-Caveat Lector- Euphorian spotted this on the Guardian Unlimited Observer site and thought you should see it.
To see this story with its related links on the Guardian Unlimited Observer site, go to http://www.observer.co.uk 'Bullied' opponents stand up to Bush's challenge Democrats break ranks despite White House's appeal for a united front at home - and abroad, President has to deal with fissures among anti-Saddam Iraqi factions Jason Vest, Washington Saturday September 28 2002 The Guardian It has come slowly. After months of silent acquiesence to President George W. Bush's push towards a military conflict with Iraq, Democrats are finally showing signs of an appetite for war. But it is a war against the Bush administration for taking Democratic support for granted. Last week as some of the biggest voices in the Democratic Party condemned attempts by the Bush administration to turn the planned war into a political issue in the November mid-term elections, some were complaining that the Democratic leadership had still not gone far enough. Among them was Congressman Nick Rahall, a Democrat who enthusiastically supported the first Gulf war with Iraq but strongly opposes a new one. He is one of those who does not believe the strong comments from his party's leadership would be translated into action: putting the brakes on the Congressional resolution being sought by Bush to unleash the US military machine against Saddam Hussein. Mainstream Democratic wisdom, he explains, holds that for Democrats to win the mid-term congressional elections in November, they must give a popular President what he wants. Then, they argue, Iraq will cease to be an issue, allowing the Democrats to start scoring points on domestic matters such as the economy. 'As far as my party saying: "Let's get it out of the way," sure, I'd like to get back to issues that are just as important as national security - job security at home, economic security, access to prescription drugs, health security, Enron and Halliburton,' says the West Virginia congressman, whose grandparents were immigrants from Lebanon. 'But I feel there are questions that need to be answered [over Iraq] before we run headlong into trying to wipe an issue off the political map, when it means putting American men and women in harm's way.' That afternoon in a posh office suite overlooking Washington's K Street lobbying corridor, an echo of sorts could be heard from a highly regarded conservative Republican strategist. 'We should be talking about welfare reform and investor tax cuts. The White House has the whole focus on starting a new war with Iraq, when the country is at best ambivalent. And we haven't even caught the guy we know who did attack us [on 11 September],' said the strategist, who did not want to be named. 'There is dissent and dissatisfaction in Republican circles about all of this but everyone's afraid of Bush's high personal approval ratings, and the Democrats are afraid of being tagged anti-American, even though their views complement those of some conservatives.' His comments are part of a startling change of mood on Capitol Hill. Two weeks ago Bush staffers were confident they would have no problem securing a resolution approving action against Iraq. Now those efforts have become 'bogged down' in Congress, following a week of accusations from senior Democrats that the President is turning the issue of support for a war into a political issue to garner electoral support for November and distract attention from domestic issues, particularly the economy. Democrats are still angry over accusations by Bush and his closest aides last week that the Democrat-led Senate was not interested in 'national security'. Amid a raft of depressing economic news, including figures showing poverty rising in the US for the first time since 1990, some Republicans too are wondering whether the President and his team are putting their party in peril by taking their eyes off the domestic agenda to push for war. With control of the House and Senate at stake, however, both parties are trying to present unified fronts, confidently asserting that theirs is the finger on the true pulse of the electorate. In reality, though, neither is quite sure what will play more strongly with voters: national security or their personal finances. And it is the Democratic party that finds itself more visibly divided: generally on the issue of war with Iraq, and specifically over the issue of a Congressional resolution that would give Bush authority to loose the American war machine on Saddam Hussein. After months of relative quiet on the issue, Democrats are suddenly getting noisy. Among the most prominent to break ranks was former Vice President Al Gore, who still harbours presidential ambitions. Despite a withering rebuke to Bush last week over his policy on Iraq, Gore's speech was received by Democratic legislators with lukewarm enthusiasm. Instead it was left to the normally low-key Senate majority leader Tom Daschle to deliver the official Democratic riposte to what they claim is Bush's bullying, giving the cue to other leading Democrats - including Senators Sarbanes, Byrd, Feingold and Ted Kennedy, as well as Representative Richard Gephardt - to speak out against the President as never before, signalling that the limits of post-11 September consensus have finally been reached. And while many expect the Democrats