Key U.S. Lawmakers Joining Forces Against President Bush's War Strategy for Iraq
BLITZER: Welcome back to CNN International and YOUR WORLD TODAY. We turn now to Iraq and what could be a huge rebuke of the U.S. president's war strategy from political friends and foes alike this time. Support is building on Capitol Hill for a bipartisan resolution that would criticize George W. Bush's troop increase. Now, after some revisions to Republican-sponsored legislation in the Senate, key Democratic leaders have signed on, increasing the chances that it will past. Republican senator John Warner says debate on the bill expected to begin next week will be one of the "most historic and important" in U.S. history. Now, if such a congressional rebuke does pass, it won't force the president's hand in Iraq. It is non-binding, and that is crucial. But it would be a stinging reminder of the war's unpopularity, piling even more pressure on the president to change course. But as Dana Bash reports, some of Mr. Bush's allies on Iraq are now going on a counteroffensive of their own</s>DANA BASH, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): President Bush's allies are so worried that resolutions opposing his Iraq plan could pass, they're not waiting for next week's formal debate to start slamming them.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do not throw mere words out that have no concrete effect except undermining our troops and emboldening the enemy.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Our responsibility is to sell it to the American people, not just to criticize, not to come up with resolutions that don't mean anything, intended to embarrass the president.</s>BASH: Preemptive strikes not just aimed at Democrats, but at fellow Republicans, meant to pressure GOP senators not to vote against the president.</s>SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R), MAINE: Comments like that are really inappropriate.</s>BASH: Instead, it is intensifying the deepening discord within the Republican Party. Susan Collins is one of four GOP senators co-sponsoring a resolution that opposes sending more troops to Iraq.</s>COLLINS: Those of us serving feel very strongly, are not motivated by political purposes.</s>BASH: But when GOP senator Jim DeMint was asked if he thinks fellow Republicans, including former Armed Services chairman John Warner, are really trying to embarrass the president, he said, "It's clearly not an act of leadership." Bush allies admit there is less pressure on GOP lawmakers to stand with the president.</s>SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R), TEXAS: The president has the bully pulpit of the office of president of the United States. But I think in many ways, the American people have sort of chosen up sides on this issue and are not listening.</s>BASH (on camera): The one person Republicans think does still have clout is General David Petraeus, the man the Senate just confirmed to lead U.S. forces in Iraq. CNN is told General Petraeus has been making the rounds this week on Capitol Hill trying to convince lawmakers he needs additional U.S. troops in Iraq in order for the mission to succeed. Dana Bash, CNN, Capitol Hill.</s>CLANCY: All right. We had expected that Hala would be speaking with Senator Jon Kyl about his stand, which is in favor of the Bush administration view that more troops and a short-time spike in levels would help improve the security situation there. We'll have to bring that to you a little bit later here in our report. Meantime, let's go Canada for a minute, where French-speaking Canadians in the province of Quebec have long fought to retain their traditional identity within the larger culture that is Canada, of course. But a new code of conduct is one small town is raising a lot of criticism. At issue: When does respect for one's culture become intolerance of everyone else's? Jed Kahane reports.</s>JED KAHANE, REPORTER, CTV NEWS (voice over): It's a tiny town, and with the exception of one citizen, Herouxville is entirely white, French-speaking, and Catholic. So it might seem a little odd that the town council has just adopted a code of conduct for potential immigrants.</s>ANDRE DROUIN, TOWN COUNCILLOR: Seeing who we are, what are our standards, and, god, hell is raising up.</s>KAHANE: Here is a sample. "We do not consider it normal to kill women in public beatings or burn them alive." "Women can drive and write cheques and show their face in public... the only exception is Halloween." The list goes on and so does the praise for the council's initiative. "I have gotten nothing against those people," says this woman, "but these are the rules." To others, those rules are alarmist and intolerant.</s>SALAM ELMENYAWI, MUSLIM COUNCIL OF MONTREAL: Racist</s>KAHANE: So why is a town as homogeneous as this going so far out on a limb? The answer may lie two hours away in Montreal, where for months now, commentators like Stephane Gendron have taken a hard line against accommodations made for religious groups, windows at a local gym glazed over to satisfy Jews,</s>STEPHANE GENDRON, RADIO HOST: We should have zero tolerance for that. You're just a regular citizen. Religion is at home. Fine. Otherwise, too much.