Daschle hopes to limit Iraq resolution

S

smack500

Guest
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- On the eve of President Bush's planned address to the nation, the Senate's top Democrat said he hopes to change a proposed resolution allowing Bush to use U.S. forces to disarm Iraq.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said he wants the measure under debate in the Senate to focus more narrowly on removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs.

The Bush administration has said Iraq is continuing to pursue such weapons in violation of numerous U.N. resolutions.

"The resolution as currently drafted cites 16 U.N. resolutions," Daschle told NBC's "Meet the Press." "Among the resolutions is the return of prisoners to Bahrain and the return of property to the Kuwaiti royals. Those are questionable reasons for use of force."

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, who opposes the measure, said the Senate is ignoring the potential consequences of a U.S.-Iraq conflict.

"We have to ask ourselves, are we going to be better off before the conflict or after the conflict -- let alone, how are we going to ever get out of Iraq? And if we go it alone, who's going to be there, stay there and pay the bill?" Kennedy told CBS' "Face the Nation."

"We have been discussing the resolutions," he said. "We haven't debated the war."

The Bush administration tried Sunday to downplay concerns about the prospect of unilateral U.S. action against the Baghdad government. Any attack likely would be conducted with the aid of a coalition of U.N. forces or a loosely knit coalition of U.S. allies, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

"There's no longer a need to go it alone," Fleischer said.

Division among Democrats
Kennedy's comments were a sign of the divisions within the Democratic Party. Daschle's House counterpart, Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, and several leading senators -- including former vice presidential nominee Joseph Lieberman, D-Connecticut -- support the White House-backed resolution.

Lieberman called Saddam "a dangerous bully" who needs to be overthrown.

"We know for a fact that he has biological and chemical weapons, and he is developing a very unsettling capability to deliver those weapons to distant targets," Lieberman told CBS.

If Saddam were to become the region's dominant power, "that would be terrible for the Arab world, terrible for the Middle East and terrible for us," Lieberman said.

Many senators, including Daschle, predicted the resolution would pass by a wide margin.

"I believe that I have enough information -- that is, intelligence -- to make an informed decision this coming week on whether or not to support the president of the United States," Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, told CNN's "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer."

"I'm going to support the president, and I believe there will be about 70 or 80 senators that will do the same."

Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, discounted suggestions that Saddam could be overthrown by internal opponents before a U.S. attack became necessary.

"It's probably not going to happen, but it would be great if it did," he said.

Bush to make his case in TV address
Bush is scheduled to present his case against Iraq in a televised address at 8 p.m. EDT Monday. He returned to Washington on Sunday after a weekend at his parents' home in Kennebunkport, Maine, where he worked on the speech.


Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott said he wants President Bush to present a broad case against Saddam Hussein.



Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, said he hopes Bush will mention Saddam's repeated mistreatment of his people.

"I want him to enumerate the fact that Saddam Hussein, in instance after instance after instance, personally has killed people, violated all kinds of human rights and U.N. resolutions, and that he is the problem," Lott said on "Fox News Sunday."

"And it's going to be very hard to deal with the weapons of mass destruction without being prepared to deal with him."

Administration officials said Bush will lay out an extensive, detailed argument that Iraq is violating U.N. resolutions. He is expected to discuss the role of U.N. weapons inspections and the U.S. argument that inspectors should not return to Iraq before the passage of a new Security Council resolution threatening the use of military force if Iraqi officials obstruct their work.

However, White House officials said the speech will not reveal new evidence about Iraq's weapons programs.

Iraq denies having weapons of mass destruction, and its U.N. ambassador, Mohammed Aldouri, suggested his country could allow inspectors access even to the presidential sites not covered by last week's agreement with the U.N. weapons inspection team.

"I don't think that will be a huge problem between us and inspectors," Aldouri said on ABC's "This Week." "I don't think that we will have a problem on that question, on that issue. Certainly we can accommodate ourselves with the U.N. to have free access to presidential sites."

Under a 1998 agreement with the United Nations, inspectors could enter the presidential sites only with advance notice and the accompaniment of international diplomats.