will still eventually vote on some kind of resolution, the episode seems to have at least enabled them to slow the process down and define it more to their liking. Most intriguing about the internal Democratic debate is the degree to which each faction in the party believes it understands best the present feelings of the electorate, yet remains unable to quantify fully its position. It is this that is driving the quiet but contentious debate about the party's leadership in a time of peril. To conservative Democrats, it has seemed nothing short of a moral and political imperative that Congress should effectively rubber stamp whatever the President puts in front of it. To do otherwise, they argue, would be perceived as unpatriotic. They point to positive polling figures favouring America's forcible removal of Saddam. At the other extreme are liberals who look with great scepticism on Iraq as a clear and present danger to American national security, or as an adjunct to the al-Qaeda terrorists. They note how opinion poll support for an American effort to oust Saddam rapidly plummets when respondents are asked how they feel about war with Iraq without allies and with high American casualties. It is this group which has been arguing for making Iraq an issue in the campaign, by calling the administration to account for planning what it believes is a jingoistic, politically opportunist war that would actually undermine American security and ideals. In the centre sit such figures as Daschle and Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who will oblige the President with a resolution sooner rather than later, but not give him the free hand he wants. They point to opinion polls showing respectable levels of public support for ousting Saddam with allies and United Nations backing, and see the administration's approach as something to be managed, rather than fought. Finally, there are the Democratic consultants and strategists pushing for a quick resolution as politically expedient. They believe that once an appearance of national unity is established in Congress, the Democrats can largely forget about Iraq and fight the rest of the election campaign on the economy and corporate skullduggery. On the surface there are no such divisions among Republicans, who appear to be overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the President's line. Privately, however, a growing number of conservatives are gravely concerned about the White House's zeal for making war. Republican leaders such as Dick Armey expressed concern about Iraq earlier this year, but since then such sentiments have been publicly muted. According to a number of Republican strategists, this belies the reality that many are privately frustrated by the administration's lack of focus on economic issues and its obsession with a possible war they consider antithetical to conservative principles. 'There are a lot of conservatives who are appalled at how the White House keeps giving John Ashcroft [the Attorney General] more power for the government to intrude into citizens' lives in the name of "national security" and how Ashcroft is taking it,' says one prominent conservative activist. 'There are many who see the negative impact talk of war and alienating allies is having on the economy, and are not excited about a return to deficit spending [to fund a conflict], which is where we seem to be headed. 'There is concern for a lot of aspects of "the war on terrorism" and war with Iraq on both the Left and the Right, a lot of it legitimate. Yet almost every elected official believes that to give voice to it would be to commit political suicide.' This view is shared by some Democratic pollsters, who are deeply sceptical about how the war issue will resonate in key House and Senate races in, for example, the Midwest. 'A lot of those are really individual contests about candidate versus candidate and their relationships to their constituencies. They aren't going to put how they vote, or would vote on the [Iraq] resolution, at the top of their lists,' says one prominent Democratic pollster, Mark Mellman. According to David Winston, one of Mellman's Republican counterparts, while voters are clearly engaged in a national debate on the planned war and the international issues it raises, they are not looking to the ballot box in November as the way to resolve it. Congressman Rahall says he has been demoralised to hear Republicans share their dissatisfaction with Bush's focus on Iraq. 'I've had a number of conservative members privately tell me they are not happy,' he says. 'There are solidly conservative principles on which to oppose this: that unilateral, pre-emptive action is not in keeping with rule of law; that getting bogged down in another nation' s affairs through nation-building on such a large scale as Iraq will require is another; and deficit spending to finance these efforts is another. 'And when I ask why they don't champion these principles, they either say, "The President is coming to my district for a fundraiser," "I like George W. Bush personally," or "The White House has browbeaten us so much on this".' Conservative sources, however, say that for leading members of the administration with misgivings about the Bush war plan, the issue is simpler. They are too frightened by 'over-the-top White House bullying'. 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
