http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1957167
A dead end for the Democrats Jul 31st 2003 >From The Economist print edition George Bush's opponents are attacking him from the wrong side REMEMBER those days when American foreign policy was a bipartisan affair -- and most Democrats could be counted on to line up behind George Bush over Iraq? That was another age. The new frontrunner for the party's presidential nomination is Howard Dean, a maverick former governor of Vermont whose main attraction to the party faithful is his undiluted opposition to the Iraq war. Most of his establishment rivals have followed him down this path, drawn on by the president's declining popularity. Dick Gephardt rails against Mr Bush's "utter disregard for diplomacy". John Kerry, another supporter of the war in Congress, is also now throwing everything he can at the president. Like Tony Blair, Mr Bush is under fire for supposedly sexing up the claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Democrats' favourite stick to beat Mr Bush is the now famous 16 words in his state-of-the-union address about Saddam Hussein trying to buy uranium from Niger -- something American intelligence says was untrue. Last weekend, Senator Bob Graham, another presidential candidate, talked about impeachment. Only Joe Lieberman has defended the war stoutly; coincidentally or not, his campaign is in the dumps. Our sympathies are with Mr Lieberman -- and not just because this newspaper supported the war. The Democrats' attacks on Mr Bush seem misguided, both in principle and tactically. And it so happens that, if they gave the matter any thought, they would find they had much better grounds than these for criticising Mr Bush. Focusing on the 16 words seems particularly foolish. Here is what Mr Bush actually said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". Well, the British stand by that judgment. If the CIA thought the British were wrong, it was a mistake for the White House to include their claim in the state-of-the-union speech (and the White House has admitted as much). But it hardly seems an impeachable lie -- or any kind of lie. Just as Mr Blair must be happy that his persecutors made so much of the "45-minute claim" about Iraqi preparedness, Mr Bush must be relieved that the Democrats are running TV-ads about Niger: these narrow charges distract attention from the broader criticism to which both governments might otherwise be vulnerable. There is evidence, for instance, that the White House was extremely selective in the intelligence that it cited about WMD, and even more so in its claims about the links between Saddam and al-Qaeda, an area the Democrats have largely ignored. Yet, even here, the Democrats would be wise to tread carefully, for three reasons. First, America had several excellent motives for removing Saddam Hussein -- and WMD was only one of them. Even with American troops dying and no WMD found, most Americans think that toppling Saddam was a success. Second, most people, including the intelligence agencies of European governments, believed at the time that those weapons existed. Third, it is still likely that evidence of WMD programmes will be found. Due to Mr Bush's poor decision to let the searching be done by American inspectors (something the Democrats again could have made more noise about), many of America's allies will regard any such discoveries as suspect. Most Americans will trust them. Look to the future, not the past With the American people already favouring the Republicans by wide margins on issues such as homeland security and national security, the Democrats' grandstanding could rebound horrifically at the polls next year. But there is more at stake than just party politics. By concentrating on the causes of war rather than its aftermath, the Democrats are doing the rest of the world a disservice. America's attempt to rebuild Iraq requires more troops and money than Mr Bush (or his party) seems willing to send there. It also requires the United Nations to play a stronger role.something conservative Republicans wrongly dislike. Mr Kerry, to be fair, has begun to make this case. With the Democratic rank and file screaming for the troops to be brought home, greater involvement in Iraq would be a bold cause for any Democratic presidential candidate to embrace. It is the right policy, nonetheless -- and if Democrats hope to be taken seriously they ought to be pressing for it. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
