Let's not let his intentions get lost in the rhetoric.
“Completely bypassing the U.N. would set a dangerous precedent that would undoubtedly be used by other countries in the future to our and the world's detriment. That is too high a price to pay. I am glad the President said in his speech Monday that diplomacy is the first choice for resolving this critical matter.
“This resolution also limits the scope and duration of the President’s authority to use force.
“It requires presidential determinations before our Armed Forces may be used against Iraq -- including assurances to Congress that he has pursued all diplomatic means to address this threat, and that any military action will not undermine our ongoing efforts against terrorism.
“Finally, the bill provides for regular consultation with and reporting to Congress on the Administration's diplomatic and military efforts and, of great importance to all Americans, on the planning for assistance, reconstruction and regional stabilization efforts in a post-conflict Iraq. The efforts we must undertake in a post-conflict Iraq could be the most enduring challenge we face in this entire endeavor, which is another reason for doing everything humanly possible to work through the U.N. to reach our goals.
“Now a word on what this resolution is not. In my view it is not an endorsement or acceptance of President Bush’s new policy of pre-emption. Iraq is unique, and this resolution is a unique response. A full discussion of the President’s new pre-emption policy must come at another time -- but the acceptance of such a momentous change in policy must not be inferred from the language of this Resolution.
“It is also important to say that thus far the President's predominant response to 9/11 has been the use of military power. Obviously, self-defense requires use of effective military force. But the exercise of military power is not a foreign policy. It is one means of implementing foreign policy.
“In the post-9/11 world, we must construct a foreign policy that promotes universal values, improves living standards and increases freedom in all countries - and ultimately prevents thousands and thousands of young people across this world from becoming terrorists. We will never defeat terrorism by dealing only with its symptoms; we must get to its root cause."
http://dickgephardt.house.gov/info/press_releases/index.asp?ID=441and on Sept 27, 2002:
WASHINGTON — In the days after Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush made a strong effort to work hand in hand with Congressional leaders to build a bipartisan consensus for the war on terrorism. In the State of the Union address he said eloquently, "I'm a proud member of my party. Yet as we act to win the war
protect our people . . . we must act, first and foremost, not as Republicans, not as Democrats, but as Americans."
The president assured Americans then that politics would not play a part in deciding issues of life and death. Which is why when Karl Rove told a Republican party meeting last January that talk of war and terror themes could play to the G.O.P.'s advantage in the 2002 elections — or last June, when a computer disk containing a presentation by Mr. Rove revealed a White House political strategy to focus on the war as a way to "maintain a positive issue environment" — I didn't want to believe it. And when Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff, remarked that the White House waited until the start of the election season to promote action in Iraq because "from a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," I hoped it wasn't true.
But now there's no denying it. President Bush himself has decided to play politics with the safety and security of the American people. It started in New York two days after the one-year anniversary of Sept. 11. Injecting politics into the debate on Iraq, the president told reporters that "if I were running for office, I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people, say, `Vote for me and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I'm going to wait for somebody else to act.' "
Four times in the past week Mr. Bush has echoed these words. On Monday, he went so far as to say that the Democrat-led Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people." In a recent speech in Kansas, Vice President Dick Cheney also entered the act, saying that our nation's security efforts would be stronger if a Republican candidate for Congress were elected.
Those sentiments were quickly amplified by Tom DeLay, the Republican whip in the House. One Republican member of Congress even went on national television to question a Democratic colleague's patriotism and accuse him of hating America — simply for saying we needed a debate on Iraq.
This is not how a great nation should debate issues of war and peace. To question people's patriotism for simply raising questions about how a war is to be fought and won — to say that anybody who doesn't support the president's particular policy on national security is against national security — is not only insulting, it's immoral.
Like many Democrats, I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq. Some in my own party have criticized me for that support. But this is a case that deserves to be made on the basis of policy, not politics. It's clear that in a world plagued by terrorism, protecting our national security means worrying about where terrorists could get their hands on weapons of mass destruction. Around the world, Iraq is the No. 1 candidate for spreading those weapons. We must deal with this diplomatically if we can, but militarily if we must.
Eleven years ago, the Persian Gulf war debate on Iraq took place after an election, which helped keep politics out of it. Because of the urgency the current administration has placed on Iraq, we are asked to vote on the issue this fall.
Calling for a Congressional vote is important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is building a broad, bipartisan coalition to provide the support necessary for the country to get behind — and stay behind — any war effort. Democrats are committed to trying to develop a final bill that will draw the broadest bipartisan support possible for dealing with this threat.
But the statements by the president and the vice president only serve to weaken that process, undermine trust and thwart cooperation. If Mr. Bush and his party continue to use the war as a political weapon, our efforts to address the threat posed by Iraq will fail. Military action, if required, may meet with quick success in Iraq, but a peaceful, democratic Iraq won't evolve overnight. It will take the active support of both parties in Congress over the long term if we are going to win the peace. That's only going to happen if we act, not as Democrats or as Republicans, but as Americans.