In Response, Democrats Assail U.S. War on Iraq

Congressional Democrats, responding to President Bush’s State of the Union address Tuesday night, assailed the White House for leading the United States into a war against Iraq based on “unproven assertions” and pursuing a “go-it-alone foreign policy” that has left the U.S. with most of the casualties and cost of the military operation.

Sounding themes they hope will help their party take control of Congress and the White House in November, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota said in their nationally televised joint response that the Bush administration had created a record budget deficit and shortchanged domestic programs, such as education, health care and homeland security, to give tax cuts to the wealthy, while failing to stem job losses.

While Bush defended his use of force in Iraq, declaring that it rid the country of a brutal dictator and made the world a safer place, Pelosi accused the president of embracing a “radical doctrine of preemptive war, unprecedented in our history.”

“American troops are enduring almost all the casualties” -- more than 500 killed and thousands more wounded -- and bearing much of the cost -- “$120 billion and rising,” Pelosi said.

Some other Democrats were harsher in their criticism of Bush’s Iraq policy: Rep. Bob Filner of San Diego accused Bush of placing the U.S. troops in a “quagmire that was created by poor planning and arrogant diplomacy,” and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts charged that the administration had “distorted, misrepresented and manipulated” the intelligence to make its case for war -- a reference to Democratic criticism that the White House exaggerated claims that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was pursuing an illicit program to develop weapons of mass destruction.

In his speech, Bush said that he had worked to build international support for the war and rebuilding. Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), who supported the war in Iraq, was infuriated by Bush’s ticking off the names of countries supporting the U.S. invasion, contending that most had given little in either money or troops.

Daschle offered a glimpse of the legislative battles that lay ahead for Bush as he seeks to win congressional approval for measures he promoted in the State of the Union speech.

Daschle decried Bush’s call to make permanent the tax cuts now due to expire in 2010 and his proposal to allow workers to divert some of their Social Security taxes into private investment accounts.

“We believe that ... Social Security’s benefit should be a guarantee, not a gamble,” Daschle said.

The speech also drew sharp criticism from Democrats seeking the nomination on the campaign trail in New Hampshire.

“Tonight, President Bush talked about how he wants to help people find jobs, but for three years he’s stood by while we’ve lost more jobs than at any time since the Great Depression,” Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts said.

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut said that the “state of the union that George W. Bush lives in is very different from the state that most hardworking Americans are living in. In fact, he seems to be in a state of denial about the state of our economy, our health-care system, and our relations with the world.”

And former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean said Bush offered a “stale agenda that aids the special interests and does very little for working Americans.”

In the Capitol, Democrats offered a wide range of other criticisms of the speech.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said the president’s speech lacked “a sense of vision about this nation and where we’re going.” Acknowledging that Democrats gave Bush’s speech a cold reception, Feinstein blamed her party’s disappointment in what she said was the president’s partisanship.

“I think there was great faith that this was somebody who really was going to set aside partisan differences and reach out ... and it hasn’t happened,” Feinstein said. “And things have gotten more and more and more partisan.”

New York Rep. Charles B. Rangel said the speech was “not so much of a state of the union as a state of his reelection campaign.”

“He brags about capturing Saddam Hussein, who was not connected with Sept. 11, while he does not even mention Osama bin Laden, who was directly linked to the attack on America and remains free,” Rangel said. “He talks about fighting terrorists, but his unilateralist policies create more potential terrorists than they kill.”

Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.) said he was astonished that Bush made no mention of the troubles of the manufacturing sector.

“How can you talk about the state of the union and not talk about losing more than 2 million jobs?” he asked.

Feingold said he noticed that audience response was tepid, even among Republicans, to such initiatives as an extension of the USA Patriot Act and Medicare legislation, both of which have drawn some conservative criticism.

Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez), top Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, criticized Bush for proposing new aid for job retraining after previously proposing spending cuts in such programs.

The Democratic criticisms of Bush come as the latest ABC/Washington Post poll shows Bush with a 58% overall job approval rating; his 40% disapproval rating, however, has risen, partly in response to the intense criticism of Bush policies by Democrats seeking their party’s presidential nomination.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson delivered the first Democratic response to a State of the Union address over Spanish-language TV. He called Bush’s immigration reform proposal a “small step forward,” but said it failed to help immigrant workers obtain “the golden dream: legalization and residency without impunity.”

“Instead of being a way to a better life, the Bush plan represents a dead end for immigrants, who after three years don’t have a guarantee they’ll be able to stay,” Richardson said.

“If you believe that we are better off and more secure today than we were four years ago, it was a great speech,” Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena) said Tuesday night. “But if you believe we have gotten off track both here and abroad and have become increasingly divided, deeper in debt and more alienated from our historical allies, it left a lot on the table.”

The official response by the other party continued a practice started in 1966, when Republican Sen. Everett M. Dirksen of Illinois and Rep. Gerald R. Ford of Michigan delivered a joint Republican response to President Lyndon B. Johnson’s message.

Don Kettl, a University of Wisconsin political scientist, said Democrats know that Bush holds the “high cards” on defense and national security.

“In their response, they’re making two plays -- that we’re on the wrong course, and that for all the president’s efforts we aren’t any more secure.... The argument on security is hard to make with Saddam Hussein behind bars.”

*

Times staff writers Mary Curtius and Janet Hook contributed to this report.