</s>KAHANE: Gendron says Herouxville's motion goes way too far. As this observer says, you reap what you sow.</s>JACK JEDWAB, ASSOCIATION FOR CANADIAN STUDIES: I think the people who have generated the debate in this particular way are in part to blame for what's happening in this particular town, which has now become a focal point for xenophobia and Islamophobia in Quebec.</s>KAHANE: The sign says "Welcome," but not everyone believes it anymore. Jed Kahane, CTV News, Montreal.</s>GORANI: All right. Let's revisit there the story on a move in Congress and within the Senate and House of Representatives to pass a non-binding resolution criticizing the administration's policy and strategy on Iraq. We want to speak with one of the senators who supports President Bush's troop increase in that country. Senator Jon Kyl, a Republican from the state of Arizona, joins us now live from Washington. Senator, thanks for being with us. It really looks like there is a congressional movement. And what is key is that it is bipartisan to criticize and oppose the president's troop increase strategy in Iraq. You still support it. Why?</s>SEN. JON KYL (R), ARIZONA: First of all, it needs to be given a chance. The Baker-Hamilton commission has been held up -- their recommendation -- by all of the president's critics, and yet they testified yesterday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the plan should be a given a chance to succeed. Senators can speak out and put themselves on record any time we want to. We don't have to pass a non-binding resolution to do so. And unfortunately, the passage of a such resolution would send a very bad message to our enemies, to our allies, and especially our troops that we put in harm's way.</s>GORANI: But when you say time, what do you mean by time? A few weeks, a few months? And then if it fails again, then what?</s>KYL: By the way, what if it succeeds? General Petraeus thinks it has a good chance of succeeding. The president thinks it will succeed. And this will certainly prove a lot of people wrong who disapprove of the strategy right now. It seems to me...</s>GORANI: Sure. But Senator, you're in favor of it. So we -- I need to ask you...</s>KYL: If I could -- if I could just -- let me just finish my point here. It seems to me that resolutions like this can become a self- fulfilling prophecy. In other words, they, themselves, undercut the effort. That's one reason why I don't support a resolution. General Petraeus has testified to the Congress -- and we just got through unanimously confirming his appointment to run the operation over there -- that he believes it can succeed. And I guess the way I would put it back to you is, if he says he thinks it will succeed, and he's the person we put in charge of its success, why wouldn't we want to give it a chance?</s>GORANI: Right. But then you're saying you would like to give it a chance. And others who support this troop increase are saying the same thing. But it is a question of time. It can't be an open-ended commitment to increase troops level.</s>KYL: No, you're right.</s>GORANI: When will you say, all right, we tried this and it didn't work, assuming that it doesn't have the effect that you think it will.</s>KYL: It is neither open-ended nor is there a specific date. Virtually everybody, even the president's critics, agree that you don't want to put a specific date on paper, because that enables the enemy precisely how long they simply have to hold out before they get to take over. So even the president's critics are not in favor of a specific date. You know the resolutions usually call for within six months, we begin a withdrawal, and so on and so on. So you can't put a timetable on it. You shouldn't.</s>GORANI: Right. Now, regardless of whether or not these resolutions are binding and non-binding -- and the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi hasn't (ph) even hinted that perhaps she would support binding legislation in order not allow troop increases in Iraq -- but this is a sending very strong message to the U.S. president, saying, you know, from both sides of the aisle, we are very, very skeptical of this strategy, isn't it?</s>KYL: Yes. It's even more than very skeptical. They say it won't work. They oppose it. By the way, it's only a handful of Republicans and all Democrats. So...</s>TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Let's take you to Boston now, where we're hearing from the two suspects in court this morning pleading not guilty to the charges against them in yesterday's hoax in Boston.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ... how people live their lives today and how they're going to live their lives in the future and how they're going to look at the past.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hold on a second. Hold on a second. For example, afro, I think, comes kind of from the '70s. But then again, there's other styles like the greased-up hair, when they actually used grease. And I'm not totally sure where that comes from, whether or not it's from the 20s or -- it's definitely not from the '60s, I don't think.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But the '60s sort of -- we're taking this very seriously.