ABC Nightline 0925

TV Channel 3 Thu Sep 26 00:08:49 2002 ng up d >> it looks like to me the senate is going down the wrong pat. They're more interested in special interests as opposed to your interests protecting the home land. More interested in your turf than the security of the american people. >> Not interested in security of the ancanca pe?Ple? >> Today in washington of the political cease fire officially ended. >> You tell those that fought in vietnam and world wa ii they're not interested. >> It is wrong. >> And the security of the american people. >> Wrong! >> Is outrageous. >> Wrong. >> Our job is to proct -- >> don't lecture us. >> The accusations -- >> we autd not politicize. >> Very hurtful. >> Who is the enemy here? >> Hurtful. >> The president of the united states or saddam hussein? >> Tonight, words of war. The gloves come off in the bate over national security. In the capital there is an invisible line between republicans and democrats. They nearly always tolerate, if not respect each other's arguments, without questioning the patriotism of the other. Today, the democratic leader of the senate angrily accused the president of stepping over that line. And the white house just as passionatly insisted that the charge was baseless. Senator tom daschle who invariably is described as mild-mannered, spoke with a fewery he has rarely shown before. He demanded that president bush apologize for suggesting that democrats in the senate were more interested in special interests than the security of americans. The white house fired back that mr. Daschle had taken a partial quote about the homeland security debate in congress and twisted it for his own political purposes. That war or national security are somehow exempt from partisan politics or should be is a notion that doesn't have much basis in history. George mcgovern ran an entire presidential campaign, a losing one, open potion the war in vietnam. Bob dole generated a huge firestorm when he suggested in a 19p 76 vice presidental debate that all of the major conflicts century were "democratic wars." That may have cost his running mate, gerald ford, the election. So, the intersection of war and politics can be a very treacherous corner. Here with more on today's collision there is "nightline" correspondent john donvan. >> The gal up organization asked americans a question about the president and what he's been saying about iraq. >> Saddam hussein is a serious threat. >> Reporter: The question was this -- >> the leader of iraq is an evil man. >> Reporter: Is the president seeking the support of congress for military action because he wants to protect america? >> We'll look at all ongss. >> Reporter: Or is it all just an effort to help republicans get votes? In that poll, most americans gave president bush the benefit of the doubt while 26% said in effect they think he's playing politics with the iraq talk, more than twice as many, 68% said they think he's got the national security in mind. Well that may be how it looks to country at large, not necessarily how it seems in washington where each party feigns horror that anyone would use the talk for political gain and accuses the other doving that. This is democratic senator daschle on the senate floor today. >> The president is quoted in "the washington post" this morning as saying that 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's not interested in the security of the american people. You tell those who fought in vietnam and in world war ii they're not interested in the security of the american people. That is outrageous. 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. >> Reporter: Later, rose trent lott the republican who will lead the senate if the republicans can pick up a few snooes november. >> We live if grave times when the body should be carefully and deliberately the threat that iraq's weapon was mass destruction pose against the united states. Instead we heard accusations that a president of the united states is using the possibility of war for political purposes. Madam president, who is the enemy here? The president of the united states or saddam hussein? >> Reporter: Note technique that both sides are using here, to gain political points, accuse the other guy of trying to gain political points. Who started it? The democrats say the president i did d when it became clear last sum that they the economy was whi he at one point was talk about a lot. >> I believe there is a better day, right ruined the corner for all americans. >> Reporter: That the economy was not exactly going to be a vote-geter. By august, the president was developing a new theme. >> They're more interested in protecting their own political turf and their own jurisdictions than they are the american people. >> Reporter: That, say the democrats is what it started, where they were accused of pulgt security seblgd and politics first. A false accusation they say which can only mean o thing, that presidentush was the one playing politics with national security. No, says the white house, the president was merely raising a serious substantive concern. Abc's tery moran covers the white house for abc news. >> First they said the president was taken out of context, that he wasn't talking about attacking iraq or war. But about the debate over establishing the homeland security department and fierce dispute over labor rights. And second, they said he meant what he said in that context that if the senate fails to follow his lead in establishing that department, it will not have sufficiently protected the american people. >> Reporter: Still the president kept at this see them thooem, bringing it up in a string of appearances he made explicitly to raise funds for republican candidates for congress. In new mexico. >> There are senators who are more worried about the special interests in washington than they are about protecting the people. >> Reporter: In iowa. >> More interested in special interests in washington as opposed to your interests, which is protecting the homeland. >> Reporter: And ten zblen in the united states sthat, more interested in washington's special interests than they are in the interes of plo pro texting the american people. >> Reporter: The other theme the president began t hit is the building need to do something about iraq. >> Saddam hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. >> Reporter: Linda douglass covers