CNN White House Correspondent Suzanne Malveaux contributed to this report.
 
TONY SNOW, FOX NEWS: This is the October 6th edition of Fox News Sunday. Good morning from Washington.

We are on the verge of an important week in the war on terror. Consider the calendar: Monday the Senate continues debate on a resolution to authorize military action against Iraq. That night President Bush delivers a major speech about Saddam Hussein's capabilities, and the administration hopes next week to broker a new United Nations Security Council resolution against the government of Iraq.

Joining us to discuss these issues and more, Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott.

Senator Lott, let me first begin by asking you about some of the reservations the Democrats have raised about a war resolution agreed upon by the president and a bipartisan group in the House of Representatives.

Your colleague, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, had this to say the other day. He said, "I think it's fair to say that the information we've provided through intelligence sources is helpful, but I don't think it's conclusive. That is, I think you can interpret it in different ways. I don't think there is any consensus with regard to the threat today."

In other words, it's not compelling enough to act now. What's your view?

SEN. TRENT LOTT (R-Miss.): Well, it's interesting to me that Tom Daschle thought that it was compelling enough way back in 1998. He gave a really dramatic speech saying we've got to act, we've got to act now, Saddam Hussein is a threat, a continuing threat.

There's plenty of evidence. In fact, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological and chemical weapons, has the ability to have nuclear weapons, and is trying to get the final products he needs to have it, and he has the ability to deliver them, and he's increasing the range. I mean, how much do you need to know?

SNOW: Increasing the range of his missiles?

LOTT: Yes, increasing the range of the missiles. You know, some people say he couldn't deliver a nuclear missile to the United States. Maybe not now, but he could in the region. And, by the way, biological and chemical weapons can be delivered in an aerosol can or an envelope. This is a part of the war on terror. He has weapons of mass destruction that could be used anywhere by just about any group. And we know he has had at least some contacts with Al Qaeda.

SNOW: OK. Knowing all that, do you think Senator Daschle's politicizing the war effort?

LOTT: Senator Daschle did not join the bipartisan group that came together last week. There were modifications made in the resolution the president originally asked for that took out the reference to the region and directed it only to Iraq, required additional reports to the Congress, urged that we reach out to the United Nations. This was a very good and responsible effort in a bipartisan way. Senator Daschle can't figure out quite what to do.

The core...

SNOW: Why do you think that is?

LOTT: ... of the Democrat Party is certainly very liberal and, I think, is really represented by people like Jim McDermott and David Bonior that went over to Baghdad and said, "We can take Saddam Hussein at face value, but we can't trust the president of the United States."

Now, as I said on the floor of the Senate earlier, who's the enemy here? Saddam Hussein or the president of the United States, George W. Bush? Well, there's no question about that.

SNOW: You talked a moment ago about the capability of Iraq to deliver biological weapons. Do you think right now there is a threat that Iraq may be trying to deliver, via aerosol cans or envelopes, those kind of weapons on American soil?

LOTT: There's evidence that is troubling in that area. I can't get into the details at this point. But why would he have them and continue to develop them if he didn't feel like he was going to need them and would be prepared to use them?

SNOW: So you think -- let me try to rephrase it then -- that it is conceivable that he would try to do that?

LOTT: It is conceivable that he would try to make use of these weapons.

I think what he really wants is to be a modern-day leader or martyr, if you will, in the Arab world. And he would be prepared to do whatever it takes to reach that level of exultation.

SNOW: Senator Biden has argued that the United States ought to be clear about what the real problem is with Iraq, not merely weapons of mass destruction but specifically nuclear weapons.

Do you think the Senate would pass a war resolution that was limited to saying we would go after Saddam Hussein if we found out he was close to developing nuclear weapons?

LOTT: I think that weapons of mass destruction are all very dangerous. I don't think we should just base it on nuclear weapons, and I don't think that's even what Senator Biden, but particularly Senator Lugar, have said.

