George Will and Hugh Hewitt and Michael Barone focus on Tom Daschle’s chaotic mind. Hewitt explains what he means when he says that Daschle is the American chairman of the new Copperhead Caucus, with branches in Paris and Berlin. And I especially like this paragraph from Will:
"So Daschle’s position is: America is ’forced to war’ because presidential diplomacy failed to produce a broader coalition for war. With that descent into absurdity, Daschle would have forfeited his reputation for seriousness, if he had one."
Fox News would seem to agree...But I have a serious question.
The Democrat long term international relations strategy relies on the UN. Democrats in general are more likely to support issues of interest to France and Germany. In general they are more dovish, and more pro-environment. They also tend to favor economic and social policies more in line with European models. The UN seems to be a much more popular among democrats. France and Germany understand that the Democrats are a fixture in american politics. They also understand that the UN is a fixture with American Democrats. This is one of the reasons I think the French and Germans fear not disagreeing with a Republican president. This is also why they don’t think the UN will ever cease to exist. In the long run they think they will win.
If we understand that the Democrats are looking to define themselves in the long run, is it any wonder that we hear such rhetoric from Daschle? This seems very consistent.
From this point on I expect that any action not completly sanctioned by the UN will be trumpeted by ar least some democrats as an example of a lack in diplomacy on the part of Republicans.
Kudos to Bush for having the fortitude to go into Iraq, now. despite reading this blog I was under the impression that the politics of this war would play on for a longer period before the action started. This war with Iraq has great implications for american politics, and the world. Is it any wonder that some Democrats are showing cards prematurely?