Show Proof to the World and Secure America First

Tom Daschle came out swinging in a pre-buttal to the Bush State of the Union address. Some key points made by Senator Daschle. "Of all the decisions facing this President, none has more profound consequences than launching a war against Iraq, and none is in greater need of a clear, complete, and definitive explanation. ... The two crucial questions the President needs to answer on Iraq are: first, does Saddam Hussein pose a threat to our national security so imminent that it justifies putting American lives at risk to get rid of him? And second, how are our efforts to deal with this threat helped by short-circuiting an inspections process we demanded in the first place?"

"[T]he ultimate principle should be this: will invading Iraq and taking out Saddam make America and our friends more secure?  If we invade only to depart,  leaving an open wound behind us, the suffering will be used by extremists to inflame more hatred and recruit more terrorists.   In the end, we could win a war in Iraq, lose a battle against terrorism, and leave America less secure." 

"[W]e can't afford to forget the terrorist threat. If we want to stop a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, we have to intercept it before it gets to our shores. To intercept it before it gets to our shores, we have to cooperate with other countries.  To cooperate with other countries, we have to have their good will. We can't afford to squander their good will with friction over our Iraq policy.  If so, we'll worsen our chances of stopping a greater threat by squandering resources to deal with a lesser one."

Daschle asked, "why we are pursuing this hurry-up approach on Iraq that seems to be costing us the support of our allies?" "Right now, the American people need to know more.  At the same time, one thing the American people know all too well is that to be strong abroad, we need to be secure at home first. As the President articulated a year ago, homeland security is essential to our national security." 

Daschle concluded, "I'd like to hear the President explain why we can't afford $5  billion for homeland security because we need $674 billion for a tax cut.  If we're given the choice between cutting taxes for the wealthy and ensuring our security, Democrats have a four-word answer:  fund homeland security first."

Full Text of Tom Daschle speech:

Tomorrow, President Bush will deliver his State of the Union Address.  It's the President's constitutional obligation to take stock of where we are as a
nation and where we're headed; and it's something that I think we all look
forward to, people of both parties - because the occasion demands that
we all lift our sights from the day-to-day and focus on our biggest hopes and
challenges for the future.  And so it's fitting that we ask:  what is the state
of our union? 

On that score, the most important verdict comes not from the President or
from the Congress, but from the American people.  And what the two of us
would like to talk about today is what the American people are telling us -
and what we, as a nation, should be doing to make sure that their concerns are
not only heard, but heeded. 

If you travel across this country, you'll marvel at the incredible range of
opinions and perspectives you encounter along the way.  But there's another
thing that's equally striking - and that's the fact that wherever you go, you
hear different people from different backgrounds voice many of the same
hopes, and many of the same concerns.

As America begins a new year, it's clear that the spirit of patriotism,
common purpose, and shared sacrifice that were so strong after September
11th is still strong today.  Americans are proud that New York is back on its
feet, that we rebuilt the Pentagon in less than a year.  Most Americans feel
fortunate to be alive at such a unique moment in history - a time when more people live under governments of their own choosing than ever before; when discoveries in science are opening new worlds and leading to new cures; a time when technology is empowering our lives and bringing us closer together.

But while the spirit of common purpose is still strong, the sense of  uncertainty, the worries about our security, and the anxieties about our economy - well, those feelings are still powerful, too; and for many Americans they're growing stronger.  As Congresswoman Pelosi and I travel around our nation and listen to people with all kinds of backgrounds and beliefs - we hear one thing: concern.  The state of our union today is anxious.  The triple threat of war,
terrorism, and recession are combining to make Americans unsure about their
future, and unclear about the course our nation is taking. 

And there's something else that's compounding all these concerns - and that's the sense of uncertainty from the team at the top.  The American people hear mixed signals coming from the White House on everything from the economy to
Iraq to North Korea.  They sense the indecision on what to do about the war on terrorism.  They see the shifts in direction, the false starts, and the backsliding on basic promises.

Now, you won't hear any hesitation or uncertainty in the President's speech
tomorrow night.  And we don't need a crystal ball to predict he'll use a lot of
words like "bold" and "strong" and "good."   President Bush says a lot of the
right things, and he says them well.  But a speech doesn't equal a solution, and
a sound bite is no substitute for a strategy. 

The real test of the State of the Union is not how strong the President's words are, or how loud the applause is, or how high his approval ratings jump after the speech.  The real test of the President's words is whether they lead to action and whether that action leads to progress.  

So far, the President's been saying all the right things - but doing very few of
them. In the days and weeks after September 11th, this Administration was clear and commanding in its leadership.  But on just about every other issue
before or since, it has been anything but.  Today, what we are getting from the
White House are confused signals instead of clear direction; slogans instead of
solutions; posturing instead of progress.

There's a name for all this:  it's called a credibility gap. Unfortunately, it's nothing new in Washington.  History is full of politicians whose rhetoric is out of step with reality, who promise something and then fail to deliver.  But the Bush Administration offers a credibility gap with a new twist: this is a White House that promises one thing knowing full well it is delivering another.

While promising relief to hard-pressed middle-class families, the White House
delivers a reward to wealthy investors.  While promising to bring new accountability and responsibility to government, the White House runs up
huge deficits - and then blames it on the war.

While promising to protect the homeland, the White House blocks billions
of dollars to fund first responders and other homeland security priorities. While
promising to promote diversity, the White House files a lawsuit to prevent a
university from achieving it.

