Bush: Stay in Iraq; Dems call for phased pullout

Parties disagree: Is money for war better spent at home or in Iraq?

Saturday, August 19, 2006; Posted: 9:02 p.m. EDT (01:02 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Saturday that his administration's determination to
remain in Iraq is key to protecting the U.S. from terror attacks; Democrats countered Americans
will be safer if a phased pullout of U.S. forces begins.

Bush also referred to his administration's efforts in Lebanon.

"It is no coincidence that two nations that are building free societies in the heart of the Middle
East -- Lebanon and Iraq -- are also the scenes of the most violent terrorist activity," Bush said in
his weekly radio address. "We will defeat the terrorists by strengthening young democracies
across the broader Middle East."

He said "the way forward will be difficult" but "America's security depends on liberty's advance in
this troubled region."

Democrats chose Joe Sestak, a former Navy vice admiral who is challenging Republican Rep.
Curt Weldon in a competitive race outside Philadelphia, to deliver their party's response to the
president. Sestak argued for "a new direction for America's security."

He said it is time for the U.S. mission in Iraq to end.

"We must begin a phased redeployment of our forces so that we are prepared to face the security
challenges we have worldwide," he said.
Weariness over war spreads

The nation's safety looms as a major issue in the midterm elections November 7, particularly after
last week's news of a foiled plot in Britain to blow up jetliners over the Atlantic. Both Republicans
and Democrats are maneuvering for the political advantage in an election in which control of
Congress is at stake.

Democrats have been accusing the Bush administration of trying to ignite fear among Americans
and gain political points by claiming they alone can keep them safe. Republicans argue that
Democrats are weak on national security.

With American deaths in Iraq over 2,600, the U.S. public growing more weary of the war, and
even some troops frustrated with the pace of progress, Democrats have been increasingly vocal
about what they say is the lack of a plan for success in Iraq and the need for a timetable for
bringing U.S. forces home.

Sestak said ending the U.S. presence in Iraq would free up money and energy to concentrate on
other dangers, such as nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran and bolstering homeland
security protections. Two days of spending in Iraq would pay for screening all air cargo on
passenger planes, while five days of Iraq costs would fund the screening of all cargo coming into
the nation's ports, he said.
'Culture of dependence' in Iraq?

"We are fostering a culture of dependence in Iraq," Sestak said. "Iraqi leaders must be
responsible for their own country. They must make the difficult political compromises that will stop
the civil war and bring about stability. Completing our mission in Iraq will also make America safer
everywhere."
Bush argued that his approach is working.

"We will defeat the terrorists and expand freedom across the world, we'll protect the American
homeland and work tirelessly to prevent attacks on our country," he said. "The terrorists remain
determined to destroy innocent life on a massive scale, and we must be equally determined to
stop them."