Posted on 09/27/2002 11:58:09 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Prominent Democrats including Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy and Al Gore stepped up the party establishment's campaign Friday against President Bush's policy on Iraq. "I have come here today to express my view that America should not go to war against Iraq unless and until other reasonable alternatives are exhausted," Sen. Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a speech before Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.
Kennedy, the dean of Capitol Hill's leftists, said the U.S. should:
Focus on to returning weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions.
Work closely with the United Nations to force dictator Saddam Hussein to comply with resolutions on disarmament. The U.S., of course, has long been working with the U.N. on Iraq, but the globalist body continues to fail to take action.
Kennedy admitted the danger posed by Hussein but said al-Qaeda terrorists were a graver threat than Iraq.
"To succeed in our global war against al-Qaeda and terrorism, the United States depends on military, law enforcement, and intelligence support from many other nations ... It is far from clear that these essential relationships will be able to survive the strain of a war with Iraq that comes before the alternatives are tried or without the support of an international coalition," he said.
"It is possible to love America while concluding that it is not now wise to go to war," said Kennedy, taking a cue from Senate plurality leader Tom Daschle, who quoted from the Washington Post's false account of a speech by Bush.
"The standard that should guide us is especially clear when lives are on the line. We must ask what is right for our country and not party."
Clinton: 'Go to the U.N.'
Clinton continued the theme of letting the U.N. call the shots.
"I think we ought to go to the United Nations. I think we ought to get a tough resolution which basically says we'll take Saddam Hussein up on his commitment to free and unfettered inspections," he said Friday from Africa on ABC's "Good Morning America."
He, too, conceded Hussein's threat.
"He's got a very dangerous program. We need to eliminate it," the impeached former president said.
"If he doesn't comply," a U.N. resolution should state that the world "is authorized to use force."
Clinton avoided the harsh tone his former vice president, Al Gore, took against President Bush earlier this week and said he had not read Gore's speech.
"I'm overseas, and I don't like to get into comments on our foreign policy when I'm there," Clinton said. But, "I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time. That is, I think we can turn up the heat on Iraq and retain our focus on terror.
"Let's don't relax our efforts. Let's intensify our efforts. They [al-Qaeda terrorists] still have plans to target Americans within the United states and elsewhere, and I think we should all support the administration and whatever has to be done to eradicate this network.
"I do think that all of us should not forget that it was Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida who murdered those 3,100 people on Sept. 11," he said.
Clinton questioned Bush's new pre-emptive military policy.
"I think, obviously, the further you get away from the imminence of an attack, the slipperier the slope," he said. "But when you have ongoing terrorist networks, for example, you see the argument for it. But it also is fraught with difficulty."
Appearing on CBS' "The Early Show," Clinton said he thought there was "still a chance" for Bush and Democrats to unite on a strong congressional resolution. "I don't think we should characterize every difference of policy opinion as a partisan difference," he said.
Gore: White House Ignored 9/11 Warnings
Clinton's former sidekick Gore, perhaps because he still harbors ambitions for the presidency, took a much more partisan tone against Bush. He now accuses the administration of ignoring signs that Osama bin Laden planned to attack the U.S. on Sept. 11, the Washington Times reported Friday.
"The warnings were there," Gore claimed Thursday at a Democrat fund-raiser in Wilmington, Del.
Sounding like ousted Rep. Cynthia McKinney, he accused the administration of ignoring intelligence from the FBI and CIA.
He accused the White House and the Justice Department of violating Americans' rights in rounding up terror suspects.
"What's going on nationally, with the attack on civil liberties, with American citizens in some cases just disappearing without right to counsel, without access to a lawyer — I think that is disgraceful," he fumed.
"I think we need to stand up for our principles in this country and stand up for what this nation represents, even as we face the terrible dangers that we have to confront in the world today."
Republicans dismissed Gore's latest attack as the rantings of a White House wannabe.
"This has nothing to do with civil liberties. It has everything to do with Al Gore putting points on the board to improve his image," a Senate Republican leadership official told the Times.
The newspaper noted: "Ironically, while Mr. Gore was escalating his attacks on the administration, former President Bill Clinton was planning to attend a Labor Party conference in Great Britain to help Prime Minister Tony Blair persuade skeptical party members to support Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush in taking military action against Iraq. ...
"Mr. Gore's stance is an almost 180-degree turn from his previous position on Saddam's regime. When he was a senator from Tennessee, he was one of a small number of Senate Democrats in 1991 who voted for a resolution to give Mr. Bush's father authority to go to war to drive Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. As vice president, he pushed for a resolution giving Mr. Clinton authority to take military action in Iraq in 1998. And earlier this year, he said there must be a 'day of reckoning' for Saddam."
With Saddam on the verge of having the a-bomb, they are leading us into the Valley of Death.
STOP, LOOK AND LAUGH
Anybody ever get the feeling you have travelled into the Twilight Zone? Here's a man that for eight years never missed an opportunity to bash Republicans as partisan hacks over the smallest policy disagreements. But today, while the rest of the Democrat "leadership" self-destructs in a partisan frenzy, he plays the "centrist", and (sort of) backs Bush.
The question we should ask is "Why"?
And the answer, will begin with an "H".
The demoncrats are so desparate they will try to start any fad of thinking. When will they get that conservatives are the majority and they are losers.
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.