Democrats rip Bush on handling of Iraq

By Anne E. Kornblut and Amber Mobley, Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent, 7/11/2003

ASHINGTON -- Several Democratic presidential hopefuls intensified their attacks on President Bush's foreign policy yesterday, challenging him to ''tell the truth'' about the ongoing hostilities in Iraq and calling the administration's reluctance to be forthcoming about the costs of the war ''shameful.''

The attacks prompted a strong response from the administration, including from Secretary of State Colin Powell, who said criticism that Bush relied on a forged intelligence report to help make the case against Baghdad was ''overdrawn, overblown, overwrought.''

In a harsh rebuke, Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts demanded Bush ''tell the truth that the war is continuing, and so are the casualties,'' all but accusing the administration of lying about the situation on the ground in Iraq. ''I learned a long time ago in Vietnam what happens when pride gets in the way of making honest decisions,'' Kerry said in a press conference on Capitol Hill, stopping just sort of comparing the situation in Iraq to Vietnam. ''It is time for the president to tell the truth that we lack sufficient forces to do the job of reconstruction in Iraq and withdraw in a reasonable period.''

While Republicans say they remain confident that Bush's focus on terrorism and stewardship of two wars will make him almost invulnerable against any challenger, Democrats who previously focused on the sagging economy are now escalating their broadsides on his foreign policy, such as his stragey for postwar Iraq, the spiraling costs of the occupation, his challenge to Iraqi insurgents to ''bring 'em on,'' the failure to find Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and the alleged lack of funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

Senator Bob Graham of Florida called the administration ''shameful'' for failing to reveal the cost of the war at the outset, following testimony by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that it will cost taxpayers $3.9 billion per month rather than the estimated $2 billion per month the administration originally planned.

Howard Dean, former governor of Vermont, called for the resignation of any Bush administration official who knew that a key claim in the State of the Union address -- that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger -- was false.

''The individuals who misled the president know who they were, and they should resign immediately,'' Dean said while campaigning in New Hampshire.

Such statements, widely echoed by other Democrats, have put administration officials on the defensive. Powell, traveling with Bush in Africa, was forced to address the issue at a news conference yesterday, diverting attention from the social issues the administration had hoped to promote.

''There was no effort or attempt on the part of the president, or anyone else in the administration, to mislead or to deceive the American people,'' Powell said, referring to the claim that Iraq had bought uranium from Niger. He said the assertion was believed to be true at the time of Bush's speech, but was reviewed in the days that followed and dropped from his own presentation to the United Nations a short time later.

The Washington Post, however, reported today that the CIA tried unsuccessfully in early 2002 to get the British government to drop from an intelligence report a reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Africa.

The absence of a complete explanation about how the statement made its way into Bush's speech has helped fuel an increasingly bitter debate over whether the administration intentionally misled the public about the need to invade Iraq. Democrats have seized the opportunity to challenge two of Bush's strongest selling points: his honesty and his determination to pursue a strong national security agenda. The Democratic National Committee joined the fray yesterday, announcing a new television and e-mail campaign urging an independent probe of the Bush speech.

Yet some Republican officials believe that Democrats may be overplaying their hand, noting that most Americans supported the war in Iraq. Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie mocked Democrats for ''tripping over themselves to get to the left of Howard Dean when it comes to Iraq in order to appeal to the antiwar activists in the party.''

''Their politics may appeal to their antiwar base, but their lack of policy won't make our country more secure,'' Gillespie said in a written statement.

During the 2002 midterm elections, Bush campaigned hard for Republicans and the war in Iraq at the same time, pressuring a number of Democrats to support the resolution approving an invasion. That approach appeared to resonate with voters, helping Republicans take control of the Senate and win seats in the House.

After their defeat, many Democrats argued that they should have challenged Bush on national security more vigorously, a sentiment that has spilled into the Democratic primary. Contenders such as Dean, Graham, and Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio have touted their opposition to the war as proof that they are willing to stand up to the president.

Candidates who voted in favor of the Iraq resolution -- Kerry, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Representative Dick Gephardt of Missouri and Senator John Edwards of North Carolina -- have also begun criticizing Bush on all aspects of his foreign policy. Although the four still defend their votes, they argue that they would have handled the situation differently than Bush.

Edwards plans to make ''stability in Iraq and for our troops an issue, as well as Afghanistan,'' in the coming weeks, said his spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri. ''We operate on the assumption that security is not just about military strength anymore,'' Palmieri said. ''Given the situations President Bush has gotten us into in the world, the unstable situations his administration helped create, do Americans actually feel more secure with him as president? We don't know that they do. This isn't going to be a commander-in-chief election; it's going to be a security election.''

This story ran on page A1 of the Boston Globe on 7/11/2003.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.