Graham rips colleagues over Iraq (Broaden Presidential Authority)

WASHINGTON - Florida's Sen. Bob Graham Wednesday told his colleagues that ''blood is going to be on your hands'' if action is not taken to foil terrorist attacks in America should the United States invade Iraq.

Graham was speaking in frustration after he tried to change the Iraq resolution, authorizing U.S. force, by focusing attention on Hezbollah and four other terrorist groups. In a rare, impassioned warning, he said they pose a ''more urgent threat'' than Saddam Hussein, based on reports he has seen as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

In the Senate, Graham is known for his careful words, but in recent weeks he has been increasingly outspoken about the need for more public information on the threat of terrorist attacks within the United States. He has blamed the intelligence community for holding back on reports about such threats and refusing to declassify them. He has also stressed that any military action against Iraq would inflame the Mideast, increasing the threat of terrorism in the United States.

However, on Wednesday the Senate moved closer to a final decision on the Iraq resolution as it voted 88-10 against the Graham amendment to broaden President Bush's authority to aggressively pursue other terrorist organizations besides al Qaeda.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., one of the sponsors of the Iraq resolution, said he agreed with his fellow Democrat's warning but suggested that Bush had the inherent authority to go after other threats that imperil Americans.

Lieberman and other sponsors supported the administration's request to keep the resolution free of amendments and match the version the House plans to vote on today.

But Graham said that many members of Congress and the administration are fixated on Hussein as ''the one evil'' while overlooking threats from ''the sleepers among us, waiting for an assault.'' And he predicted that threat will increase if the United States does go ahead and invade Iraq.

''If you reject that, [and say] that the American people are not going to be at an additional threat, then basically, to use a term, the blood is going to be on your hands,'' Graham told the Senate.

He said he favored more actions by the FBI ''to rout out terrorists among us'' and would support military actions against terrorist training camps in Iran, Syria and Lebanon.

The five groups he named -- Hezbollah, Hamas, the Abu Nidal group, the Palestine Islamic Jihad and the Palestine Liberation Front -- have not launched attacks in the United States.

But Graham said that Hezbollah, backed by Iran, has killed Americans in the Middle East for 20 years and has cells in the United States ready to strike.

''I will defy anybody to say that Iraq meets those standards. We're not talking about a threat 90 days from now,'' Graham said.

``We're not talking about a threat that may come a year from now if nuclear material is made available. I'm talking about a threat that could happen this afternoon.''

His Florida colleague, Democrat Bill Nelson, said he shared Graham's concern about an increased terrorist threat, yet is planning to vote in favor of the resolution on Iraq.

''The threat from Saddam is real, and this is the appropriate authority,'' Nelson said.

``And I think the Bush administration is responding to the fuss on Capitol Hill that the United States can't go it alone.''

Nelson's office has heard from more than 2,700 constituents in the last six weeks on the issue, with 90 percent saying they opposed a U.S. invasion ``without strong allied support.''

Nelson said that many of those responses came from Florida Democrats suspicious of the administration's timing in its drive to take action against Iraq.

''But I'm giving the president the benefit of the doubt that this is not political,'' Nelson said.

In the House, Florida Republicans lined up eagerly to support the resolution that will be voted on today to authorize the use of force. Many of them linked the danger posed by Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks.

''A year ago, we were surprised. Today, we have the opportunity to destroy the enemy's capabilities before they can be used against us,'' said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Miami.

She recited the threats from Hussein that Bush highlighted in his Monday night speech: the possibility of chemical and biological attack, the pursuit of nuclear weapons; and training al Qaeda operatives.

''If we do not act now, when? Are we to wait for another Sept. 11 to occur?'' Ros-Lehtinen said.

Lincoln Díaz-Balart, a Miami Republican, and Mark Foley, a Palm Beach Republican, both said that Hussein had to be removed from power.

''The long-term costs in blood and tears of allowing Saddam to strengthen his position would be much higher than the cost of any action to remove him now,'' Díaz-Balart said.

Clay Shaw, a Fort Lauderdale Republican, said he was supporting the resolution as a ''last chance for peace,'' and a way to ''strengthen the president's hand'' in forcing Hussein to disarm.

Democrats in the Florida delegation are divided by the resolution. Peter Deutsch of Broward and Robert Wexler of Palm Beach plan to vote for it. Wexler is seeking conditions that would limit Bush's authority and spell out the costs of military action, but such an amendment is not expected to pass.

Alcee Hastings, a Broward Democrat, had proposed a substitute measure authorizing force only after all peaceful means had been exhausted in forcing Iraq to comply with U.N. resolutions, and specifying that the war on terrorism remain the nation's top priority. That proposal was not considered.

''I will not support any resolution that authorizes a preemptive military strike until these preconditions have been met,'' said Hastings, who attended a European security conference that discussed Iraq last week.

Carrie Meek, a Miami Democrat, said the resolution was a ``bad precedent that could be used against our country some day.

''I'm not willing to approve the blank check that gives this power to any president, Republican or Democrat,'' Meek said.

Just 'cause Graham can't walk and chew gum at the same time doesn't mean the rest of the US is similiarly afflicted.
Funny how the rats cannot see how this effort is already worldwide - President Bush & company are bright enough to know this is necessary.

It'd also be nice if the rats would let a budget through for Homeland security as well as perhaps helping the economy gear up?

And if he thinks any such sleeper cells will play nice if we don't attack Iraq, he is incredibly naive. If sleeper cells are here, they are waiting to strike anyway. To fail to take an action that is in the best long term interests of the US because of the potential reaction of people who are already here to do us harm is to accept our status as hostages of Saddam.

Graham made this argument on Fox News Sunday some weeks back. He argued that Iran was a much greater threat, and that going after Iraq would distract us from combatting Iranian-influenced terrorism. Brit Hume asked Graham what the Bush administration should do about Iran. Graham responded: "The president should give a speech." That'll teach 'em.

First of all, Bush did give a speech naming Iran as a terrorist threat--or perhaps the senator was sleeping through the state of the union address, you know, the one about the "axis of evil." Second of all, Graham's lame response indicates that he is not truly serious about going after supporters of terrorism. He is just raising Iran as a means to derail efforts to deal with Iraq. I'd bet dimes to donuts that if Bush was going after Iran, Graham would argue that other nations (e.g., Syria, N. Korea, Iraq) are a greater danger. If Bush was going after all of them, Graham would claim that we were biting off more than we could chew. Like Rosanne Rosanadanna said--"It's always something." Graham wants to look tough while in fact he wants to do nothing.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

STOP THE LEFTISTS