- The Politicization Of War With Iraq
-
- Wednesday, September 25, 2002
-
- "Mr. President, I wanted to take a few minutes of
leader time this morning, before we get into the debate on the amendment
offered by the Senator from Texas, to talk about a concern that I have
wanted to avoid talking about for weeks. I am very saddened by the fact
that we have debated homeland security now for 3 weeks. I have noted on
several occasions that there is no reason, on a bipartisan basis, this
body cannot work together to overcome our differences and to pass a meaningful
and substantive bill dealing with homeland security.
-
- Some have suggested that the delay has been politically
motivated, and I have said: I am not willing to believe that. In fact,
yesterday I said: We intend to give the President the benefit of the doubt.
-
- Over the course of the last several weeks, as we have
debated national security, the issue of war in Iraq has become more and
more prominent. And again, as I go back to my experience in 1991 and 1992,
during a similar period -- the fall and winter prior to and after an election
-- I expressed the concern that our politics in this climate could easily
create a politicized environment and, in so doing, diminish, minimize,
degrade the debate on an issue as grave as war.
-
- No one here needs to be reminded of the consequences
of war. No one here should have to be admonished about politicizing the
debate about war. But, Mr. President, increasingly, over the course of
the last several weeks, reports have surfaced which have led me to believe
that indeed there are those who would politicize this war.
-
- I was given a report about a recommendation made by Matthew
Dowd, the pollster for the White House and the Republican National Committee.
He told a victory dinner not long ago -- I quote -- "The No. 1 driver
for our base motivationally is this war."
-
- Dowd said war could be beneficial to the GOP in the 2002
elections. And then I quote: "When an issue dominates the landscape
like this one will dominate the landscape, I think through this election
and probably for a long time to come, it puts Republicans on a very good
footing."
-
- I thought: Well, perhaps that is a pollster. Perhaps
pollsters are paid to say what is best regardless of what other considerations
ought to be made. Pollsters are paid to tell you about the politics of
issues. And were it left with pollsters, perhaps I would not be as concerned.
-
- But then I read that Andy Card was asked: Well, why did
this issue come before Washington and the country now? Why are we debating
it in September? Where were we last year? Where were we last spring? And
Mr. Card's answer was: "From a marketing point of view, you don't
introduce new products in August." New products? War?
-
- And then I listen to reports of the Vice President. The
Vice President comes to fundraisers, as he did just recently in Kansas.
The headline written in the paper the next day about the speech he gave
to that fundraiser was: Cheney talks about war: electing Taff would aid
war effort.
-
- And then we find a diskette discovered in Lafayette Park,
a computer diskette that was lost somewhere between a Republican strategy
meeting in the White House and the White House. Advice was given by Karl
Rove, and the quote on the disk was: "Focus on war."
-
- I guess, right from the beginning, I thought: Well, first
it was pollsters, and then it was White House staff, and then it was the
Vice President. And all along I was asked: Are you concerned about whether
or not this war is politicized? And my answer, on every occasion, was:
Yes. And then the followup question is: Is the White House politicizing
the war? And I said: Without question, I can't bring myself to believe
that it is. I can't believe any President or any administration would politicize
the war.
-
- But then I read in the paper this morning, now even the
President -- the President is quoted in the Washington Post this morning
as saying that the Democratic-controlled Senate is "not interested
in the security of the American people."
-
- Not interested in the security of the American people?
You tell Senator Inouye he is not interested in the security of the American
people. You tell those who fought in Vietnam and in World War II they are
not interested in the security of the American people.
-
- That is outrageous -- outrageous. The President ought
to apologize to Senator Inouye and every veteran who has fought in every
war who is a Democrat in the Senate. He ought to apologize to the American
people. That is wrong. We ought not politicize this war. We ought not politicize
the rhetoric about war and life and death.
-
- I was in Normandy just last year. I have been in national
cemeteries all over this country. And I have never seen anything but stars
-- the Star of David and crosses on those markers. I have never seen "Republican"
and "Democrat."
-
- This has to end, Mr. President. We have to get on with
the business of our country. We have to rise to a higher level. Our Founding
Fathers would be embarrassed by what they are seeing going on right now.
We have to do better than this. Our standard of deportment ought to be
better. Those who died gave their lives for better than what we are giving
now. So, Mr. President, it is not too late to end this politicization.
It is not too late to forget the pollsters, forget the campaign fundraisers,
forget making accusations about how interested in national security Democrats
are; and let's get this job done right.
-
- Let's rise to the occasion. That is what the American
people are expecting. And we ought to give them no less. I yield the floor."
|
