What set Daschle off were the morning's papers, which quoted President Bush as telling a political rally that the Democratic Senate was "not interested in the security of the American people." Bush had been talking about a stalled homeland-security bill, but the narrow criticism would instantly have a wider and damaging resonance. And that's what sent Daschle into orbit. Punching the air at times, his voice cracking into an infuriated whisper, Daschle demanded an apology. "We ought not to politicize the rhetoric about war and life and death," he said. "This has got to end, Mr. President." Down at the White House, the President was said to be confused, hurt and just as mad. "I never said that," aides quoted Bush as saying. "I don't say that. I want to see where I said that."
And that is about as close as the two parties have come in a month to combat over a possible war with Iraq: a wayside debate about the debate itself. What once looked like a great clash between two political parties about a seismic shift in U.S. strategic doctrine is shaping up instead to be a street scuffle about the exact wording of a resolution that sanctions attacking Iraq, with a few kicks and punches tossed in about whether the Republicans are talking up war in order to score well in the midterm elections. The Senate is expected to begin considering a resolution this week authorizing Bush to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein; both chambers could vote as early as next week. The question is not whether Bush will win, but by how much: with a weaker resolution and a big majority, or with stronger language that makes for a closer vote? Hoping for a landslide, the White House has dropped language that could have allowed Bush to expand the use of military force beyond Iraq to other countries in the Middle East. But it is refusing to accept other limitations, such as language that would allow military force only if diplomacy fails.
How Bush wins will also say much about the President himself. He came to Washington promising to "change the tone" that had made public discourse so foul over the last decade. But in recent speeches and statements, Bush has come closer and closer to saying that anyone who raises questions about his policies is reckless and even unpatriotic. "He feels very strongly about this stuff, and so he pushes it right up to the line," says a senior adviser. "He wants to shame them."
But he was beginning to look a little too eager for war. Just a day after British Prime Minister Tony Blair released a new dossier of infractions by Saddam Hussein a dossier that made no mention of the Iraqi leader's links to al-Qaeda both National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were cranking up new accusations of links between Saddam and the al-Qaeda terrorist network of Osama bin Laden. That night, as the Daschle explosion ruled the evening news, Rice appeared on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and said "high-ranking detainees" had told the U.S. that Iraq "provided some training to al-Qaeda in chemical-weapons development." Then she added, "We don't want to push this too far, but this is a story that is unfolding." The next day Rumsfeld told reporters the U.S. has "solid evidence" that senior al-Qaeda operatives have been in Baghdad "in recent periods," although he could not confirm whether they are still there.
Reviving the al-Qaeda Baghdad link had a lot to do with Bush's efforts to follow a victory in the Congress with another win at the United Nations a challenge that now preoccupies U.S. diplomats. To get the maximum number of votes in the U.N. Security Council, European allies, led by Britain, have been pressing Washington to give Iraq an option of forestalling war by cooperating with weapons inspections, a carrot before the stick. The Bush team is willing to go along but not for very long. The White House circulated a draft resolution late last week that accepts the British approach in principle but then called on Saddam Hussein to declare all his weapons of mass destruction within seven days of U.N. action. The Bush Administration wants to give Iraq no more than a month to open all its military sites and weapons plants to inspectors. It is already clear that the trick to writing a winning resolution will be to find language that includes enough patience to keep the Europeans from opposing the U.S. or abstaining in the Security Council and enough of an ultimatum to keep Washington from bolting the U.N. and acting alone. Evidence that Iraq is harboring or helping terrorists gives the U.S. another argument in the battle of the wordsmiths and could also provide another rationale for an invasion if weapons of mass destruction are counted, found or removed. "Are we throwing everything against the wall?" asked a White House official, who then answered his own question. "We're throwing everything on the wall and connecting the dots."