While promising to be a champion for our veterans, the White House cuts
funding for VA health clinics - forcing 164,000 veterans to be turned away.
While promising to help seniors with prescription drug costs, the White House
sides with the drug industry - and blocks generic drug legislation that will
lower costs.

While promising, with great fanfare, over and over again, to "leave no
child behind," the White House refuses to fund its own education programs.
Between the rhetoric and the reality is a credibility gap.  And it's growing
with each new broken promise, each new misleading claim, and each new case of bait and switch.  This Administration keeps saying one thing, but doing another. When this gap is felt within our own borders, it affects our ability to rally the American people against shared problems.  And when this gap is felt
outside our borders, it affects our authority to rally our allies against shared
enemies.

I'd like to focus for a few minutes on one place where that is the case
today - Iraq.  Of all the decisions facing this President, none has more profound
consequences than launching a war against Iraq, and none is in greater need of a
clear, complete, and definitive explanation.   We all know Saddam Hussein's
history of deceit, deception, and destruction.  None of us think the Arab world is a better place with him leading Iraq.  But that's the not the question. 

The two crucial questions the President needs to answer on Iraq are:
first, does Saddam Hussein pose a threat to our national security so imminent
that it justifies putting American lives at risk to get rid of him? And second,
how are our efforts to deal with this threat helped by short-circuiting an
inspections process we demanded in the first place?

Over the past year, we've seen support slipping for American foreign
policy - among Americans.  They have deep doubts about our course on Iraq.  

In a democracy, it is essential that the President do everything possible to
answer those questions and address those doubts.  If the President does
that, it is more likely that this country and our partners will start out
together and stick together as we continue to address this threat.  If we have proof   of nuclear and biological weapons, why don't we show that proof to the
world - as President Kennedy did 40 years ago when he sent Adlai Stevenson to the United Nations to show the world US photographs of offensive missiles in Cuba?

At a time when we have only just begun to fight the war on terror, the
American people deserve to hear why we should put hundreds of thousands of
American troops at risk, spend perhaps hundreds of billions of dollars, risk our
alliances, and inflame our adversaries to attack Iraq.

The White House has given many reasons: because Saddam is a threat to his
neighbors, because he gassed the Kurds, because he tried to kill the first
President Bush, because he's making weapons of mass destruction, because
- they say - he was involved in September 11. 

When they give so many rotating reasons, it makes people wonder which
one is the real one, or if the real reason is none of the above.  Above all, it
makes people doubt there is a guiding principle. 
 
Again, the ultimate principle should be this: will invading Iraq and taking out
Saddam make America and our friends more secure?    If we invade only to
depart,  leaving an open wound behind us, the suffering will be used by
extremists to inflame more hatred and recruit more terrorists.   In the end, we could win a war in Iraq, lose a battle against terrorism, and leave America less
secure. 

This is about priorities.  We face three very serious threats.   We face the
threat that Iraq could acquire and deploy weapons of mass destruction.
We face the threat of North Korea, a country that already has nuclear weapons
and is threatening to develop more of them - along with long-range missiles
that could deliver them to America. And we face the threat of additional terrorist attacks - including the horrific prospect of an attack with weapons of mass destruction.
 
 
We have to prioritize how we confront these threats.  North Korea has
long-range missile capacity. Iraq does not. North Korea is believed to have nuclear weapons. Iraq does not. In this current round of tensions, North Korea
has shut down the international inspection process.  Iraq has not.  Both present
threats, but we believe only North Korea presents an immediate nuclear threat.
 
And we can't afford to forget the terrorist threat. If we want to stop a
terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, we have to intercept it
before it gets to our shores. To intercept it before it gets to our shores, we
have to cooperate with other countries.  To cooperate with other countries, we
have to have their good will. We can't afford to squander their good will with
friction over our Iraq policy.  If so, we'll worsen our chances of stopping a
greater threat by squandering resources to deal with a lesser one.
 
The President would also do much to unify support for his policy if he
can explain why we are pursuing this hurry-up approach on Iraq that seems to
be costing us the support of our allies.  Today in New York, the UN weapons
inspectors are presenting their assessment of Iraq's compliance over the
past two months to the UN Security Council.  They will say that Iraq hasn't
fully complied, and the inspectors need more time.

We remember well that the United States did not strike immediately after
September 11.  The President wisely chose the time and manner of our
response, and no one was foolish enough to interpret the interval between
September 11 and our retaliation as a lack of courage or lack of resolve. Right now, the American people need to know more.  At the same time, one thing the American people know all too well is that to be strong abroad, we need to be secure at home first. As the President articulated a year ago, homeland security is essential to our national security. 

A year ago, the President stood before us and said in his State of the Union Address that one of his top priorities was to fully fund America's homeland security needs.  Yet, his budget forced $1 billion in cuts in homeland security.
 
Senate Democrats proposed to add back $5 billion in funding for homeland
security.  During the debate, the other side claimed that this effort was well intentioned, but unaffordable.

Unaffordable, when we know that we have to ensure that our police and
fire communication systems are synchronized?  Unaffordable, when the
Administration is proposing cuts in Coast Guard programs and our efforts to protect our ports and bridges?  Unaffordable, when we cannot find the money to adequately protect our nuclear facilities and water systems and power plants? 

I'd like to hear the President explain why we can't afford $5  billion for
homeland security because we need $674 billion for a tax cut.  If we're
given the choice between cutting taxes for the wealthy and ensuring our
security, Democrats have a four-word answer:  fund homeland security first.

__

Tom Daschle is the Senate Minority Leader
To go to the Tom Daschle web site for more on Tom Daschle
__

Return to Home Page - The Modern Tribune