Saturday, February 07, 2004
Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." However, he urged Bush to move "in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse."
Daschle voted for the war resolution in October 2002 even though he did not believe the threat from Iraq was imminent. Was that because the President was saying that the threat was not imminent? Or was it because Bush was arguing that the threat was imminent and Daschle disagreed, but was willing to sign up for the war nonetheless? Those are the only two explanations I can think of. Which makes more sense to you?
Daschle voted for forcible "regime change" because he quite sensibly endorsed the use of preemptive force against an outlaw state that had repeatedly attacked its neighbors, Arab and non-Arab alike, had repeatedly sought to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, had utterly failed to account for those weapons, and was otherwise a serial sponsor of terrorism. Everybody in our government of both parties who supported this war understood its preemptive nature at the time. Those who claim otherwise now are being extremely disingenuous.
The interesting question is why the mainstream press has made such a mess of this issue.