WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W.
Bush's outline for a path to peace in the Middle East was a
smash hit with conservatives and supporters of Israel, but did
not stop persistent questions about the policy from some
Democrats and potential 2004 challengers.
In unveiling his long-awaited proposal on Monday, Bush
backed a provisional Palestinian state but rebuked President
Yasser Arafat, saying Palestinians must choose new leaders
uncompromised by terror. That prompted an immediate rejection
by Palestinian officials of any call for Arafat to step down.
The speech was cheered by a cross-section of Congress but
there were enough complaints, particularly from some Democrats
considering challenging Bush in 2004, to let the White House
know the president would not get a free ride on the issue.
Several key Democrats said far more work and vision was
needed before the region's intractable violence could be
halted.
"I think it's a step for the sake of a step," said
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, a possible challenger to Bush in
2004 who has led Democratic critics of the administration's
policy in the region.
While many Democrats have urged a renewed focus on domestic
issues -- a supposed Democratic strength -- ahead of the 2002
congressional elections, Democrats led by Kerry have stepped up
criticism of Bush's foreign policy and Middle East approach in
recent months, questioning why he took so long to become
involved.
A day after saying Bush had contributed to the dilemma in
the Middle East by sending mixed signals to every side in the
conflict, Kerry said of Bush's speech: "I'm surprised there
isn't more."
"It's quite extraordinarily lacking in depth," Kerry said,
adding the speech presented an incomplete agenda that focused
too heavily on the Palestinian issue, ignored the peace process
laid out by Secretary of State Colin Powell and provided no
view of what Israel "might or might not do if these steps
aren't taken."
CALLS FOR ACTION House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt, another presidential hopeful, said "leadership requires more than just words; it requires action as well." "I therefore urge the Bush administration to intensify its level of engagement to fundamentally change the situation on the ground," Gephardt said. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, another 2004 Democratic possibility who had been outspoken in urging Bush to step into the fray, said he was disappointed the administration did not send Powell to the region and questioned why elections for a provisional state will wait until the end of the year or beyond. "I don't know why a year. The fire is burning now. It needs to be doused," said Lieberman, the party's 2000 vice presidential nominee and the first Jew to run on a major national ticket. "There needs to be some hope here for peace on both sides and the end of suffering by the populations -- the Palestinians and the Israelis," he said. Some other presidential hopefuls praised the speech, with Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle commending Bush for a "clear and powerful statement of American principles, principles that a number of us have been articulating for several months." But he said it signals "a beginning of a long and difficult process, not the end." Domestic political support runs heavily in Israel's favor, however, and Bush's plan was a smash hit with the Jewish community, normally a bedrock Democratic constituency. The plan spelled out by Bush on Monday was so supportive of Israel "you wonder if the Republicans have a chance for small gains in the Jewish community," said political analyst Stuart Rothenberg. "He's creating a political environment where that would be possible." Rep. Gary Ackerman, of New York, a staunch backer of Israel, called the speech a home run. Conservative Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, the third-ranking House Republican, said Bush showed "strong moral leadership by acknowledging that the the path to peace doesn't run through Arafat's compound."
25 JUN 2002 06:25:31 Some Democrats pose questions on Bush Mideast plan
 |
|||
|
|||