Illustration by Cody Angell

They say it's not about politics. But last week, the Washington Post quoted President George W. Bush as saying, "Democrats are not interested in the security of the Ameican people." Come again?

If you didn't know, Georgie, it has become an important fact since Sept. 11 that we are one nation, one people, one America. Upon deeper research, our suave and powerfully articulate president's comments were actually in reference to the bill creating a Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security, which includes removing standard governmental-job protections from the proposed department's employees.

Some Senate Democrats want to restore those civil-service protections, which Dubya believes would undermine the effectiveness of the proposed department. Our eloquent leader commented in New Jersey last week that "the Senate is more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people."

So the question arises: Should the president be held accountable for every statement, however vague, he makes, despite the context?

Of course he should. He is our leader, after all, and any vague or specific statement should be scrutinized to the last syllable. We have made him one of the most powerful men in the world (regrettably) and it is absolutely our right to hold him responsible for every stupid, ignorant comment he makes.

Senate majority leader Tom Daschle took a similar interpretation of the comment last Wednesday on the Senate floor when he blasted the president for politicizing the Iraq and national security issues by suggesting the Democrats don't care for our security.

"You tell those who fought in Vietnam and World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people because they are Democrats," Daschle said. "That is outrageous."

It sure is.

During Clinton's presidency, his private life was questioned a million times and became the butt of every joke. The media interrogated every nook and cranny of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, and rightly so.

However, between the time Bush made his comments and this week, it seems we have forgotten about it. The White House made some statements regarding the context of when the comments were made, it somehow has been swiftly swept under the rug.

I guess it's not about politics.

So what does Bush do next? Duh.

He sends his dad's old buddy, Colin Powell, to persuade the Senate that we are together in this, and that our brilliant president needs support.

Powell is now trying to get support for a resolution on Iraq that would give President Bush "all means that he determines to be appropriate," including the use of force, to deal with Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

America and Britain are trying to pass a new U.N. security resolution for the same freedom of power, but Powell has said that if the United Nations does not approve, they might have to take matters into their own hands. Just what I was hoping to hear.

Our ever-so-gifted president is gaining the flexibility to do as he pleases when he pleases to do so. Three of the congressional leaders, excluding Daschle, have agreed with the resolution to give Bush the flexibility to figure out what to do next. As a gesture of love and affection to the Democrats, Bush promised to inform the Senate, at the latest, 48 hours after attacking Iraq. Gee whiz, what a nice guy.

The new version of the resolution takes away the previous deference to the United Nations and upholds the sovereignty of the president to determine what to do next for the safety of the American people.

Some Senate Republicans said Mr. Daschle's unwillingness to sign on to the agreement is a sign of trouble ahead on the Senate floor next week. Others believe that bipartisanship will not affect the question of war this time, similar to Desert Storm and unlike Vietnam.

Sen. John W. Warner, R÷Va., predicted eventual victory in the Senate. He said, "Mr. President, we delivered for your father. We will deliver for you."

Gee whiz, isn't that lucky for George, Jr.?