They have raised reservations about the whereas's that identify in the resolution all the different resolutions passed by the United Nations that have been ignored that talk about human rights violations and Kuwaiti prisoners and a whole variety of things. And their inference is, well, we wouldn't want to use force because the violation of...

SNOW: Kuwaiti prisoners, he said.

LOTT: Yes, Kuwaiti prisoners.

By the way, it was put in there at the request of some Democrat leadership staff members. And we said, "Here's a whole litany of what he's not done." And the weight of the evidence creates this clear mosaic. We didn't mean to infer that based on any one violation, but the accumulation of those, but particularly the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

SNOW: So you might be amenable to some slight amendment of the resolution coming over from the House conference committee?

LOTT: I don't want to hold that out. I think the resolution is fine the way it is. But if we could, you know, allay those fears in some way, certainly you've always to be trying to reach out and get the broadest possible support in the Senate. And I think we will have.

SNOW: What do you want to hear the president say Monday night?

LOTT: I want him to enumerate the fact that Saddam Hussein in instance after instance after instance, Saddam Hussein personally has killed people, violated all kinds of human rights and U.N. resolutions, and that he is the problem. And it's going to be very hard to deal with the weapons of mass destruction without being prepared to deal with him.

SNOW: We keep talking about two games: getting rid of weapons of mass destruction and regime change. It's your view that you can't get rid of weapons of mass destruction until first you get rid of Saddam Hussein?

LOTT: I think that's the way they're tied together. It's not that, you know, you just want to get rid of him.

And, by the way, you're going to have regime change without him even leaving, once the people feel like that he can't kill them, that they're not threatened by him, the regime has changed instantly. I think Secretary Colin Powell made that point.

I just don't think we're going to be able to really get an honest inspection, a complete inspection and destruction of weapons as long as he's in there dissembling the way he does.

SNOW: OK, speaking of which, Hans Blix, who is the head of the U.N. weapons inspection group now called UNMOVIC, had this to say the other day about weapons inspections. I want to get your reaction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HANS BLIX, U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: On the question of access, it was clarified that all sites are subject to immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access. However, the Memorandum of Understanding of 1998 establishes special procedures for access to eight presidential sites.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SNOW: Under those circumstances, should the United States ever agree to such a resolution that would have, quote, "special rules" for presidential palaces in Iraq?

LOTT: Absolutely not. I mean, you can't say "not here, not there," especially when you realize the size of these palaces and, by the way, the small area that's required to do some of this very dangerous research and assembly.

SNOW: Let me take up a couple of other topics quickly. Department of Homeland Security, we've had some success in recent days. I guess you could call them the Portland Six, there were six people picked up the other day on suspicion of at least harboring some desire of dealing with Al Qaeda.

The Department of Health and Human Services says it now has stockpile sufficient to inoculate everybody against smallpox.

We've had a lot of success so far, correct?

LOTT: We've had some successes, and I hope we can continue to have them.

SNOW: The question then is, why do we need a Department of Homeland Security? Can you name any time in which somebody has made a department more efficient by making it larger?

LOTT: No, I cannot. But hope springs eternal, Tony.

(LAUGHTER)

There's no question the federal government is dysfunctional in a number of areas. And a number of these agencies and parts of departments have not functioned well. They don't have the authority or they're hampered by union workplace rules that don't allow them to really do the job quickly and efficiently. All the way from the Border Patrol, and of course we all know the chaos at the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

So I'm hoping -- in fact, I talked to Tom Ridge the other day -- one of my concerns about their proposal, Homeland Security Department, is they're going to bring 170,000 people under one umbrella. Well, you would think if you eliminated duplication and had greater efficiencies, you could do the job with 150 instead of the 170.

So I would hope that you could get a department that is efficient, is run better. And that's what the fight in the Senate is over. The president wants the flexibility and the management ability and the national security waiver to say, "Forget all these delays and cumbersome rules, we're going to do the job," and the Democrats don't want that.

SNOW: So he wants to change labor rules to make the department more efficient, correct?

LOTT: Sure, yes.

SNOW: So why not apply that same rule throughout the whole federal government?