congress for abc news. >> Many democrats have got questions about the war with iraq but they've been afraid to question the president publicly because their opponents in tight vase been accusing of them on being soft on iraq. Today, daschle's anger has led many to public question whether it's wise to rush into war with iraq wourt first involving the u.N.. >> Reporter: Several things happened in the past few days. Al gore was the first prominent democrat to challenge aggressive lit president's stance on iraq and to hint that it was motivated by leaks concerns. >> The timing of this sudden burst the urgency was explained by -- innocently, i believe, by the white house chief of staff in his now well known statement a quote, from an ad very tighting point of view, you don't launch a new productine until after labor day, end quote. >> Reporter: The republican response to gore was, what else, that he sounded like "a political hack." Earlier on the dha gore spoke, the president slightly sharpened his rhetoric. >> More interested in special interest in washington and not interested in the security of the american people. >> Reporter: It was that statement is that triggered senator daschle's comments today after which democrats and republicans almost compulsively kept the volley ball moving hst president's spokesman saying daschle got it wrong. >> The president never in that speech referred to the democratic controlled senate. >> Reporter: And daschle going to the senate floor yet again to refute the white house's refutations. >> They're not worth the paper they're printed out on. >> Reporter: Remember, this was then. And this is now. The only thing everyone agrees on in this context that is politics is a dirty word. Although no one has really explained why that should be, and why matters of extreme urgency like war should not be exposed to the system that we call politics by which we elect r leaders. I'm john donvan for "nightline" in washington. >> Isn't politics always part of the debate over war? >> So the president i think is personally saying things he believes very strongly. >> It's the kind of thing we have seen in the lowest moments of our history. >> That conversation when we come back. >> My guests tonight are newt gingrich, former speaker of the house of representives and now a fox news consultant and charles schumer, democratic senator from new york state, both men join us here in our washingtonditudituos. And mr. Speaker that really was quite a remarkable scene on the senate floor today. You had the leader of the senate accuse the president of the united states of impugning the patriotism of democratic senators. Did the president cross a line here? >> First of all, i think senator daschle's emotionalism is a little remarkable. There is a bill to create a department of home lant land security. That bill is in thedliddle of real struggle. Key democrats are determined to protect the right of union members and federal employees noto t be fired, not to be reorganized by the president if it comes into conflict with existing law. The president is arguing that national security is so important that if somebody is incompetent or doing their job, he should have the right to fire them if it's a matter of national security. This a straightforward argument, but i think that burned senator daschle and he frankly created a false issue rather than debate the straightforward issue of the homeland security bill. >> So, senator schumer, this simply as speaker gingrich and the white house suggested, i this simply senator daschle overreacting to a piece of relatively ordinary business in the congress? >> Obviously not. The president stepped over a line. We've been debating this bill for the last two, three weeks, and no one has gotten upset. When the president impugns the patriotism of a whole party, when the president says that democrats are not interested in national security, two or three times when we're on the edge of war, that is a cheap shot, a low blow and is not debating the issue that newt talked about, even with some invective heer but we always do that. About whethermployees should have certain protections and be able to be fired at will or be able to have some recourse and some appeal if they feel they're being fired unfairly. That's quite different and what president did i thought was an ugly tactic not furthering an intellectual debate or political debate but impugning the patriotism of a whole party because they disagreed with them. >> The president has been saying that in different forms since august by our count, he's basically said the same thing nine different times. Why this outrage on the part of senator daschle all of a sudden today? >> I think what president has done is changed the rhetoric. From arguing as newt did here there is a balance test and you ought to have a different balance than some people think is different than saying you are not interested in the security of the american people. That's a pretty serious charge when you're on the edge of war. It's almost a charge that says you don't care about protecting people. It's the kind of thing that we have seen in the lowest moments of our history used by people -- it's not becoming of the president to do that. He's not making a balancing test argument here, he's rather impugning the actual motivation and patriotism of people who disagree with him. That is the refuge of low argument. >> Mr. Speaker let me ask you a question related to what senator schumer is bringing up, which is would such rhetoric not have been more appropriate from, let's say, a congress nan running for re-election this november than it is from the president of the snuds. >> Let me -- i think there are two parallel points here, this is disingenuous on my good friend's part. First of all. >> Let's not be ad hominum. >> Let's not use lleyton, gentlemen. >> I think particular audience is good woo. >> Wayne: Those words. >> I believe that george w. Bush as a person believes deeply and passionately in what he's trying to accomplish to protect this country. I think he -- believes he has a mission to try to achieve that and i think over the last six weeks he's grown more and more frustrated with the difficulty in the senate of getting the homeland security bill out, which should have gotten out before the august ves, mired down in part by a mini filibuster on the part of senator bid of west virginia and