http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/14/po...ml?ex=10591572
31&ei=1&en=296709faf021fb6e

July 14, 2003
Democrats Attack Credibility of Bush
By ADAM NAGOURNEY


WASHINGTON, July 13 - Democratic presidential candidates offered a
near-unified assault today on President Bush's credibility in his handling
of the Iraq war, signaling a shift in the political winds by aggressively
invoking arguments most had shunned since the fall of Baghdad.

In interviews, town hall meetings and television appearances, several
Democratic presidential candidates, who had been sharply divided over
whether to go war, declared that President Bush's credibility had been
harmed because of his use of unsubstantiated evidence in supporting the
looming invasion of Iraq in his State of the Union address in January.

They also criticized the administration for what has happened in postwar
Iraq, especially the continued deaths of American military personnel, which
many attributed to Mr. Bush's failure to enlist the help of the United
Nations in conducting the war. They questioned the failure to uncover the
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons Mr. Bush had cited in pressing for
war.

"The most important attribute that any president has is his credibility -
his credibility with the American people, with its allies and with the
world," Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, who voted for the war
resolution last fall, said in a telephone interview today. "When the
president's own statements are called into question, it's a very serious
matter."

Mr. Edwards added, "It's important that we not lose sight of the bigger
picture, which is the enormous failure that is looming in Iraq right now."

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, who also supported Mr. Bush last fall,
cited the intelligence failures in an interview today as he challenged Mr.
Bush's ability to protect the nation from terrorism.

"Americans have a right to ask a question, `Are we safer today than we were
three years ago?' " he said. And, criticizing Mr. Bush's failure to enlist
international support before starting the war, he said: "It's obvious now
with the lack of international support in Iraq that our troops are at risk
because we don't have the kind of plan that would have come with adequate
diplomacy."

The shift in the debate from the Democratic side reflected a sudden
confluence of events: the administration's admission of error regarding the
State of the Union speech, the continuing carnage in Iraq and the failure of
the United States to find the weapons that it used as a justification for
invading Iraq. Until now, most of the Democrats had been reluctant to
criticize a war that had appeared successful and, polls suggested, was
largely supported by the American public.

"It's the first time we've seen them sweat," Jennifer Palmieri, the
spokeswoman for Mr. Edwards, said of the White House. "It's the first time
anything has ever stuck."

There were signs today that the White House had put been on the defensive by
the wave of criticism of the State of the Union speech and the deteriorating
events in Iraq. It dispatched top administration officials to the television
talk shows to explain what had happened with the speech and assure the
American public that events in Iraq were under control.

While it remained too early to measure whether this has genuinely changed
the political landscape more than a year before the presidential election,
it clearly has altered the dynamics in the Democratic primary. The recent
problems in Iraq have offered Democrats who supported the war a way to
criticize Mr. Bush's war policy without appearing to be admitting any past
error.

Among them are Mr. Kerry, Mr. Edwards, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of
Connecticut and Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, all of whom
have been increasingly critical of Mr. Bush's Iraq policy.

And the changing sentiments about the war have provided a new affirmation
for the position taken by Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor whose
opposition to the war has helped power him into the front tier of the
Democratic competition. Dr. Dean said today that he foresaw the shortfalls
of Mr. Bush's Iraq policy from his perch in the Vermont Statehouse last
fall - and mockingly questioned why his opponents in Congress had failed to
do so.

"I think they bear some responsibility here," Dr. Dean said. "If I as
governor of Vermont can figure out the case is not there to invade Iraq, how
can three senators and a congressman who claim to have authority in public
affairs manage to give the president unilateral authority to attack Iraq?"

"It looks like my analysis was the correct one and theirs was the incorrect
one," he continued. "It's going to be hard for them to make the case that I
don't have the credentials on foreign policy after this."

Dr. Dean also called today for the resignations of George J. Tenet, the
director of central intelligence, and Stephen J. Hadley, the deputy national
security adviser, pointing to reports that both men knew in October that the
disputed information - that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear information from
Africa - was incorrect.

For all the flurry today, the situation could turn again if, for example,
dangerous weapons are discovered, as Mr. Rumsfeld predicted in interviews on
ABC's "This Week" and NBC's "Meet the Press."

Still, there was abundant evidence that there has been a broad change in the
nature of the Democratic presidential campaign.

Mr. Kerry has scheduled a speech in New York City on Wednesday that will
include what one aide described as a "blistering critique" of Mr. Bush's
foreign policy, and Mr. Gephardt has scheduled a speech on the same subject
for next week in San Francisco.

Last week, Mr. Lieberman wrote an Op-Ed column in The Washington Post
asserting that the opportunity to build a stable Iraq "was now in jeopardy."

On "Meet the Press," Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who voted against the
Iraq resolution and has long accused the administration of holding back
critical intelligence data, suggested today that the White House had
manipulated public opinion in making the case for war.

"There was a selective use of intelligence; that is, that information which
was consistent with the administration's policy was given a front-row seat,"
Mr. Graham said. "Those questions that were not supported were either put in
the closet or were certainly in the back rows."

At a town hall meeting today in Dubuque, Iowa, Mr. Gephardt repeatedly
attacked Mr. Bush, even as he struggled at times to contend with catcalls
from audience members critical of the central role he played as minority
leader by supporting Mr. Bush's Iraq policy last fall.

"We had a president from Missouri named Harry Truman, and he had a sign on
his desk that said, `The buck stops here,' " said Mr. Gephardt in the
meeting, which was televised on C-Span. "I think the president has to get
that sign back on the desk."



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

--
--
FAIR USE NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am
making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of
environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and
social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." - GW Bush 12/18/2000.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that
we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
---Theodore Roosevelt

"Feels Good!"
---George W. Bush on the Brink of Declaring War on Iraq.

See http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may071103.asp
for a discussion of how silly Bush's critics have been on this
Niger issue.

In the State of the Union address, Bush said: "The British
government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

From the article comes the challenge:
"Precisely which part of that statement isn't true? "