LOTT: You probably should. But certainly when it comes to security here at home, you should have that ability, because what you're talking about is American people's lives and their children's lives.

LOTT: If we don't have the ability to move quickly and efficiently and do it in a coordinated way -- right now, you know, quite often you have turf wars between DEA and Customs and INS and Border. It's ridiculous. So, hopefully we can get a new Homeland Security Department.

SNOW: New Jersey. The United States Supreme Court a few years ago in the case of Bush v. Gore said that the Florida Supreme Court had rewritten state law and it took the Supreme Court decision, threw it back to the Florida State Supreme Court, and said, "Find the place in the law where this is true." Now, many Republicans are saying the same thing has happened in New Jersey.

If that is true, in the name of consistency, should not the U.S. Supreme Court hear this case?

LOTT: I think they should, and I hope they will. But in the final analysis, this is going to be in the court of the opinion of the people of New Jersey, and I hope they're going to say, "We're tired of this. It's time for a change. We want somebody that's going to give us efficient and honest, effective government. Doug Forrester will do that."

SNOW: All right, but...

LOTT: But they're cheating here once again, Tony. It shows that if the rules don't suit them, they just change them.

SNOW: Do you assume, though, that Frank Lautenberg is in fact going to be the Democratic candidate on the ballot?

LOTT: I guess you have to assume he will be, and that's unfortunate because he has a very poor record of his own. He voted twice, for instance, against the death penalty for terrorists that killed U.S. citizens. Do the people of New Jersey want that?

And by the way, I want to make the point. Torricelli isn't deceased, isn't sick, and it's not even about his ethical problems. It was about the fact he was losing.

SNOW: All right, we're going to let Doug Forrester make those points later in the broadcast.

Final question. The Washington Post said yesterday that you pretty much given up on the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit. True or false?

LOTT: False, in that if all that meant was the Democrats are probably going continue to try -- or to block this very fine conservative American-dream success story, efficient, all of that, but it's only because we're running out of time and because they're determined to block him.

Let me tell you this. He will be one of the first six judges that will be confirmed next year when Republicans take back control of the majority in the Senate.

SNOW: And you're sure that you all -- are you afraid of any defections that would cost you a majority in the future if you were to regain the Senate?

LOTT: I hope we're going to have enough of a margin, won't even have to worry about that. And it is definitely possible that that could be the case, Tony.

SNOW: All right. Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, thanks for joining us.

LOTT: All right, Tony.
 
Quotes from first article

what do you mean another view to the story lol the article I posted uses quotes from that transcript in the article. It talks about both sides already


Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott said he wants President Bush to present a broad case against Saddam Hussein.



Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, said he hopes Bush will mention Saddam's repeated mistreatment of his people.

"I want him to enumerate the fact that Saddam Hussein, in instance after instance after instance, personally has killed people, violated all kinds of human rights and U.N. resolutions, and that he is the problem," Lott said on "Fox News Sunday."

"And it's going to be very hard to deal with the weapons of mass destruction without being prepared to deal with him."


(((((((((((((((((((Lott said on "Fox News Sunday." )))))))))))))))))))))))


Quote from second article


TONY SNOW, FOX NEWS: This is the October 6th edition of((((((( Fox News Sunday)))))))



The first article uses quotes from the second article it already shows both sides.
 
no you have a nice day I dont need to be told that 20 times daily.
 
Hiya Smack

How's things. Appreciate your viewpoints and more to the point keeping your cool at this point. Gotta wonder what "have a nice day" has to do with your topic.

In case some folks don't understand this clearly. respond to the point of the thread if you wish, but postings which seem meant to only aggravate are inappropriate.

Fair enough?
 
I generally agree, HS.

That was just a little payback for Smack ruining my thread the other night. :)

My apologies...
 
It seems to me that lately a lot of us have been a bit more short tempered than usual.

Maybe it's the weather change, the alignment of the planets, or your supper not agreeing with you.

Do all of us a favor. After you've typed a reply, before you post it, sit back and read it carefully. Ask yourself, "do I really want to say this? and "is this the best answer I can give?" Also, take into consideration how other people will read your reply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom