Tom Daschle is an odd creature.

Apparently, he recently said:

I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy, that we're now forced to war.

I have a big problem with this quote. I'm not sure yet which problem to have with this quote, but no matter how I slice it, it comes up nuts...

Had he been, perhaps, been critical of the president's ability to get our allies on board, I might have agreed. Had he said a failure of diplomacy was responsible for splitting the UN security council, or minimizing international involvement, I would have thought that a reasonable argument. (Though perhaps with very poor timing.)

But he didn't say that.

Instead, he implied he was sure diplomacy could have avoided war, had a better, more skilled person (him, perhaps?) been at the helm.

If Tom Daschle was being sincere when he said this, then I do not fault him for saying it.

No, in that case, I fault him for believing it -- i.e. for appearing, as far as I can see, not to have the faintest clue about the reality in which he exists. Does he really imagine that through mere diplomacy we could have caused Saddam to disclose all of his WMD capabilities? If so, I don't want to rescind Daschle's U.S. citizenship or any such thing, but I would question his ability, say, to operate heavy equipment, much less hold a leadership position.

Or perhaps he meant that the goal of a WMD-free Iraq was unimportant -- i.e. that we could have avoided a military confrontation, as Clinton did, by an apathetic shrugging of Iraqi violations of UN directives, and our responsibilities as part of the Security Council. Ok, I understand that argument, but if that's what Mr. Daschle means he should come out and say it.

On the other hand, if he's being insincere, then I do fault him. I can understand saying critical things (which our enemies would love to hear) out of sincere convinctions. But to do for crass political gain -- especially at a time like this -- is grossly unacceptable, completely irresponsible.

So which is it?

Only Tom Daschle, and his creator, know his heart and motives for sure. But we're not required to judge the man's heart, just consider his words and actions regarding his fitness to lead us.

So, in the spirit of considering his words, let's also consider his defense of these remarks:

I do think we have to be honest and open in a democracy. I think to do anything less is unpatriotic. And I'm going to continue to speak out where I think I have a responsibility to do so.

Certainly he has a moral responsibility to be honest. I think we all do, under normal circumstances. But honesty is not necessarily patriotism -- not all sincere remarks are patriotic. "I hate my country and all people therein" might be sincere, but its certainly not patriotic. For a remark to be patriotic, it must be motivated by a desire to benefit one's fellow citizens.

Further, not all sincere remarks are true, wise, or well-timed. How this remark, at this particular point, is supposed to benefit us all is beyond me. What is it supposed to improve? If he'd had some great suggestions as to how to do it better, last week or last month would have been a great time to share those with us. And later, after the war, might be a good time for recriminations. But at this moment, what good is done?

I can see neither patriotism, nor wisdom in this remark.
Looks like partisanship to me. But I admit I don't really know.

He continues...

A diplomatic success is having 200,000 international troops present instead of the 225,000 U.S. troops, which are present today. A diplomatic success is getting other countries to pay 90 percent of the costs incurred. All of that happened in 1991; none of that is happening in the year 2003.

And I agree with these statements too. But what's wrong? He's not answering the question. He didn't say he felt a failure of diplomacy was responsible for increased military costs; he didn't say a failure of diplomacy was responsible for not having, say, French commanders calling the shots also.

He's compounded the problem by dancing around the original statement, pretending he said something completely different, subtly implying he said something he didn't at all say.

And thus I question Mr. Daschle's sincerity and alleged idealism. Looks to me like he's just choosing a rather poor moment to criticise a political rival (and do so poorly at that) -- regardless of any negative consequences it might carry for all of us. If so, its rather petty and un-statesmen like, to say the least.

Can you see a different way of reading this?