moved very slowly. >> Wayne: And with frankly no real give in terms his ability to reorganize departments, some of which clearly broken, can't do the job. I think the president is person ll ally saying things he believes strongly. Notice the emotion this morning from senator daschle and harsh words from vice president gore and ask yourself, is raltly likely that the democratic nominee for president two years ago and democratic majority leader of the sene just happen to both decide to use very strong political language inhehe sameurhourhos? Is it likely it's prurly a coincidence or in fact, trying to take people's attention away from the substantive issues and i suggest to you, gore's language in that speech in san francisco, it is stunningly accusing the president of the united states of doing things about war for purely political reasons. Cleverly stated but none the l, former vice president and let me draw one other contrast -- >> we have to dak a break but we'll continue the coverings on the application of warhen we return. >> We're back with newt gingrich and senator charles schumer. Gentlemen, there is an election coming up in under six weeks and senator, why should any of us be surprised that both parties are trying to get some kind of politicaldvantage even in a climate of war? >> Well, look, i mean, you know, it depends how you define politics. Obviously if there are different views on war and it's unclear that there are, they should be debated and if people want to call that politics, so be it. I haven't made up my mind what to do, i know i have a whole lot of questions that have been unanswered. The only thing i would object to and some of my colleagues think this is already being objected to, as senator byrd said on the floor, i don't have the ability, the right to ask these questions. I think as guy around my state, at least, people -- there are about 10 or 15%, veemtsly opposed to war, there are 10 or 15% who are vehemently for it, but most americans have a whole lot of questions that they would like answered and a full and robust debate what is we need. The objections that we were talking about on the earlier segment to the show are not about debate and not about disagreement, they're about impugning iegntrity, patriotism and motivation. >> Speaker gingrich, there was a famous memo which leaked out in june from white house political operative which urged republican candidates to focus on war because it was a strength of the republican party. Putting on your tact iss hat, shouldn't the president be doing that in strategic terms? >> I think the president should be doing what he thinks is best as commander in chief. He was asked by many mens of the house and senate democratic and republican to go to the united nations and make a speech and ask for the u.N. To act, he did what he was asked to do. He was told throughout august he had to come to the congress to ask for support, that's what he's now doing. I want to draw a distinct, in the middle of the impeachment process, i worked with president clinton, i public supported him on striking at saddam hussein because i think that national security outweighed any partisan issue and that was an election year and was election year with a lottality stake but felt as an army brat, i'd grown up on a household. >> Wayne: Where working with the commander in chief mattered, i think vice president's gore speech was outside the mark but substantial on basic questions, members outta take a yes or no position based on their conscience not polling. I wa v to say one other thing -- >> let me ask to you respond to a point this mr. Gingrich has made, that the speech from former vice president gore and the speech today from senator daschle were somehow coordinated because democrats havey having some trouble getting traction on the substance of the debate and therefore needed to get on the map politically, that's a charge that mr. Gingrich made. >> It's absurd. I was there this morning, we have a meeting every mf about eight or nine senators led by senator daschle discussion the day, he brought in the article from the "the washington post" and was visibly angry in a private meeting and he was furious, seething because it wasn't a debate on tactics or whether we should go n this was impugning the integrity of a whole political party, a cheap shot, ugly tactic, if there ever was one. Tom daschle is a very sincere guy, whether awe agree with him or not, he's a mild-mannered guy and i thought he thought, and i agree, this was a shot below the belt that had to be answered, fwhaus kind of poison should not infect our political system. If i have a question about the war, i showed be able to ask it wau woutmy pea treatism was questioned. That's all tom daschle was saying. >> Let me see if i can try to do the impossible here and get you to agree on one thing. Would you both acknowledge and very quickly, would you both acknowledge that in fact democrats and republicans are in effect politicizing this war? >> No, i thinkt everybody in the end exists in of application but this is about life and death, it's about protecting the country and i believe virtually every democrat and virtually every republican is in the end going to vote their conscience and do what's right for the country, not what's right for application. I don't believe people on a matter this important do things purely for politics. >> No one sai purely for application but senator schumer, would you deny that application are i i iolnv >> if you mean politics, picking a side on the issue and trying to make your argument to the american people, it is involved, it should be involved. What shouldn't be involved is character assassination, is the kind of, as i say, aspergss on somebody's patriotism someone's motivation, that is below politics in the finest sense of the word. >> Gentlemen, i assume we haven't heard the last world on this episode. Senator schumer, former speaker newt gingrich, thank you for joining us. >> Thank you. >>> I'll be back with a word about tonight's you can you can. >>> Tonight on "up close" imagine getting a call out of the blue, a warding you half million dollars? You'll meet seven of the latest winners of the june yus grants. That's our report, i'm chris bury in washington. I hope to see you shortly on "up close." oh... Give aritaritarit give me some good news give me some cute shoes give me atlanta give me savannah <