Daschle accuses Bush of politicizing war talks

WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle on Wednesday 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.\n"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."\nSenate Republican Leader Trent Lott responded a few hours later, saying he was "deeply saddened by the tone and tenor" of Daschle's remarks. "Who is the enemy here?" asked Lott, R-Miss. "The President of the United States or Saddam Hussein?"\nLott made his remarks on the Senate floor, standing a few feet away from where Daschle had attacked Bush only a few hours earlier.\n"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."\nSen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, who lost an arm in World War II, also spoke on the Senate floor: "It grieves me when my president makes statements that would divide this nation," he said.\nDaschle 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."\n"I think that Sen. Daschle needs to cool the rhetoric," Lott said. "We need to do it in a bipartisan way. Accusations of that type are not helpful."\nDaschle 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.\nDespite 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.\nAt the same time, Democratic political strategists have expressed concern that the national debate over Iraq is overshadowing domestic issues in the campaign.\nLott said he thought he, Daschle, Gephardt and House Speaker Dennis Hastert would come to an agreement on the resolution by the end of this week. "I think it's word-tweaking, I don't think there's broad disagreement on terms."\nThe quote Daschle referred to came during a visit that Bush made earlier this week to Trenton, N.J.\nSpeaking at a public event that preceded his appearance at 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."\nBush was speaking to reporters in the Oval Office at the same time that Daschle leveled his criticism Wednesday. The president said he is determined to battle terrorism on two fronts--Saddam's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network because "they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive."\nAt one point, Bush was asked whether he now believes that Saddam is a bigger threat to Americans than the al Qaeda terror network.\nAfter a long pause, he replied: "That is an interesting question. I'm trying to think of something humorous to say, but I can't when I think about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."\n"… The danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. Both of them need to be dealt with. You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."\nDemocrats 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.\n"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."\nHouse 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.\nThe 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.\nDurbin 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.\n"I respectfully disagree with that part of it," Lieberman said. "I am confident the American military can do, and will do, both at once."\nThe 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.\nIn 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.