Democrats waver in unifying stand against war in Iraq

08/28/2005

Peter Baker and Shailagh Murray,
Washington Post
August 28, 2005

Ed. Note: The GOP is also not unified on the subject of the War in Iraq. There are deep divisons within their Party.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Democrats say a long-standing rift in the party over the Iraq war has grown increasingly raw in recent days, as stay-the-course elected leaders who voted for the war three years ago confront rising impatience from activists and strategists who want to challenge President Bush aggressively to withdraw troops.

Amid rising casualties and falling public support for the war, Democrats of all stripes have grown more vocal this summer in criticizing Bush’s handling of the war. A growing chorus of Democrats, however, have said this criticism should be harnessed to a consistent message and alternative policy—something most Democratic lawmakers have refused to offer.

The wariness, congressional aides and outside strategists said in interviews, reflects a belief among some in the opposition that proposals to force troop drawdowns or otherwise limit Bush’s options would be perceived by many voters as defeatist. Some operatives fear such moves would exacerbate the party’s traditional vulnerability on national security issues.

The internal schism has become all the more evident in recent weeks even as Americans have soured on Bush and the war in poll after poll. Senate Democrats, according to aides, convened a private meeting in late June to develop a cohesive stance on the war and debated every option—only to break up with no consensus.

The rejuvenation of the antiwar movement in recent days after the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq set up camp near Bush’s Texas ranch has exposed the rift even further.

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., broke with his party leadership this month to become the first senator to call for all troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by a specific deadline. Feingold proposed Dec. 31, 2006. In delivering the Democrats’ weekly radio address last weekend, former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, a war hero who lost three limbs in Vietnam, declared that “it’s time for a strategy to win in Iraq or a strategy to get out.”

While critical of Bush, the party’s establishment figures—including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.)—all reject the Feingold approach, reasoning that success in Iraq at this point is too important for the country.

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, who rose to public prominence on an antiwar presidential campaign, said on television this month that it was the responsibility of the president, not the opposition, to come up with a plan for Iraq.

Identity crisis

The internal disarray, according to many Democrats, reflects more than a near-term tactical debate. Some say it reveals a fundamental identity crisis in the post-Sept. 11 world for a party that struggled to move beyond the antiwar legacy of the 1960s and 1970s to reinvent itself as tougher on national security in the 1990s.

But historic fault lines in the party run deep. Along with high gasoline prices, the Iraq war has fed public discontent that is expressing itself as members of Congress tour home districts during the August recess. Democratic officeholders have watched carefully as peace demonstrators—inspired by grieving mother-turned-activist Cindy Sheehan outside Bush’s ranch near Crawford, Texas—staged more than 1,000 candlelight vigils around the country this month.

They also took note of the strong showing of Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq veteran turned war critic who nearly snatched away a Republican House seat in a special election in Ohio this month. House Democratic leaders are recruiting other Iraq veterans to run in next year’s midterm elections.

“It is time to stand up and begin questioning the president’s leadership,” said Steve Jarding, a Democratic consultant who ran the 2001 state campaign of Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, now a potential presidential candidate. “I think the Democrats need to do that ... The American public is ready to say, ‘Enough is enough.’”

“We have to go on the offensive to show the American people that we’re not afraid to disagree,” Feingold said.

He said he believes that an immediate withdrawal does not make military sense but that the public needs reassurance that the Iraq operation is moving purposefully toward completion. “We need to talk in Congress about this more openly and freely,” Feingold said. “There’s a rudderless quality that is making [people] nervous.”

Turning Iraq into a sharply partisan issue, however, carries deep risks for Democrats and the country, some warn. “Credit the Democrats for not trying to pour more gasoline on the fire, even if they’re not particularly unified in their message,” said Michael McCurry, a former Clinton White House press secretary. “Democrats could jump all over them and try to pin Bush down on it, but I’m not sure it would do anything but make things worse. The smartest thing for Democrats to do is be supportive.”

And some argue that Democrats do not need to craft an alternative policy, deeming it better simply to let Bush struggle. “The need for a coherent alternative mattered more when the benefit of the doubt went to the commander in chief,” said Jeremy Rosner of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, a Democratic polling firm. “Now he’s getting to a dicey range of public opinion.”

Still, the Democratic discord has provided solace for Bush advisers at a difficult time. Although Bush’s approval ratings have sunk, the Democrats have gained no ground at his expense. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll in June, just 42 percent of Americans approved of congressional Democrats, a figure even lower than Bush’s.