"DEMOCRATS LAMBASTE BUSH ON IRAQ." So declared the front page headline in the Washington Post the morning after the president's press conference. Leading the attack are Senate minority leader Tom Daschle and his House counterpart Nancy Pelosi, who are "escalating their criticism of Bush," the Post said, "because they think war is imminent and because Russia, Germany and France seem more opposed to it." Shortly before Bush's press conference, Daschle claimed that the administration is "rushing to war without adequate concern for the ramifications of doing so unilaterally or with a very small coalition of nations."
It is unusual, to say the least, that congressional Democrats would attack the president--with more than 200,000 American troops already deployed in the Persian Gulf--"because they think war is imminent." And it is astonishingly inconsistent. Forget the fact that Daschle voted with an overwhelming congressional majority last fall to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Many of the most outspoken critics of President Bush's policy in Iraq were the most vocal supporters of bipartisan unity on those occasions when President Clinton used, or threatened to use, force against Saddam Hussein. In early September 1996, Saddam attacked the Kurds in northern Iraq. Although it was just two months before a presidential election, many Republicans supported him, and Democrats insisted on unity. Daschle in particular was adamant. As he said then,
I hope Saddam Hussein and those who are in control of the Iraqi government clearly understand the resolve and determination of this administration and this country. This
may be a political year, . . . but on this issue there can be no disunity. There can be no lack of cohesion. We stand united, Republicans and Democrats, determined to send as clear a message with as clear a resolve as we can articulate: Saddam Hussein's actions will not be tolerated. His willingness to brutally attack Kurds in northern Iraq and abrogate U.N. resolutions is simply unacceptable. We intend to make that point clear with the use of force, with the use of legislative language, and with the use of other actions that the president and the Congress have at their disposal.
Daschle also insisted on unity a year and a half later, when there was another showdown with Saddam. On February 11, 1998, with troops amassed throughout the Persian Gulf and the threat of war evident, Daschle declared that Saddam "has to agree that there will be compliance with international law and the agreements that he signed in 1991. Period."
Daschle wasn't finished. "Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? . . . The answer is, we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."
Two weeks after that, Kofi Annan brokered a compromise agreement--another "last chance"--with Baghdad. In announcing his deal, Annan said that he "could do business" with Saddam Hussein. When Trent Lott criticized the United Nations secretary general for saying he could "do business" with a man responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, Daschle rose quickly to Annan's defense. His concern was familiar: American unity.
|
