Clinton Charges Bush Appeased Iraq Before War

Presumptive Democratic nominee Bill Clinton accused President Bush on Tuesday of following a policy of “appeasement” toward Saddam Hussein in the years before the Gulf War, launching a sharp attack at Bush’s point of greatest political strength--his experience in foreign policy.

Speaking before an audience of Jewish community leaders in Washington and, by satellite, in Los Angeles, Clinton delivered a series of lines certain to please supporters of Israel. He pledged to oppose creation of an independent Palestinian Arab state, to seek closer strategic cooperation with Israel, to help Israel with the cost of resettling emigres from the former Soviet Union and to preserve Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and “an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.”

Clinton had taken each of those positions in the past, but his criticism of Bush’s policy toward Iraq had a new, sharper tone. He backed up his appeasement charge by citing the Administration’s sharing of intelligence with Iraq during the late 1980s, the awarding of agricultural credits to the Iraqi regime and Bush’s opposition to sanctions against Iraq “right up until the eve of (Hussein’s) invasion of Kuwait.”

The Administration “failed to learn from its appeasement of Saddam Hussein” and continues to “ignore the link” between democracy and stability, he said. Now, he added, “the Administration seems poised to repeat that mistake as it casts a blind eye on Syria’s human-rights abuses and on its support for terrorism.”

If elected, Clinton said, his Administration “would never forge strategic relationships with dangerous, despotic regimes.”

Although Clinton has criticized Bush’s pre-war Middle East policy several times in the past, aides said he had not until now used the politically potent charge of “appeasement.”

The escalation of the attack comes as Clinton has moved up in recent polls, giving the Democratic hopeful more leeway to begin going on the offensive against Bush.

Months of bickering between the Administration and Israel, along with complaints last fall by Bush and Secretary of State James A. Baker III about pro-Israel lobbying by Jewish Americans, have alienated many Jewish voters. Democratic strategists hope to build on that alienation, believing that a strong Jewish vote for Clinton could be crucial in several key states, including New York and California.

More broadly, strategists for both Clinton and independent candidate Ross Perot believe that Bush’s dealings with Iraq could be the weak point in what is otherwise the President’s one great remaining strength--voters’ image of him as a tested and experienced leader in foreign affairs.

Bush himself already has seemed sensitive about such attacks. At a political fund-raiser in Michigan Monday night, he complained about “a lot of revisionists running around Washington, D.C.,” saying that “something was wrong” with his Middle East policy. “They are crazy,” Bush said.

When the election comes, Bush added, “people are going to say: To whom do you trust the national security of our great country?” He said he is confident voters will answer with his name.

As they attempt to dent that image, both Clinton and Perot have used Bush’s support for Iraq prior to the Gulf War as their Exhibit A. Moreover, congressional Democrats have begun pushing for a special counsel to investigate some aspects of the Administration’s dealings with Iraq.

Clinton coupled his criticism of the Administration’s Iraq policy with repeated blasts at Bush’s dealings with Israel. “I am deeply concerned by the damage done by the Bush Administration” to U.S.-Israeli relations, he said.

Bush “has pressured Israel to make one-sided concessions in the peace process” and has “held hostage” thousands of Jewish emigres from the former Soviet Union by refusing to grant loan guarantees Israel has sought to help pay for resettling them, he said.

With Bush now seeking to improve relations with Israel, “the Administration will spend the next four months hoping you will forget the last four years,” Clinton said. “But we cannot forget the cold shoulder--and even the back of its hand--the Administration gave to Israel.”

Promising closer strategic and economic cooperation with Israel, Clinton floated a new proposal to establish a joint American-Israeli high-tech commission that would sponsor joint research and development efforts on new projects, a step that could increase U.S. exports to Israel, he contended.

He also pledged closer strategic cooperation with Israel, saying that he would place U.S. military supplies in Israeli depots to be available in case of emergency--a plan that the Administration talked about during and after the Gulf War but later abandoned.

Clinton stopped short of embracing all causes advocated by pro-Israel groups. He would not move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, he told a questioner, saying that to do so now would damage peace efforts. He also refused to commit himself to granting clemency to Jonathan Jay Pollard, a Jewish American convicted in 1986 of spying for Israel, saying only that he would “review the case” if elected.

Overall, however, the speech marked a major effort to consolidate his support among Jewish voters. Clinton even spoke of a death-bed conversation he had with his former pastor, Dr. W. O. Vaught--a man who had great influence over him, and a man he seldom talks about in public.

As Vaught lay dying of cancer a few years ago, Clinton told the crowd, “he sent for me, and he spoke of Israel.” Vaught, he said, told him that he expected one day Clinton might run for President and wanted him to know “God will never forgive you if you let Israel down.”