Democrats Moving Warily on Iraq

Roll Call ^ | July 1, 2002 | Ethan Wallison

[xsysmgr]

With military operations against Iraq's Saddam Hussein seemingly inevitable, House Democrats have plunged into a thorny internal debate over whether and how strongly to challenge President Bush as he presses ahead with the war on terror.

The discussion is essentially taking place in the gray area between Congressional prerogative in war matters and the genuine wariness - even dissent - at the left-liberal end of the Democratic Caucus about the president's aims, particularly in Iraq.

Caucus insiders say the debate is likely to produce a relatively innocuous statement about the need to include Congress in deliberations. But it has readied a political minefield for the Democratic leadership, which has played up its firm agreement with the president's actions in a war that has thus far been popularly received by the public.

"I really don't think the leadership wants us to get into [an Iraq debate] right now," said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a moderate who sits on the Appropriations Committee's defense panel. "It's gratuitous. It has no political payoff, and it has plenty of political downside."

Moran's remarks were echoed by one senior Democratic leadership aide, who said, "The president has an advantage on the war, and I don't think we want to spend a lot of time on it - especially when nothing's happening [on the Iraq front] right now."

But efforts to quickly dispose with the Iraq matter have so far been unsuccessful.

Democratic leaders tried to placate concerned Members by scheduling a debate for the party's Caucus meeting last Wednesday. But the event turned into a minor fiasco when a number of lawmakers, apparently not aware that the Caucus was going to hold such a debate, objected to the procedure.

Caucus Chairman Martin Frost (D-Texas) had cited the debate in the notice of the meeting that went out the previous day. But few Members saw it, and many were dismayed to find the discussion limited to 30 minutes and scheduled for the very beginning of the meeting, when there are rarely a significant number of Members present.

Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), for one, called the constricted debate "unconscionable"; others suggested they were being railroaded into supporting a resolution they hadn't seen.

Members had reason to be suspicious. The debate had basically come about because of a successful petition effort by Progressive Caucus co-chairman Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who wanted Democrats to put forward a position on what they believe the president's obligations to Congress should be before any military action is taken in Iraq.

The specter of a vote in Caucus forced the leadership to the bargaining table with Kucinich; the leaders worried that the balloting could put a good segment of the Caucus on record appearing to oppose Bush on Iraq - a development that, Democrats feared, could put the war on terror in play as a political issue.

One Democratic leadership aide suggested the quickie debate in Caucus was essentially a wildly unsuccessful effort to sweep the Iraq matter under the carpet. "This is a very sensitive issue for the Democrats in this election year," the aide said.

A senior Caucus aide disputed that assessment, however, noting that the basic framework for the debate was set at the Caucus meeting the previous week.

"Our goal was to get this in front of Members and have them debate it," the aide said. "And that's what happened.

"It wasn't an attempt to sweep it under the rug. In fact, it was the opposite."

The resolution that reached the Caucus last Wednesday was the product of negotiations put together by Frost and Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.), and spearheaded by Kucinich, Armed Services Committee ranking member Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the International Relations Committee.

A draft of the original resolution, which has been sent back for fine-tuning, makes four stipulations, among them that the war resolution passed in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11 last year "only" authorized the president to use force against "those determined to be responsible" for the terrorist attacks; that President Bush "has not publicly established a credible link between" Iraq and the terrorist attacks; and that Congress "has neither been asked to pass, nor has it passed" a declaration of war against Iraq or authorized the use of force against Saddam's regime.

The statement concludes with a declaration that the Democratic Caucus "insists" the president seek permission from Congress "prior to any new introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities against Iraq."

Democratic sources indicated the main issue is whether the resolution will say the president "should" or "must" get approval from Congress before taking action on Iraq.

Under the Constitution, Congress has the sole authority to declare war. The Vietnam-era War Powers Act further fleshed out that principle, requiring the president to seek authorization from Congress before committing the country to military action abroad.

But the WPA's potential role in the Iraq debate has been ambiguous - in part because of the unknown scope and scale of the military action reportedly being considered by President Bush, and in part because of questions about whether the Congress essentially gave the president a free hand in the war resolution passed last year.

Gephardt spokesman Erik Smith pointed out that some senior Republicans have suggested the White House should consult Congress before taking military action in Iraq, and predicted Democrats would simply say the president should ask for authorization from Congress before moving forward.

"Republicans wouldn't say it publicly, but they probably agree with us," Smith said, while insisting there is no concern among Democrats about the impression that they might be challenging the White House's conduct of the war.

But Moran, for one, disagreed. Citing polls that show the president with high approval ratings and almost universal support on the war, Moran said he expects the Caucus to quash any effort to put forward a resolution.

"I think we don't want to challenge the president on defense and national security," Moran said. Citing the resolution that passed Congress last year, he added, "[Bush has] already got authorization."

McCollum said she has no opinion at this point on how to work out the phrasing in the Caucus resolution. But she said the administration ought to lay out for Congress the process by which the White House plans to share information about war plans, and should take steps to demonstrate "linkage" to the events of last September - an obligation laid out in last year's resolution.

"We need the administration and Congress to be communicating again," McCollum said in an interview on Friday.

Efforts to reach Skelton and Kucinich were unsuccessful. A Skelton aide said the Missouri lawmaker doesn't want to say anything publicly about a resolution until details are finalized.

A Kucinich spokesman, Doug Gordon, also offered no details. Gordon said only that the Ohio Member "believes the Congress has a Constitutional role to play in this."

From the beginning, the Democratic leadership's strategy on the war has been to emphasize that the party stands "shoulder-to-shoulder" with the president in the war on terror; Gephardt has gone so far as to pre-endorse military action to oust Saddam from power.

Democratic strategists say the goal is to neutralize the war as an issue between the parties and thus prevent the November elections from becoming a referendum on its progress - a judgment that at this point would appear to favor Bush and the GOP.

With the conduct of the war off the table, Democratic strategists believe they can shift the political debate to domestic issues, where they poll better than the Republicans.

"Politically, I don't think we want to be having this debate [on Iraq] right now. We want to be talking about prescription drugs," one top Democratic strategist said.

[luvbach1]

Privately most libs are against military action on Iraq but realize their oppositon would redound negatively on them (especially lib Dem politicos). But on DU (Democratic Underground), which is worth monitoring for unvarnished rank-and-file liberal opinion, not only are they against it but they hope for its failure so as to damage Bush. For the majority of them, their visceral hate of Bush and wish for the defeat of his policies far exceed any patriotic feelings for America.

[Dark Wing]

ping

[Mark17]

For the majority of them, their visceral hate of Bush and wish for the defeat of his policies far exceed any patriotic feelings for America.

Well, I don't have any feelings of love for them either, so I wonder how it makes them feel? Actually, I really don't care how it makes them feel.