Where does Tom Daschle stand on Iraq? Well, it depends on the day of the week and it depends on what is in his perceived political interests. Via a February 2003 article in the Weekly Standard by Stephen Hayes we are reminded that this is what Tom Daschle believed in 1998 when Bill Clinton threatened war on Iraq over non-compliance with UN weapons inspections:
Not content merely to offer rhetorical backing to President Clinton, Daschle tried to rally his fellow Democrats to support the use of force. He reiterated the administration's argument. "'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?' 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, and we are doing so militarily."
Here's Daschle Fall 2002:
As Daschle said on the floor of the Senate on October 10, 2002: "We know that Iraq maintains stockpiles of some of the world's deadliest chemical weapons including VX, sarin, and mustard gas. We know that Iraq is developing deadlier ways to deliver these horrible weapons, including unmanned drones and long-range ballistic missiles. And we know Saddam Hussein is committed to one day possessing nuclear weapons."
But by February 2003 Daschle had gotten the anti-war religion:
Daschle is primarily concerned that President Bush has not proven that Saddam Hussein presents, in Daschle's words, "a very imminent threat." That's a high bar. It seems less a realistic request of the Bush administration than a deliberately unattainable standard of evidence. For, as Daschle surely knows, if President Bush had proof that the Iraqi threat were imminent, to say nothing of "very imminent," the president wouldn't waste time publishing the evidence. He would eliminate the threat.
Hayes notes how Daschle in February 2003 had suddenly changed his tune:
[In 1998] Daschle didn't insist that the Clinton administration obtain congressional approval. Neither did he require the president to go to the U.N. In fact, the Clinton administration's position, as articulated by National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, was that both steps were unnecessary. Tom Daschle said nothing in protest. Similarly, Daschle never demanded evidence proving Saddam to be a "very imminent threat," and he never called for "proof to the world" that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He now insists on both from the Bush administration.
What changed between 1998, Fall 2002, and then February 2003? Maybe by February 2003, a Senator Daschle with presidential ambitions concluded that being anti-war was the smart way to get his party's nomination in 2004. Of course he decided against running for president in 2004. But maybe this is what he's thinking now about 2008.
Recent Comments