David in January. But Blair, as he made clear in that same press conference, did. He had told the House of Commons he would seek such a resolution, he was facing vocal opposition from Labour Party backbenchers and cabinet ministers, and he wanted the additional weight that he felt such a resolution would provide. He evidently did not, as George W. Bush and Colin Powell evidently did not, think that the French would take a position that logically was utterly inconsistent with their vote for Resolution 1441. At Camp David ,Bush could have demanded that Blair not seek a second resolution. Blair would probably have acceded. But Blair has been a steadfast and brilliant ally. It was not as clear, as perhaps it should have been, how perfidious the French would be. Bush let Blair go ahead, and actively supported his drive for an 18th resolution. In retrospect, that seems a mistake, at least from an American perspective, though it may look different from Westminster. But it was not a "disastrous" mistake. We still have as good a warrant for going to war as we had before. And, as those who accuse Bush of showing contempt for Europeans should note, if there was a mistake, it was one made in accommodation to a European ally.

It is not clear whether Tom Daschle was referring to the general complaint or the specific complaint when he said that George W. Bush's administration was guilty of "disastrous" diplomacy. It is clear that he speaks in the accents of the Senate Democratic cloakroom, in which Bush is regarded as an illegitimate president, a usurper who is trying to impose crazed conservative policies, a stupid man incapable of understanding a sophisticated world, who must be opposed ferociously at every step and on any ground. No Democratic campaign consultant whom I know, and I know all the leading Democratic campaign consultants, would have advised Daschle to make the comment that he did. If the war goes badly, Bush and the Republicans will pay a political price, whatever the Democrats say now; if the war goes well, comments like Daschle's will work powerfully against the Democrats and for George W. Bush. Daschle's words can only be explained as the product of a kind of hatred, unbuttressed by any serious intellectual argument, likely to hurt the party of the speaker far more than the party of the president they were directed against.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Michael Barone Archives

JWR contributor Michael Barone is a columnist at U.S. News & World Report and the author of, most recently, "The New Americans." He also edits the biennial "Almanac of American Politics". Send your comments to him by clicking here.

©2002, Michael Barone