The words in bold is what he said.
ted
__________________________________________________________
seattletimes.nwsource.com
The Seattle Times
Bush's feud with Democrats turns Iraq debate bitter
By James Kuhnhenn
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Sen. Daschle accuses President Bush of seeking to politicize the debate over war with Iraq
President Bush dicusses the actions of 'some in the Senate'
WASHINGTON — The congressional debate over waging war with Iraq lost its bipartisan luster yesterday in a burst of anger from Democrats, who accused President Bush of maligning their patriotism and politicizing the war on terrorism.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration highlighted possible ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, without producing any public evidence of such links.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's eruption threatened to bog down Bush's drive for an open-ended congressional resolution that would authorize him to use force against Iraq.
It also made it more likely that Democrats will offer a more restrictive resolution, which would dash the president's hope of winning broad support from lawmakers in both parties for a virtual "blank check" to wage war against Iraq.
Bush prompted the furor this week with comments aimed not at the Iraq debate, but at a Senate dispute over legislation to create a Department of Homeland Security.
"The Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people," Bush said during a fund-raising speech Monday in Trenton, N.J.
Democrats took those as fighting words.
Daschle, D-S.D., and two of the Senate's most eminent Democrats, Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, went to the Senate floor to denounce Bush.
"That is outrageous," Daschle said. "The president ought to apologize. ... "
Inouye, who lost his right arm in battle during World War II, questioned whether Congress should grant Bush unfettered power to use force regardless of whether the United Nations approves, as the president insists.
Inouye suggested Bush's doctrine of launching "pre-emptive" attacks against potential enemies before they pose an imminent danger is not consistent with this nation's traditions.
"To attack a nation that has not attacked us will go down in history as something that we should not be proud of," said Inouye, who is typically soft-spoken and seldom rises to speak on the Senate floor. "It is American to question the president. It is American to debate the issues."
Byrd said Bush had not shown that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States. He said the president is trying to take the nation's mind off economic problems in the weeks before the Nov. 5 elections.
While proof of the Iraqi threat hasn't been presented to the U.S. public, Bush and his team yesterday continued to shower accusations on Saddam's government.
The president opened the day by linking the Iraqi leader and the al-Qaida terrorist network.
"I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil and equally as destructive," Bush said, expressing concerns that al-Qaida terrorists could become "an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred."
At a NATO meeting in Poland, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he presented evidence to U.S. allies in a closed meeting that established a link between Iraq and al-Qaida. But German Defense Minister Peter Struck said he didn't see anything new in Rumsfeld's briefing.
Bush's national-security adviser capped the day by accusing Iraq of sheltering al-Qaida members in Baghdad and helping Osama bin Laden's operatives in developing chemical weapons.
"We know, too, that several of the (al-Qaida) detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al-Qaida in chemical-weapons development," Condoleezza Rice said on PBS' "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer."
No White House apology was forthcoming for Daschle and other Senate Democrats.
Spokesman Ari Fleischer said the senators' attacks misstated Bush's comments. But he declined numerous times to say whether the president stood by his remark that the Senate — controlled by Democrats — was "not interested in the security of the American people." And he said Bush believes that if the Senate does not pass legislation to create a Department of Homeland Security, "the security of our country will not have been protected."
Another senior White House official attributed Daschle's comments to the "pressure he's under from liberals," who oppose the resolution.
Senate Republicans also rallied to Bush's side. "I think that Senator Daschle needs to cool the rhetoric," said Senate GOP Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi.
Until yesterday, Daschle had supported a strong resolution that would give the president broad authority to take military action against Iraq, even though many Democrats had qualms. As recently as Tuesday, Daschle said Bush "deserved the benefit of the doubt" on Iraq.
Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who has backed the president's request for the use of force, said partisan passions in Congress could damage Bush's ability to win broad bipartisan support on Iraq.
"I think it could. I wouldn't have even suggested it could 24 hours ago," he said. Dodd also said negotiations with the White House over the resolution's language "have not been terribly fruitful."
The White House has proposed a resolution that would give Bush more unrestricted authority to wage war on Iraq than even the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which President Lyndon Johnson used as his authority to vastly expand the war in Vietnam.
Many Democrats and some Republicans want Congress' resolution to urge Bush to seek U.N. support for any military action.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Reps. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., and John Spratt, D-S.C., are working on alternative resolutions that would try to address Iraq without undermining international support for the war on terrorism. They would apply more conditions before authorizing Bush to use force.
If lawmakers have an opportunity to vote on such an alternative, Bush may lose support for his more open-ended resolution, because lawmakers would be able to say they voted to confront Iraq but not to give the president a blank check to wage war.
"This is not a fundamental disagreement," Dodd said. "The debate is what are you committing us to in the resolution that could have profound implications on the war on terrorism, on international relations in the Middle East, on the economy and on our standing relations with our allies.'
Other Iraq developments:
• Allied aircraft struck Iraqi air-defense facilities again, defense officials said yesterday. In a double strike at two southeastern installations, precision-guided weapons were aimed at a radar facility near Al Amarah about 165 miles southeast of Baghdad and a defense communications facility in Tallil, about 170 miles southeast of the capital, according to a statement from the U.S. Central Command in Florida.
• The United States is deploying further Patriot missile batteries in Kuwait to protect its air bases, defense sources said yesterday. |
