A DEFINITIVE DAY IN DEMOCRATIC HISTORY Today may be the last chance for Democratic Party Leaders to stand up and be men, if they have any legs left to stand on. In my not so humble opinion, Tom Daschle has already shot himself in the foot by (1) wimping out on the Iraq War II issue hoping to get it off the table before November and making the economy the issue; and (2) Making his hysterical speech that the President had accused Democrats of being unpatriotic (there is nothing new about that, the Dems were constantly charged with being soft on Communism in the last century). Daschle and the Democrats whether in the Senate or the House have failed to stand united on any principle. They haven't said loudly enough "where's the proof?" nor have they said "its the economy stupid," nor have they said we should not go it alone in this crusade against Sadam. With no discernable cohesive message, they have left themselves vulnerable to the Republican position that is focused on getting rid of Sadam. Presidential spokesman Ari F can get by with advocating assassination of a head of state, which, in view of our history and avowed foreign policy, is a peculiar thing for him to say. Al Gore and Ted Kennedy may have blown off Daschle's other foot by putting the War issue firmly back on the table. However, neither of those gentlemen have the confidence of the public, and their messages may be ignored. IMHO here are questions that a loyal opposition should bring today, if any Democrat (or Republican) has courage to bring to the President, the Congress, and the Country. 1.) Is there credible evidence that Saddam Hussein can launch missiles reaching more than 400 miles from Iraq? (That was the proof that Tony Blair brought to the UN.) If there is no evidence that he can do so, what is the immanent danger to the U.S. that justifies a first strike and a "go it alone" policy? 2.) How can the only remaining Super Power justify a "first strike go it alone" policy against any nation, especially a weak, nearly subjugated 3rd world country with very limited military capability. 3.) If Tony Blair's presentation was accurate, and Saddam does pose a threat within a 400 mile range of Iraq, shouldn't Greece, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and others be the nations to lead a war on Iraq? We could offer aid, but why should we be acting the part of world bully by taking the lead? Our President is able to bring about compromise and co-operation. If there were a Democrat with enough strength to stand up and be counted, I think millions (perhaps a majority) of Americans would cool down the war fever that has infected this nation and President Bush would be willing to let other nations take the lead in this matter. He is to be congratulated for making the case before the UN that the Iraq issue must be addressed, but I do not feel he has made the case that we should strike first. The only remaining super-power does not need to take the lead in this situation. The nations of Europe and the Mid East apparently have a bigger stake in this game and it would be easier for the US to aid in the rebuilding of the area after Iraq War II if we did not incite more hatred of us by launching a first strike and invasion of Iraq. Charles _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com