Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (46917)	9/25/2002 1:09:53 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Daschle Demands Bush Apology on War Issue Debate: The Senate majority leader accuses Bush of politicizing national security by questioning commitment of Democratic lawmakers, some of whom are military veterans. From Associated Press 9:20 AM PDT, September 25, 2002 WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle today accused President Bush of seeking to politicize the debate over war with Iraq and demanded that he apologize for implying that Democrats were not interested in the security of the American people. "That is wrong," Daschle said in an impassioned speech on the Senate floor. "We ought not politicize this war. We ought not politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death." "You tell those who fought in Vietnam and World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people" because they are Democrats, Daschle said. "That is outrageous. Outrageous." Daschle cited a string of actions by the administration including a comment by Bush that the Democratic-controlled Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people." Daschle made his comments as congressional leaders negotiated in private with the administration over the terms of a resolution that would authorize the president to use force to eliminate Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Despite misgivings by some rank-and-file Democrats, Daschle and House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt have both signaled support for such legislation, to be passed before Congress adjourns for the midterm elections. At the same time, Democratic political strategists have expressed concern that the national debate over Iraq is overshadowing domestic issues in the campaign. The quote Daschle referred to came during a political stop that Bush made earlier this week in Trenton, N.J. Speaking on the issue of homeland security before a fund-raiser for Republican Senate candidate Doug Forrester, the president said, "The House responded, but the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people. I will not accept a Department of Homeland Security that does not allow this president and future presidents to better keep the American people secure." Bush was speaking to reporters in the Oval Office at the same time that Daschle leveled his criticism today. The president said he is determined to battle terrorism on two fronts-- Saddam's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network because "they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive." Democrats say the draft proposal that Bush sent to Congress last week is far too broad in giving the president open-ended authority to use military force against Iraq, unilaterally if necessary, to disarm the country, drive Saddam from power and secure peace in the region. "We should be dealing with a coalition here rather than going it alone," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. "If we don't have a coalition we run the risk of expanding opportunities for terrorism around the world against the United States." House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., offered a compromise proposal that made clear that any use of force to restore regional security should come in conjunction with U.N. resolutions. The Hyde proposal, presented to congressional leaders, also reasserts the authority of Congress, indicating that Congress would have oversight over the president's decisions and applying the resolution to the War Powers Act, the 1973 law stating that prolonged military action must come with a congressional declaration of war. Durbin said many Democrats shared the sentiments of former Vice President Al Gore, who on Monday criticized Bush's policy on Iraq. But few Democrats were supporting Gore's views publicly on Tuesday. Gore's 2000 running mate, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, even said he disagreed with Gore's assertion that Bush's focus on Iraq could hurt the overall U.S. war on terrorism. "I respectfully disagree with that part of it," Lieberman said. "I am confident the American military can do, and will do, both at once." The president is simultaneously working to get the U.N. Security Council to approve a tough new resolution forcing Iraq to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. In 1991 a large majority of Democrats voted against a similar resolution giving the first President Bush the authority to use force against Iraq, but Democrats said support for the president should be stronger this time, particularly if they can reach a compromise on the language. latimes.com

To: JohnM who wrote (46917)	9/25/2002 1:21:29 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 281500

Gore's surprising act of leadership against Iraq war By Robert Kuttner Columnist The Boston Globe 9/25/2002 AL GORE, remarkably, has stepped into a leadership vacuum and said several things that most congressional Democrats may well believe but have been too fearful to utter. Gore, speaking Monday at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, warned that unilateral action against Saddam Hussein would ''severely damage'' the more urgent war on terrorism and ''weaken our ability to lead the world.'' Gore declared that the president has turned the broad reservoir of good will for America ''into a deep sense of misgiving and even hostility.'' In a pointed dig at President George W. Bush's go-it-alone cowboy rhetoric, he added, ''If you're going after Jesse James, you ought to organize the posse first.'' Now this is extremely interesting. For starters, it is out of character for the cautious and generally hawkish former vice president. Gore has lately returned to politics, sort of, but until now he has avoided frontally attacking Bush. He has at last chosen to do so, at a moment when the president, swaddled in the flag, is widely seen as beyond criticism. Did Gore do his own polling and discover what many members of Congress suspect based on their mail - that public support for this war is seemingly broad but very shallow? Was he trying to outflank potential rival Senator John Kerry, who has won praise for a thoughtful critique of Bush's policy? Did Gore, who often made abrupt shifts during the 2000 campaign, just impulsively decide to throw a ''Hail Mary'' pass? Or, perhaps, was he seized with an attack of principle? It almost doesn't matter. The party's standard bearer for 2000 - who got more votes than George W. Bush - has now made it safe for Democrats to express serious doubts about this reckless war. Gore, perhaps in spite of himself, has actually exercised that rarest of qualities in contemporary politics - leadership. One can accuse Gore of many things, but being soft on defense is not one of them. He was one of a handful of Senate Democrats to support George Bush senior on the Gulf War in 1991. The fact is, public opinion is still fluid on Iraq. And if other Democrats follow Gore's lead, this could be a turning point. Jim Dyke, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, declared, rather lamely, that to him, Gore sounded more like ''a political hack than a presidential candidate.'' But that just won't wash. Serious questions about the wisdom of Bush's Iraq policy are being raised publicly by most of our allies and privately by many of our generals and even by some Republicans. Bush's Iraq strategy is cynically designed to change the subject - actually two subjects: terrorism and the economy. It immediately takes the spotlight off our less than stellar antiterrorism crusade and our shaky success in Afghanistan, and it makes it almost impossible for Democrats to wage the 2002 midterm election on pocketbook issues. The strategy has deftly whipsawed Democrats. Some, such as the House Democratic leader, Dick Gephardt, and the Senate majority leader, Tom Daschle, want to get a quick, slightly toned down resolution of support for the president behind them and then go back to talking about the economy (if anyone will listen). That way Bush can't pillory them for being unpatriotic. But others see the nation pursuing a disastrous course. Many Democrats in Congress say privately (and a few publicly) that they've heard nothing in the confidential intelligence briefings to indicate that Saddam Hussein is more of a threat now than in years past. Congressional Democrats got a closed-door briefing from a worried and extremely skeptical Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's hawkish national security adviser. This morning Democrats are scheduled to have a another confidential briefing from one of the party's foreign policy eminences, Richard Holbrooke, who is said to harbor grave doubts. If the Democrats can work up their nerve to schedule some hearings before a resolution of war is gaveled through, they and the American public will hear more. I've never been a great fan of Gore. He kept changing his mind so often in the campaign that he lost a race for the presidency that he should have won. He was oddly AWOL last year when Bush was claiming a mandate for extremist policies that he never earned. Gore is often described as one of the most ambitious, calculating, and poll-driven people in American politics. But even if he did the right thing partly for the wrong reasons, this has to be one of Gore's finest moments. Now let's see if his party follows his brave lead. _______________________________________________________ Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect. His column appears regularly in the Globe. © Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company. boston.com