Kennedy, DeLay Clash on Bush Iraq Policy By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay lashed out at Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy for his criticism of President Bush's Iraq policy, describing the comments as a "new low" and calling on presidential candidates to repudiate the remarks. In an interview with The Associated Press Thursday, Kennedy said the case for going to war against Iraq was a fraud "made up in Texas" to give Republicans a political boost and the money for the war is being used to bribe foreign leaders to send troops. Those words drew the wrath of Texas Republican DeLay. In a statement released Friday, DeLay said Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and other Democratic presidential hopefuls should "have the courage" to repudiate Kennedy's remarks, which he called a "new low." And he said it was "disturbing that Democrats have spewed more hateful rhetoric at President Bush then they ever did at Saddam Hussein." After a day's silence on the matter, the White House also responded to Kennedy's comments. "This is the kind of charged political rhetoric here that obscures the real policy debate, which is how we make America safer in a post-Sept. 11 world," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "Sept. 11 taught us we need to confront new threats before they reach our shores." Responding to DeLay's call for Democratic presidential candidates to disavow Kennedy's comments, Kerry fired back — at the Texas lawmaker. "Tom DeLay is a bully," Kerry said. "He tried to bully Democrats in Texas and we're not going to accept his shrill partisan attacks or allow him to suggest that patriotism belongs to one political party." Kerry was referring to DeLay's role in redistricting the state's congressional boundaries to benefit Republicans. Kennedy dismissed DeLay's comments, saying that once again GOP leaders are avoiding questions about Bush's policies "by attacking the patriotism of those who question them." Kennedy also elaborated on his comments in an interview on CNN Friday, saying the administration is announcing an $8.5 billion loan to Turkey, and that country will then provide military assistance in Iraq. "It didn't have to be this way," he said. "We wouldn't have to be providing these billions of dollars to these countries to ... coerce them or bribe them to send their troops in, if we'd done it the right way, if we'd gone to the United Nations, if we had built an international constituency." McClellan called the funding charges "more political rhetoric that have no basis in fact." DeLay didn't defend the administration's policy, preferring to put the responsibility on Democrats to take sides. But the Democratic drumbeat against the Bush administration's Iraq policies has only intensified in recent days. Earlier this week, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a senior member of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, called on Bush to fire advisers who helped set U.S. policy in Iraq because it has been riddled with miscalculations over armed opposition and rebuilding. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&u=/ap/20030919/ap_on_re_mi_ea/kennedy_iraq_8
Interesting that neither DeLay nor the White House told Kennedy where the missing $1.5 billion is. Just attacked Kennedy's character.
You asked that question in another thread green. Come on! Can you say Halliburton? Yeah, I knew you could...
Well, I guess Weslie Clark was on DeLay's side in this argument, since Weslie would have supported the vote in Congress on going to war.
What? This article has nothing to do with Clark. You were just looking to squeeze in Weslie somewhere.
Let's dispel something right here. If the president came to you and said, "this is happening", as a congressmen, you're going to take him at his word. So yes, they voted for the war resolution. And others with not so privy information (just what the president is telling us) would do the same. Later you find he wasn't quite forthcoming. I think you have a right to change your mind.
They didn't answer it. They were charged with a *very* serious allegation and instead of answering, "The money is allocated to Halliburton for toilet repair," they avoided the question entirely and accused Democrats of partisanship. Why won't they answer the question? Look, I doubt Bush put it in "$" bag and buried it in his backyard. There's probably a good explanation for its disappearance. Just tell us why $1.5 billion is unaccounted for. That's a very reasonable request.
They're probably working to line up a scapegoat... some speech writer or George Tenet, maybe Alan Greenspan. Hey judging by Tom DeLay's comments he might actually be a certain poster here.
Today Clark backtracked on that statement. "I never would have voted for war," he said here this afternoon in an interview and in response to a question after a lecture at the University of Iowa. "What I would have voted for is leverage. Leverage for the United States to avoid a war. That's what we needed to avoid a war." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/20/politics/campaigns/20CLAR.html He's waffling on his waffling. He can still be a top notch VP candidate. I doubt that I would vote for him to get the nomination.
I give Kennedy credit FOR SHOWING SOME BACK BONE! Rocket River Time for Democrats to take some stands
Kennedy also gave some supporting info for his statment. Turkey to get $8.5 billion loan if it sends some troops. Everyone knows this was happening. As a matter of fact it was widely discussed pre-war when Turkey turned the deal or the "bribe" down.
All the administration had to do was open up the books for the war and say "here is where the money is going" and instead, they attack Kennedy like he is a first generation immigrant from Afghanistan. When Clinton sent troops to Kosovo, I remember regular stories about the penny pinching that was done by Congress over the cost of the action and I also remember the administration being absolutely forthcoming about what was being spent and how it was being spent. The $8.5 billion dollars being "loaned" to Turkey just goes to illustrate Kennedy's point, which should be refuted by hard numbers from the administration, not partisan attacks on his character or patriotism.