</s>UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, please don't interrupt.</s>HARRIS: Well, I haven't heard it. OK. My understanding is that these guys are kind of making a goof of this process at this moment right now. And apparently in the court this morning, there was a little bit of this going on as well. Our Boston bureau chief, Dan Lothian, is standing by. Dan, can you explain what the heck these guys are doing?</s>DAN LOTHIAN, CNN BOSTON BUREAU CHIEF: That's a good question. I mean, I was listening to part of what they were saying. It did sound like they were explaining something that was sort of bizarre. I have no idea. What I can tell you is, what happened in court, when they walked in, they were making -- they war waving, they were kind of giggling a little bit. We were told that they were very nervous and were certainly surprised by the extent to which this situation, in their sense, has gotten out of control. Beyond that, though, you know, I have no explanation for what's going on behind me. I did hear a little snippet, though, is that they are taking this -- one of them said that "We are taking this seriously.: So perhaps...</s>HARRIS: Well, it doesn't look like it. It doesn't -- yes.</s>LOTHIAN: It doesn't appear that -- it doesn't appear that way, you know, based on what they're saying, based on some of their actions. But I don't know. I mean, it's sort of -- it's bizarre actions.</s>HARRIS: Well, Dan, as we see the picture of the two guys there, sort of walk us through what happened in court this morning, the charges that they're facing. And these are serious charges.</s>LOTHIAN: They are serious charges. They're both being charged with one count of placing a hoax device and then disorderly conduct. That one's a lesser charge. But, nonetheless, they did plead not guilty to those charges. They were being held on $100,000 bail. That was reduced, though, to $2,500 cash bail each. They also have to check in by phone once a week with a probation officer and then check in -- or rather daily they have to check in by phone and then meet once a week with a probation officer. Essentially what they are saying, what their lawyers are saying, what their supporters are saying, is that, you know, these guys were just out doing their job. They never meant any harm. They never thought that this would balloon to what it did. They never thought that these devices would be seen as bombs. The prosecution is saying, listen, these are -- these are items, these are devices that had batteries and wires and were placed in areas where a bomb would normally or typically be placed to cause maximum damage. So they're taking it very seriously, but obviously, you know, there is some bizarre behavior on the part of the two suspects.</s>HARRIS: And Dan, I asked you this question last hour in the NEWSROOM. Let me ask it again, because we heard from the judge, hearing the charges in the arraignment this morning, there seems to be a real question here about intent.</s>LOTHIAN: Right.</s>HARRIS: Did these two guys knowingly take action in planting these hoax devices, knowingly plant them, expecting that they would cause a panic?</s>LOTHIAN: Right, and you did hear that in the arraignment. And I -- you know, based on my interpresentation and what we heard from the attorney general last night, was that this was an issue as to, you know, what happened. You know, you create -- you do a hoax, and then if there is sort of mayhem after afterwards, that is what the effect is and that is what you're being charged with. But certainly during the arraignment you heard a lot of talk about intent, and that will no doubt be at the heart of this. You know?</s>HARRIS: Yes.</s>LOTHIAN: And if you talk to the family members and the friends, they're saying, listen, these guys never intended for anything like this to happen. This is their job, they were given instruction to go and place these items out and about town, and to document it, which is what they did -- allegedly did -- and placed it on their Web site.</s>HARRIS: And at this point we still don't know if, for example, the advertising company that they were working for, or even Turner Broadcasting, the parent company of CNN, could be on the hook for this.</s>LOTHIAN: That's correct. I mean, if you listen to mayor, obviously there's a lot of anger.</s>HARRIS: Yes.</s>LOTHIAN: While some will say that this thing is, you know, overblown, the mayor is quite angry and says that, you know, Turner Broadcasting should be held accountable. And then we've also heard from NBTA, the transit authority here. You know, they have to shut down -- stop buses, shut down trains yesterday. And they have drafted this letter seeking compensation for the loss that they may have sustained yesterday. So, clearly a lot of people have taken it seriously in terms of the fallout from what happened. Whether or not, you know, the intent was there, the reaction was that, you know, there was this big security scare in Boston yesterday.</s>HARRIS: OK. And Dan, I guess they're wrapping up whatever -- whatever they're doing here.</s>LOTHIAN: Right.</s>HARRIS: Dan Lothian, or Boston bureau chief for us, following this story. Dan, appreciate it. Thank you.