-Caveat Lector- Euphorian < spotted this on the Guardian Unlimited site and thought you should see it.
To see this story with its related links on the Guardian Unlimited site, go to http://www.guardian.co.uk Bush is playing politics with the lives of American people Dick Gephardt Friday September 27 2002 The Guardian In the days after September 11 2001, President Bush made a strong effort to work with congressional leaders to build a bipartisan consensus for the war on terrorism. In the State of the Union address he said eloquently: "I'm a proud member of my party. Yet as we act to win the war [and] protect our people... we must act, first and foremost, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans." The president assured Americans then that politics would not play a part in deciding issues of life and death. Which is why, when Karl Rove told a Republican party meeting last January that talk of war and terror could play to the Republicans' advantage in the 2002 elections I didn't want to believe it. And when Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff, remarked that the administration waited until the start of the election season to promote action in Iraq because, "from a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August", I hoped it wasn't true. But now there's no denying it. President Bush himself has decided to play politics with the safety and security of the American people. It started in New York two days after the anniversary of September 11. Injecting politics into the debate on Iraq, the president told reporters that "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'." Four times in the past week Mr Bush has echoed these words. On Monday, he went so far as to say that the Democrat-led Senate was "not interested in the security of the American people". In a recent speech in Kansas, the vice-president, Dick Cheney, also entered the act, saying that the nation's security efforts would be stronger if a Republican candidate for Congress were elected. Those sentiments were quickly amplified by Tom DeLay, the Republican whip in the House. One Republican member of Congress even went on television to question a Democratic colleague's patriotism and accuse him of hating America - simply for saying we needed a debate on Iraq. To question people's patriotism just for raising questions about how a war is to be fought and won is not only insulting, it's immoral. It's clear that in a world plagued by terrorism, protecting our national security means worrying about where terrorists could get their hands on weapons of mass destruction. Around the world, Iraq is the No 1 candidate for spreading those weapons. We must deal with this diplomatically if we can, but militarily if we must. Eleven years ago, the Gulf war debate took place after an election, which helped keep politics out of it. Because of the urgency the current administration has placed on Iraq, we are asked to vote on the issue this autumn. Calling for a congressional vote is important for a number of reasons, not least of which is building a bipartisan coalition to provide the support necessary for the country to get behind any war effort. But the statements by the president and the vice-president only serve to weaken that process, undermine trust and thwart cooperation. If Mr Bush and his party continue to use the war as a political weapon, our efforts to address the threat posed by Iraq will fail. Military action, if required, may meet with quick success in Iraq, but a peaceful, democratic Iraq will not evolve overnight. It will take the active support of both parties in Congress over the long term if we are going to win the peace. That's only going to happen if we act, not as Democrats or as Republicans, but as Americans. · Dick Gephardt is leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives. This article was first published in the New York Times Copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
