WASHINGTON: Former Vice President Al Gore has sharply challenged President George W. Bush on Iraq, warning that the administration's apparent determination to launch military action to dislodge Saddam Hussein will "severely damage" the overall war on terrorism and "weaken" U.S. leadership in the world.

In one of the most forceful critiques to date by any leading Democrat, Gore on Monday challenged the administration's new doctrine of preemption, and gave voice to critics who question the political timing of the administration's push for quick action in Congress and the United Nations. Gore also said Bush has set his sights on getting rid of Saddam because the hunt for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda terrorists has bogged down.

Gore, who lost to Bush in the 2000 presidential election, said Bush's concentration on Iraq has squandered the worldwide support engendered by the attacks of last Sept. 11 and turned the United States into a focus of "anger and apprehension" around the world.

"By shifting from his early focus after Sept. 11 on war against terrorism to war against Iraq, the president has manifestly disposed of the sympathy, goodwill and solidarity compiled by America and transformed it into a sense of deep misgiving and even hostility," he said.

Gore's speech, the text of which was made available in Washington, came as work continued in Congress and at the UN on resolutions that would authorize Bush to use force to remove Saddam from power. White House officials were negotiating with Democrats and Republicans over the language of the resolution, which Gore called far too broad. Debate could begin next week.

Bush, on a campaign trip to New Jersey, renewed his call for quick action at the United Nations on a tough resolution aimed at disarming Saddam, saying this case would show whether the UN is still relevant. But former President Jimmy Carter said he was "deeply concerned" about administration policy, calling it "a radical departure" from 50 years of tradition by Republican and Democratic presidents. Carter said the shift represented "a great danger to our country."

Gore's remarks, delivered before the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, put him at odds with many of the other possible 2004 Democratic presidential candidates, who have been generally to strongly supportive of Bush on Iraq. Until Monday, only Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts and Governor Howard Dean of Vermont have offered notable dissent, although Kerry has left open the possibility of voting for the resolution in Congress.

Gore was silent on Iraq as the debate over Bush's policy heated up at the United Nations and in Congress, although he has been hawkish on the subject of Saddam. In 1991, Gore was among the few Democrats in the Senate to vote for a resolution authorizing President George H.W. Bush to go to war against Iraq.

In a speech in February, he contended that the war on terrorism would not be completed without a "final reckoning" with Saddam.

On Monday, he made clear that he believes Bush was rushing too rapidly to confront Saddam and argued that, without broad international support, Bush's policy could have disastrous consequences for the United States and the world.

"I am deeply concerned that the policy we are presently following with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century," the former vice president said.

Gore chided the administration for its failure to stay the course in Afghanistan and in the hunt for the terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. "I do not believe that we should allow ourselves to be distracted from this urgent task simply because it is proving to be more difficult and lengthy than predicted," he said. "Great nations persevere and then prevail. They do not jump from one unfinished task to another."

Saddam, he said, "does pose a serious threat" to stability in the Gulf, and Gore acknowledged that there was no international law that prevented the United States from acting, even unilaterally, if there was a choice "between law and survival." But he added, "Such a choice is not presented."

3 ex-generals disagree with Bush

Eric Schmitt of The New York Times reported from Washington:

Three retired four-star American generals say that attacking Iraq without a UN resolution supporting military action could limit aid from allies, energize recruiting for Al Qaeda and undermine the United States' long-term diplomatic and economic interests.

"We must continue to persuade the other members of the Security Council of the correctness of our position, and we must not be too quick to take no for an answer," General John Shalikashvili, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Monday.

The testimony by the officers came on a day when those who appear to be rushing toward a military confrontation with Saddam and those who advocate more caution were raising their voices in support of their positions.

In their testimony before the Senate committee, the officers, including General Wesley Clark, a former NATO military commander, and General Joseph Hoar, a former chief of the U.S. Central Command, said the United States should retain the right to act unilaterally to defend its interests.

But the three decorated commanders said that the Bush administration must work harder to exhaust all diplomatic options before resorting to unilateral military action to remove Saddam and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction that Iraq might have.

"It's a question of what's the sense of urgency here, and how soon would we need to act unilaterally?" said Clark, an army officer who commanded allied forces in the 1999 Kosovo air war. "So far as any of the information has been presented, there is nothing that indicates that in the immediate next hours, next days, that there's going to be nuclear-tipped missiles put on launch pads to go against our forces or our allies in the region."

A fourth military leader, Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney, the former assistant vice chief of staff of the air force, offered a different opinion, saying the United States should act quickly in Iraq. "We should not wait to be attacked with weapons of mass destruction," he said.