Hey, maybe going to Baghdad during campaign season wasn't such a smart idea.
10/06/2002
Lawmakers' trip to Baghdad could backfire on Democrats
usatoday.com
WASHINGTON — It is one thing for members of Congress to dissent from and criticize the president's proposals and policies from the floor of the House and Senate, or in any of the hundreds of domestic forums and assemblies that offer a platform from which to speak out.
After all, free speech is a key foundation block upon which our democracy was built more than two centuries ago.
But, it is quite another for members of Congress to travel overseas and express their opposition to their government from foreign soil.
It is not much different than taking a family argument previously confined to the home and going on a radio talk show to denounce your brother or mother.
That is why the visit of three Democratic congressman to Baghdad last week — Michigan's David Bonior, Washington state's Jim McDermott and California's Mike Thompson — caused such a stir here in the United States.
You see, the trio went to Baghdad ostensibly to gather information about Iraq's humanitarian crisis and to impress upon Saddam Hussein that he should allow unfettered access to United Nations weapons inspectors if he wanted to avoid war.
But for the most part, Americans tuning in the visit on TV were treated to the unseemly sight of Bonior and McDermott apparently finding Saddam more credible than President Bush. Without so much as even a nod to Saddam's decade-long defiance on weapons inspections, Bonior and McDermott insisted they had assurances from high-ranking Iraqi officials that inspectors would have free access to disputed sites if they returned to the country.
"We had uniform acceptance about unfettered inspections," McDermott said.
When Bonior was pressed by ABC's George Stephanopoulos to explain why he would take Saddam at his word this time, the former House minority whip demurred: "We could play the blame game...but that's not going to do us any good."
McDermott went so far as to suggest that Bush would "mislead" the American people about the true weapons situation in Iraq to further his war aims.
Such remarks, uttered from Baghdad, caused Rep. Sam Johnson, a Texas Republican and former Vietnam POW, to attack the congressmen as unpatriotic and accused them of "cavorting with the enemy."
The shock waves rippling home were so strong that some congressional Democrats running in the Nov. 5 elections have privately expressed worry that the backlash could hurt them in the voting booth. ((DUH!!!))
At the same time, analysts said worry among some Democratic House members was so great that they pressed House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt to reach a quick agreement with House Republicans on a resolution authorizing Bush to use military force against Saddam, lest they get lumped in with Bonior and McDermott. That agreement was announced Wednesday.
"Every Democrat running can legitimately be asked for their view on their colleagues' visit to Baghdad. I think it's a bigger deal than we now realize," said William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard and a leading Republican strategist.
To be sure, Democrats have been badly split on the Iraq issue. The liberal wing of the party wants its leadership to stand against going to war. Moderates want to side with the president and present a united front. Efforts to bridge the gap without looking too hawkish or too dovish has tied Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., into knots.
He knows polls show that voters trust Republicans over Democrats by wide margins when it comes to national security and defense. That's why he wants to get the election debate back to domestic issues and the economy, where polls show Democrats are more trusted.
The ultimate irony would be that Democrats failed to win back control of the House or lost their one-seat majority in the Senate because they couldn't get their act together on Iraq, thanks in part to their colleagues' ill-advised trip. |
