Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (1347)	3/8/2003 1:22:01 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 10965

Democrats Bemoan U.S. Image Bush Critics Say Foreign Policy Leaves America Vulnerable By Dan Balz Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, March 8, 2003; Page A16 President Bush's failure to build a broader international coalition for his Iraq policy has emboldened Democrats to challenge his leadership style on foreign policy, foreshadowing a sharp debate that could become a central argument of the 2004 presidential campaign. Leading Democrats remain at odds over whether the United States should go to war against Iraq without the United Nations' approval. But Democrats on both sides of that divide have found consensus by arguing in increasingly vigorous terms that Bush's approach to foreign policy has damaged U.S. prestige in the world and alienated other countries in a way that could leave the United States more vulnerable in the war against terrorism. "I think we are headed toward a big debate in the presidential election of 2004 over a go-it-alone foreign policy versus a more multilateral approach in an era of global terrorism," said Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. From Iraq doves such as Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) to Iraq hawks such as Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), prominent Democrats have escalated their criticism of the president. That is particularly true since the Turkish parliament unexpectedly blocked the deployment of U.S. troops in its country and allies such as France, Germany and Russia banded together to oppose the administration's Iraq policy. "On both sides of this divide, Democrats believe the president has botched the job of rallying the world behind U.S. policy toward Iraq," said Will Marshall of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute. Democratic strategists said criticism of Bush will diminish if and when hostilities in Iraq begin, as the country rallies behind U.S. forces, but they predicted that the argument about Bush's foreign policy leadership style will reemerge as an issue in next year's campaign, even if there is a quick and successful war in Iraq. That assumes Democrats bridge their differences enough to offer voters a clear and consistent message on foreign policy, something that has been markedly absent in recent months. The presidential candidates have sparred over the issue, and the emergence of an antiwar constituency at the grass roots has underscored the sharp split within the party over Iraq. Congressional Democrats have struggled to square their attacks on Bush with their votes in the fall for the resolution authorizing him to go to war. Still, the rising criticism of Bush on foreign policy signals a potentially significant shift in emphasis among Democrats, who had largely avoided attacking the president on his handling of the global war on terrorism after Sept. 11, 2001. As the focus of Bush policy has shifted toward Iraq and as international support for the United States has eroded, Democrats say it is both legitimate and politically safe to challenge Bush on what has been perceived as one of his greatest strengths. Democrats have long criticized the way Bush has dealt with other countries, beginning with the administration's decision to quit the Kyoto global warming accord. But in the past week, as the administration has suffered diplomatic setbacks, Democrats have used some of their toughest language yet to attack the president. Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.), who voted for the congressional resolution authorizing war, said on Thursday that Bush's "failed" diplomacy has left the United States in "a more isolated position than I ever anticipated." And Kennedy has accused Bush of ignoring the dangers of North Korea's nuclear ambitions because of his "fixation" with Hussein. Daschle, Kennedy and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) find themselves at odds with many of their party's presidential candidates over the immediate issue of going to war with Iraq. Lieberman, Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) all say that although a second U.N. resolution would be helpful, its absence should not serve as a deterrent to the administration in disarming Iraq by force, if necessary. But while former Vermont governor Howard Dean has been the most vociferous antiwar voice among the presidential candidates, many of the others who support military action against Iraq have joined in the condemnation of the way Bush has handled the crisis. Lieberman told an audience in New Hampshire recently: "Let's be clear. When more people around the world see the current American president as a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein, then you know something is really wrong with his foreign policy." Kerry, in a statement Thursday, urged Bush to continue to work for a second U.N. resolution, not because it is necessary but because it would strengthen the U.S. hand in whatever follows. "Energetic global leadership is a strategic imperative for America, not a favor we do for other countries," Kerry said. "Leading the world's most advanced democracies isn't mushy multilateralism; it extends our reach." One Democratic strategist said: "I think the party is torn between dealing with a post-9/11 world and its fundamental distrust of this president. Even those that believe Iraq could pose a future threat to the U.S. through the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, even those who support that view are fundamentally uncomfortable about the way this White House has gone about prosecuting that effort." Republicans argue that disarming Iraq will vindicate Bush's approach and that criticism about the administration's diplomacy will fade if the United States drives Hussein from power. Twelve years ago, on the eve of the Persian Gulf War, many Democrats were calling on President George H.W. Bush to give diplomacy more time to work, just as they are doing now, but they quickly lost their voice on foreign policy once the war ended. But Democrats say broader questions about Bush's approach to the world will continue beyond Iraq. "The time horizon here is not the war itself but what happens afterwards," said Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin. "The politics of Iraq will be about the consequences of the war, rather than the war itself; and if one of the consequences is that we not only have to go it alone in fighting the war but in paying the bill in the aftermath of the war, that becomes a problem for the president." © 2003 The Washington Post Company