[Peace-discuss] The WP on the Democrats (and the war)

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Even the Washington Post (and the Democrats) are noticing
that there's something wrong with this war.  Note that the
Clinton wing of the party promotes the war: the Clintinoid
Michael McCurry recommends that the Democrats "be supportive,"
while another, Ill. Rep. Emanuel, works to co-opt the growing
anti-war sentiment. Perhaps surprisingly, the most accurate
(if elementary) comment comes from Sen. Kennedy, at the end.
--CGE]

   Democrats Split Over Position on Iraq War
   Activists More Vocal As Leaders Decline To Challenge Bush
   By Peter Baker and Shailagh Murray
   Washington Post Staff Writers
   Monday, August 22, 2005; A01

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, has 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 last week, 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
last week 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to be withdrawn from Iraq by a specific deadline.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 yesterday, former senator Max Cleland (Ga.), 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."

Although critical of Bush, the party's establishment figures
-- including Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), Sen.
Joseph R. Biden Jr. (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 a week ago that it was the responsibility of the
president, not the opposition, to come up with a plan for Iraq.

"Clearly Democrats are not united in what is the critique of
what we're doing there and what is the answer to what we do
next," said Steve Elmendorf, a senior party strategist whose
former boss, then-House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt
(Mo.), voted in 2002 to authorize the invasion of Iraq. "The
difficulty of coming to a unified position is that for a lot
of people who voted for it, they have to decide whether they
can admit that they were misled."

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, 2001, 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 war has fed public discontent that
is expressing itself as members of Congress tour their home
districts during the August recess. Democratic officeholders
watched carefully last week as peace demonstrators -- inspired
by grieving mother-turned-activist Cindy Sheehan outside
Bush's ranch near Crawford, Tex. -- staged more than 1,000
candlelight vigils across the country.

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 now 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 R. Warner,
now a potential presidential candidate. "I think the Democrats
need to do that. . . . The American public is ready to say,
'Enough is enough.' "

Feingold said, "We have to go on the offensive to show the
American people that we're not afraid to disagree." He said
that he believes 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."

The potency of antiwar sentiment within the party's base could
be seen in the enthusiasm expressed for Feingold among liberal
Internet bloggers in the days after he made his withdrawal
proposal. Unscientific Internet polls showed support rising
for a Feingold presidential run in 2008.

Liberal bloggers have lambasted the party leadership for
missed opportunities. When the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee conducted a confirmation hearing for Bush confidante
Karen Hughes, tapped as the next undersecretary of state for
public diplomacy, not a single Democrat showed up to grill her
on administration policy.

"Excuse me, but do you ENJOY being in the minority?"
complained an entry that day on Think Progress, the blog for
the Center for American Progress, a think tank run by former
Clinton White House chief of staff John D. Podesta. While
publicly quiet, Podesta has been one of many influential
voices behind the scenes calling for a louder, more frequent
drumbeat on the war, along with members of a national security
group that advises congressional Democrats.

Turning Iraq into a sharply partisan issue, however, carries
deep risks for Democrats and the country, others 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 on his own. "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.

Republican strategists chortle at the Democrats' inability to
fashion a coherent message on the war. The Republican National
Committee on Friday released a series of contrasting
Democratic statements on troop withdrawals. "Instead of
attacking our president's resolve," RNC spokeswoman Tracey
Schmitt said in a statement, "Democrats might want to focus on
the debate within their own party."

One problem for Democrats is that even when they do speak up
about Iraq, they draw little attention. In late June,
congressional Democrats and Republicans spent three evenings
on the House floor reading the names of the 1,719 soldiers who
had died in the war to that point. In July, Democrats wrote a
stern letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanding
more details about White House plans for Iraq and released a
comprehensive study of administration failures to meet
reporting requirements on the war.

It was all drowned out by the president's Supreme Court
nomination, the London bombings and other news. "Many of us
are talking about the war, talking about the costs," said Rep.
Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee, who is leading the effort to recruit Iraq
veterans to run next year.

Some Democrats suspect the Iraq debate will escalate once
Congress reconvenes after Labor Day. Senate Democrats said
they would push to revive the Defense Department authorization
bill, shelved by Republican leaders before the break in
anticipation of a blizzard of Democratic amendments, many
addressing the Iraq war.

"The American people are much farther ahead in their thinking
about the war than the White House or the Republican
Congress," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.). "They
understand we can't continue down this same failed course in
Iraq."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company