Well, since I had that conversation today I'm a little more aware of such reactions. I feel an obligation to question them. So, call me naive if you like, but this time at least I will eschew sniping at him and giving in to my usual suspicions about his motives. Daschle has now changed his position to one I believed he should take up. In doing so, he explictly ackowledged that Bush had in fact responded to the calls from himself and others for "seek U.N. backing, work with Congress and make his case for why Saddam poses a threat with weapons of mass destruction." That being the case, he said, "Congress should co-operate with him." That kind of comity is what we all hope for from our elected leaders and deserves a positive reponse; Daschle has earned some credit for doing the right thing no matter what his reasons truly are.
I haven't had much chance to comment on Bush's recent UN speech, but my reaction tends to be to acknowledge the need for action of some kind--not necessarily military, or a full-scale invasion--against Iraq while welcoming the efforts to involve the UN. Frankly, the cynical part of me tends to believe that Bush plans to invade no matter what--inspections, Security Council, Congressional vote or no. But like Dodd, I believe it's for the best to give the other side the benefit of the doubt. I do plan to expand more on these ideas...eventually.