Democrats Push to Slow Vote on U.S. Force in Iraq

Reuters via NYTimes.com ^ | 9/13/02

[GeneD]

Filed at 7:01 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite President Bush's call for quick action, several Senate Democrats maneuvered on Friday to put the brakes on a vote to give congressional backing to a possible military strike on Iraq.

Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the Senate president pro tempore and chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee, said in a floor speech he would object to a vote on the use of force against Iraq before the Nov. 5 congressional election.

``This senator is not, now or ever, going to be stampeded. Has to be voted on before the election? Forget it,'' Byrd, a master of the Senate's rules and procedures, said.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said that before voting to authorize a U.S. military strike, Congress should pass a resolution calling on the United Nations to enforce its own requirements that Iraq disarm.

``We should speak with one voice as a Congress to the U.N. urging them to act, to set a deadline and to authorize force to enforce those (weapons) inspections if Iraq does not voluntarily comply,'' Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said.

``For us to get engaged in a distraction, a debate as to what will happen if the U.N. doesn't do that, is to take away from the strength of our urging the U.N. to act,'' he said.

Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he favored a resolution similar to Levin's proposal. A spokeswoman for Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat, said he had not yet evaluated the plan.

BUSH CRITICIZES LAWMAKERS

Bush, who was at the United Nations on Friday after addressing its General Assembly on Thursday, criticized lawmakers who want the United Nations to act first on Iraq before they vote to authorize U.S. military force.

``If I were running for office, I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people -- say, vote for me, and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I'm going to wait for somebody else to act,'' Bush said.

``I don't imagine Saddam Hussein sitting around, saying, 'Gosh, I think I'm going to wait for some resolution.' He's a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible.''

On Thursday, Bush told the United Nations that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was amassing weapons of mass destruction that threaten the United States and its allies. He challenged the United Nations to make Iraq comply with U.S. disarmament demands, and said action was inevitable if Baghdad failed to do so.

A number of Democrats and some Republicans argue Congress should give the United Nations a chance to enforce its requirements for Saddam to disarm before authorizing a unilateral U.S. military strike.

They also say Bush has not made a compelling case that Iraq poses an immediate threat, and that lawmakers should not have to vote on a resolution that could lead to war in the tense period before elections where control of the Senate and the House of Representatives will be decided by a few seats.

``No convincing case has been made in the press or in this body that we must act to give the president authority to invade a sovereign body now, or before the election,'' Byrd said.

Other senators said Iraq's rejection on Friday of an unconditional return of U.N. weapons inspectors showed that Congress must quickly give Bush the military clout he wants against Baghdad.

``The Congress needs to go ahead and give the president the authority he needs,'' Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, said.

Lott dismissed the plan floated by Levin.

``How many times do you have to say you've got to do something?'' Lott said. ``We've got language stronger than that on the books right now.''

[dsutah]

What about last year, huh? Three thousand innocent people killed on our own land. If that's not war, what is it then? By going in and infiltrating, taking our jets and slamming into our buildings and killing ours and other countries' people, weren't they starting a war? These people were innocent too! Don't their injuries and deaths mean anything, as well as innocents in Iraq?

I too hate to see innocents in other countries get hit. But if Saddam/Bin Laden/etc.. don't care enough about their own people that they don't see fit to provide for their safety before starting a war with us, then it's not our fault!

We can always grieve for them, pray for them, help them in the aftermath if we can, but their safety and well being is his/their responsibility, and they have not ever abided by that! And they darned sure never cared two pins for the innocent people they hurt and killed here, or other countries, have they? No, instead they have 'celebrated'.

[mwl1]

Bush will give a televised address to a joint session of Congress by the end of September, in fact, I am guessing as early as the week of Sept 23. The House will act promptly and send the matter to the Senate. I cannot fathom how Daschle creates an escape hatch for himself by obstructing or killing such a resolution.

Can you imagine the commercials in key Senate races: "Paul Wellstone (insert all incumbent RATs) chose partisan politics over the well-being and safety of our young men and women in uniform in a time of war."

We set up the battle not between RATS and Bush, but rather between RATS and our military personnel. RATS cannot win that fight, and for the life of me I cannot understand Daschle's strategy to date. It is suicidal.

[peekaboo]

I saw the old fool Byrd on the senate floor yesterday also. He was so red in the face at times, I thought he was going to have a stroke. His speech was even slurred at times. He kept remarking that he promised the dem whip, Reid who had to leave for home earlier, that he Byrd, would shut the senate down after he finished his speech, which he was never able to deliver because everyone else had to go home.

But, the best part of the afternoon was when Senator Session appeared and asked to speak, Byrd, after some dikering said that he would allow Sessions to speak only to Byrds questions. I love to watch Senator Sessions, he is such a fine southern gentleman, who knew how to get to Byrds jugglar. He asked Byrd would he not agree to have a full debate over the Irag situation. Sessions remarked in his statements, either you are with the president or you are against him. Byrd went ballistics and began his tiraid about "Who is this President? Who elected him? This old senator, he said will not vote on this issue before the election.Eventually, he might, but no president will make him vote on demand on any issue. He ranted on more saying that he will follow the constitution. I have seen this old senator many times on the floor reading his prose and poetry, but this was classic maddness. He finally remarked that his dear wife had had surgery this morning to have her appendix removed and he had not even eaten lunch. (this was about 3:30 PM washington time. I wondered why he was not tending to his dear little wife.

He also began to remark again about how poor he was growing up and when he first married this dear little wife. For a moment, I thought he must have been having a senior moment and thought that Paul O'Neil was going to come forward. He was really taking a hit a Bush for being born in to money. (By the way, I am sick of hearing of how Bush was born into money. No. 41 and Bar were married right after GHWB returned home on leave from the military. He had to borrow 6000.00 form his uncle to get a start on his first business venture after he finished his college days and had tow babies and a wife to care for.) It is time for this angry old fool to leave the senate while he is able to walk. Sessions did get the old fool to agree to debate, but again not vote on the issue until after the election. This election folks is going to get very ugly.