GOP CHAIR SAYS IRAQ VOTE IMPORTANT

WASHINGTON (AP) - The chairman of the Republican National Committee said Monday the positions that members of Congress take on the use of military force against Iraq will be important to voters in November's elections.

``It is one of those issues ... that will be important to every voter,'' Marc Racicot said in an interview. ``I don't know how pivotal it is in every single election. There are multiple issues.''

Those issues include national security, education and the economy, Racicot said. Many other issues are related to the economy, he said, such as free trade, taxes, terrorism insurance and prescription drugs and ``the failure of the Senate to pass a budget.''

``All of those are issues are critically important and have an impact upon the economy,'' Racicot said.

He said Republican candidates are more likely to stress a candidate's record on national defense than specifically on Iraq. He noted the Minnesota Senate campaign, where Republicans have criticized incumbent Democratic Sen. Paul Wellstone for not supporting defense projects.

``Paul Wellstone has supported President Bush all the way down the line on the war on terror and homeland defense,'' said Jim Farrell, a Wellstone campaign spokesman. ``It is sad, and it is wrong, to drag this issue of defense down to the level of political attack.''

Farrell said the real reason Racicot was after Wellstone was because of the Democrat's long-term role as a watchdog on corporate accountability.

National security, and specifically Iraq, have been President Bush's focus for months, Racicot said, and are not part of a political calculation.

``I know with this president, it's a matter of national security that draws his attention,'' Racicot said. ``It's not a political issue.''

The GOP chairman said he doesn't anticipate that Bush will have coattails to sweep Republicans into office, but he's helped create an atmosphere that will allow them ``to be competitive on their own terms.''

Democrats responded that Iraq and national security are not issues that divide Democrats and Republicans.

``Bush's ineptitude on economic issues has resulted in an environment that is good for Democrats,'' said Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee.

Democrats plan to return repeatedly to the economy over the next six weeks. They have events scheduled this week on poverty numbers, pensions and unemployment and plan to do another soon to highlight what's happened to 401(k) retirement accounts.

A conservative group is targeting unions with an ad campaign that advocates a reduction in union violence and urges passage of the ``Freedom from Union Violence Act.'' That law would toughen federal laws for prosecution of union violence.

Starting Monday, the ads will run on television and in newspapers in selected markets, including: Washington; St. Louis, Mo.; Rapid City, S.D.; Columbus, Ohio; Memphis, Tenn.; and Pittsburgh.

The first phase of the campaign, sponsored by the National Taxpayers Union, began last week with radio ads. The TV ads show images intended to represent union violence.

John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union, said the amount spent on the ads is in the ``upper six figures.'' He maintained their purpose is not to influence the November elections but to push for needed changes in laws concerning unions.

``We see this as the flip side of the debate about corporate corruption,'' Berthoud said Monday. ``There's a lot of parallels, a very few bad apples - this is not tarnishing the majority who play by the rules.''

The ads brought a quick response from Kathy Roeder, spokeswoman for the AFL-CIO.

``Congress needs to stay focused on repairing the economic fundamentals for workers, like wages, job security, affordable health care and retirement security,'' she said.

Don't see how Lester can get these quotes and report them as facts! Heard Levin's comments on Rush this afternoon not to mention the following AP article which was in my AOL Update News email at the same time as the one about Chairman Racicot. Believe it is very appropriate here:

Democrats Seek Iraq Alternatives

Democrats Uneasy With Move To War

By JIM ABRAMS
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - Congressional Democrats uneasy with what they view as a precipitous move toward war are trying to come up with alternatives to President Bush's request for broad powers to eliminate the threats posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

Opposition to the draft resolution that Bush sent to Congress on Thursday, under which Congress would authorize him to use all appropriate means to disarm Iraq, range from the party's most liberal to some of its moderate, pro-defense members.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the House's second-ranked Democrat, said Monday she didn't think Democrats would offer a single alternative to the Bush proposal. Her party, she said, was working on a number of different approaches she hoped would become a part of the resolution Congress finally votes on.

``They're talking now about liberation. Those are troublesome words,'' Pelosi said. ``Certainly the American people are averse to our taking unilateral action.''

The vote could come next week, and there's strong momentum to give the president most of what he wants as he tries to rally a reluctant world to the cause of disarming Iraq and driving its president, Saddam, from power. House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt of Missouri is among those advocating a tough position toward Iraq.

Bush, speaking Monday in New Jersey, said Saddam must be dealt with because he is a ``man who would use weapons of mass destruction at the drop of a hat, a man who would be willing to team up with terrorist organizations with weapons of mass destruction to threaten America and our allies.''

But the administration continued to encounter resistance from other nations.

Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher of Jordan, in Washington for talks, said, ``It is a scary notion that the region can be rearranged to fit the United States.''

It is going to be easier to remove the Baghdad government than install a new, democratic one, he said. ``You don't inject democracy through a syringe and expect it to work.''

Muasher, at a news conference, said, ``I am not sure if the United States goes into Iraq it will be able to get out for years.''

Pelosi said among those working on alternatives to the Bush proposal are two of the party's most respected moderates and the top Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee - Ike Skelton, D-Mo., and John Spratt, D-S.C.

Skelton's office confirmed that the two were working on their ``dream resolution'' that would seek to deal with questions Skelton mentioned in a letter to Bush this month. Skelton said that before Congress can authorize military action, it must get answers on transition of power to a stable post-Saddam regime, how to deal with Iraq without undermining international support for the broader war on terror and the plan for a successful military operation.

``Our objective is really not a substitute,'' said Spratt. ``Our goal is a bipartisan resolution that most members can vote for.''

Spratt, also the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, released a report Monday saying a war with Iraq could cost $93 billion, not including U.S. peacekeeping and rebuilding efforts that might follow. Lawrence Lindsey, Bush's top economic adviser, said last week that the price tag could reach $200 billion, although White House budget chief Mitchell Daniels said that figure seemed too high.

Senate Democratic leaders, including Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, also have said Bush's proposal is unacceptably broad, but they are confident they can find common ground before the resolution comes to a vote.

Many are bothered by the idea of unilateral action if the United Nations fails to produce new resolutions requiring Iraq to abandon weapons of mass destruction and giving the United States power to ``restore international peace and security in the region.''

Acting without the support of allies, former President Jimmy Carter told reporters in Charlottesville, Va., would be ``a radical departure from traditions that have shaped our nation's policy by Democratic and Republican presidents for more than 50 years.''

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., a leading Senate opponent of the resolution, said it was ``incredibly broad'' and ``appears to actually authorize the president to do virtually anything anywhere in the Middle East.''

House Democratic liberals also are scrambling to write alternatives, while recognizing odds of stopping congressional authorization are small.

``A lot of us are very worried about it and are trying to put something together,'' said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash. He complained that Republican leaders are ``rushing it so hard that we can't get organized.''

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, an outspoken critic of going to war with Iraq, said he was deeply disturbed that the ``country which I love so much'' is speaking about assassination, pre-emptive strikes, unilateral action and overthrowing a government. ``This is not an America that I recognize,'' Kucinich said.

So far, Republican criticism of the president's proposal has been muted, although Democrats say a number of Republicans have voiced worries about the wording of the resolution.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, one of only two Senate Republicans to vote against the 1991 resolution that gave the first President Bush authority to use force against Iraq in the Gulf War, said on NBC's ``Today'' show that he would now support unilateral action against Iraq.

``But I think it's very necessary for us to do all we can to urge the U.N. to be involved,'' Grassley said. ``It gives us not only moral authority, but more legal authority.''

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.