Democratic contenders for president are beginning
to challenge President
Bush's record on terrorism, arguing that Mr.
Bush has failed to do enough
to prevent another fatal attack on American soil
and that the nation is barely
safer than it was before Sept. 11, 2001.
The expressions of concern about the nation's
safety by Mr. Bush's prospective
challengers, voiced in interviews, speeches and
television appearances over the
last three weeks, suggest that the focus of the
Democratic White House candidates
i n 2004 will go well beyond the traditional
Democratic fare of education, the
economy, jobs and health care.
While so far the criticisms lack many specifics
beyond asking for more money
for police agencies or the creation of an additional
intelligence force, campaign
aides said these early challenges on terrorism
signaled what they expected to be
a central theme in 2004. They argued that Mr.
Bush was potentially vulnerable
on the issue that Republicans view as a pillar
of the president's political strength.
"It's time for us, without regard to party, to
say what every American knows:
Washington is not doing enough to make America
safe," Senator John Edwards
of North Carolina said in a speech on domestic
security in Washington last week.
"If the administration continues to do too little,
it will be too late again."
Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut said
the "American people are
only slightly safer today here at home than we
were on Sept. 11, 2001."
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said in an
interview that the administration
had squandered a year since the attacks, by failing
to make "the preparations
necessary to properly deal with an obvious problem
of growing terror and the
threat at home."
Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont said Democrats "have
a real opportunity here,"
noting in particular what he described as the
administration's bungling response
to the rash of anthrax attacks.
Mr. Lieberman said: "With the possible exception
of the aviation systems,
we have not raised our guard sufficiently. This
administration has been slow
and inadequate in the response to the terrorist
threat here at home."
White House officials described this line of attack
as risky and unorthodox,
with some suggesting that it would make the candidates
appear willing to
exploit American fears for political gain.
"Any candidate who suggests that when the enemy
attacks, the blame lies
with the United States and not with the enemy
does so at great peril to
their own political future," said the White House
spokesman, Ari Fleischer.
Still, it is becoming increasingly clear that
the dialogue of the coming
presidential race will be unlike any other White
House campaign in
years, as a direct result of the attacks of Sept.
11.
Several Democrats predicted a fundamental shift
in the way presidential
candidates would have to present themselves in
the 2004 campaign. They
said polls showed that the voters would now consider
a presidential
candidate's ability to protect them from terrorism
at home in much the
same way voters in a big city might now consider
a mayoral candidate's
ability to stop crime in their neighborhoods.
"This is clearly going to be one of the cornerstones
of the 2004 election
- I don't think there is any question about it,"
said Steve Jarding, a senior
adviser to Mr. Edwards. "Every campaign cycle,
you see candidates talk
about education, talk about health care. And
I guess for better or worse,
terrorism is going to be a part of that dialogue
from now on."
The contenders have offered a few, though not
many, details on what they
would do differently. Mr. Edwards, for example,
urged creation of a domestic
intelligence agency with the specific directive
to work against terrorism at home,
making up for what he asserted were the now-demonstrated
weaknesses of
the F.B.I. and C.I.A.
Mr. Kerry and Mr. Lieberman assailed the administration
for holding up
$1.5 billion in antiterrorism aid to local police
departments and emergency
agencies allocated by Congress this year, and
Mr. Lieberman said the
White House should move aggressively to improve
protection of borders,
ports and transportation systems, which he described
as vulnerable to attack.
None of the Democrats have suggested, for example,
further incursions on
civil liberties or immigration, in some cases
arguing that the administration has
gone too far.
In a reflection of these difficult times, aides
to the contenders said they were
planning their campaigns with the assumption
that another terrorist attack could
happen at any moment and discreetly trying to
assess what that might mean for
a continuing contest.
"If something else horrible happens, does the
nation instinctively rally around the
president?" asked a senior adviser to one contender,
who did not want to be
identified because of the delicacy of the subject.
"Or do they say: `It's this guy's
job keep my family safe. He's had two years to
prepare for it.' "
Along those lines, aides suggested that some statements
by the White House and
the Democratic candidates were intended in part
to position the campaigns in the
event of a terrorist attack over the next 24
months.
Mr. Kerry, for example, declared three weeks ago
on the NBC News program
"Meet the Press" that there were "enormous gaps
and deficits in the preparedness
level of our country," while Mr. Bush and his
aides have repeatedly warned that
another attack is possible.
Former President Bill Clinton pointed the way
to this new Democratic line of
criticism in a speech in New York a month ago,
in which he said the Democrats
needed to directly challenge the Bush administration
on terrorism. Mr. Clinton is
in regular touch with some of the presidential
contenders, particularly Mr. Edwards,
though aides to Mr. Edwards said he had decided
on his own to make this a central
part of his campaign.Republicans said they were
startled by the brazenness of the
Democratic attacks, and suggested they would
have little effect.
"It's a very tricky play because you're going
to try to assign blame," said Russ Schriefer,
a Republican consultant. "It's almost like you're
trying to make political hay out of a disaster."
Even Democrats said they had to be careful not
to be perceived as in effect hoping for
a terrorist attack, in much the same way that
the administration painted the party as
rooting for an economic downturn this past fall.
Dr. Dean warned that his party had to be careful
about a backlash in confronting
this issue, and said that some of his fellow
Democrats had already crossed a line,
though he declined to name names. "It depends
on how shrill we are," Dr. Dean said.
"Some of the candidates have sounded shrill."
Some Democrats said antiterrorism preparations
at home had stalled because
Mr. Bush had been distracted by the preparations
for a war in Iraq, and took
note of concerns cited by intelligence agencies
that an attack against Iraq would
result in terrorism reprisal attacks in the United
States.
"The combined intelligence community says that
there is a 75 percent or better chance
that there will be terrorist attacks against
United States interests, including inside the
United States, when a war against Iraq is about
to achieve success," said Senator
Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, who said he was
considering a presidential race.
"When there has been such a lethargic effort made
to protect the America people
by dismantling those international groups, both
here in the homeland and in their
headquarters, I think the administration has
assumed a very serious potential risk."
While, for the most part, this is a fight between
President Bush and the
Democrats, there are some differences among the
Democratic presidential
contenders as well. In offering his criticism
of the administration,
Mr. Lieberman noted that he had been a sponsor
of the act creating the
Homeland Security Department in Congress.
But Mr. Edwards belittled the new cabinet department,
describing it as
"more of a political achievement for the administration
than a substantive
achievement for America's security."