Posted on 09/14/2002 9:58:44 AM PDT by Darlin'
WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 — A day after President Bush's speech to the United Nations, many Democrats are still tormented and uncertain over Iraq, not ready to give President Bush a blank check to wage war, yet wary about opposing him.The party's dilemma comes after a year in which Democrats tried to hug Mr. Bush closely on the war on terrorism but turn the political debate to domestic issues. Iraq has changed the equation.
As the issue moves to center stage in Congress, many Democrats are showing clear misgivings about Mr. Bush's policy. But their positions are complicated by the fears of prominent Democrats about how the issue could play in the November elections and even in the 2004 campaign.
No one is predicting that Mr. Bush will fail to get bipartisan backing if he seeks Congressional authorization for the use of force. Still, many Democrats are conflicted about where they should stand on a vote that could be one of the most important they have been called on to cast.
In an interview today, Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the majority leader, seemed to symbolize the ferment in his party as he openly wrestled with his position on Iraq.
He ticked off the questions he said were worth asking. What would military action do to the broader war on terrorism? What kind of "governmental organizational presence" would be needed in Iraq if Saddam Hussein were deposed? Would an incursion into a country that had not struck first create a precedent for India to strike Pakistan?
Mr. Daschle bristled at the idea that Congressional Democrats should simply, unquestioningly, fall behind Mr. Bush, saying, "Now we're not going to just blindly say whatever it is you want, you've got." Yet he also indicated he wanted to work with the president to avoid a partisan vote on the use of force, saying, "We would be inclined to work with the administration to see what we could do to fashion a resolution that would accommodate his needs."
Just because Democrats are asking questions, Mr. Daschle added, "it would be unfortunate if people drew from that a premature conclusion that we were opposed to what the president's doing."
More than a decade ago, during the Persian Gulf crisis, the Congressional Democratic leadership openly battled with Mr. Bush's father about the gulf war. Democrats split over the issue, with a majority voting against the resolution that authorized President George Bush to use force.
The war turned out to be an enormous success, and the Democrats found that in debating the issues surrounding it, they had revived old doubts about their strength on national security. Party strategists say it is lost on no one that of the three Democrats who have been on the national ticket since then, Bill Clinton endorsed the war and Al Gore and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut both voted for it.
Some party moderates now warn that the last thing the Democrats can risk after the Sept. 11 attacks is to revive the image of themselves as 1960's war protesters.
"A threshold issue in looking at a president is national security and keeping the country safe," said Al From, the chief executive of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. "The first thing the Democratic nominee for president is going to have to do is assure the American people he will keep the country safe."
Mr. From said that when Mr. Bush finished making his case, "I hope the Democrats will support the president — period."
Democrats with presidential aspirations from the party's center are already starting to do so. Mr. Lieberman said in a Senate speech today, "I intend to work with members of both parties in the Senate and with the White House to draft a Senate resolution that will receive the broadest possible bipartisan support."
A day earlier, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina came out squarely for a regime change in Iraq saying, "The time has come for decisive action."
Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, the House minority leader, who helped lead the fight against Mr. Bush's father on the Gulf War, signaled in a speech earlier this year that this time he was likely to lean toward this President Bush's position.
Yet factors remain, both substantive and political, that pull the party in the opposite direction, lawmakers and their aides said. They include distrust of the Bush administration and its secrecy and misgivings about a war that — given the post-Sept. 11 challenges — could be more complicated than the one 11 years ago.
Also, the Democratic base includes a large peace constituency, particularly in early presidential contest states like Iowa and New Hampshire. Indeed, Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster, predicted that Iraq would fracture the Democrats in 2004.
"I believe there will be a substantial opening for a pro-national health care, antiwar Democrat in New Hampshire in 2004," Mr. McInturff said. "I believe we will end up like in '72 when Ed Muskie found out that the juice in the Democratic Party is the lingering remnants of the antiwar Democrats."
Representative Dennis J. Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, is already running antiwar teach-ins on Capitol Hill. Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said that the war on terror and the unrest in the Middle East had made Iraq a much more complex and problematic situation than in 1991.
"It's almost like a Rubik's cube," Mr. Feingold said. "It's extremely complicated."
The misgivings are not restricted to the party's liberals. Some Democrats who voted with Mr. Bush's father in 1990, and are usually considered hawks, are asking some of the same questions as Mr. Daschle — and worrying about the implications of a war waged unilaterally.
Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said he would like to help Mr. Bush and called Saddam Hussein "an absolute menace."
But he posed pointed questions about the ways a post-Hussein Iraq could fall apart and about who would stabilize it. "I need some ammunition on what do we do after we knock his regime off," Mr. Skelton said. "Will the people dance in the streets or will they be resentful?" he asked. "These are things we need to know. If there's a peacekeeping effort, will we do it by ourselves or will someone do it with us?"
Another tack, taken by Democrats like Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, is to advocate a tough stand against Mr. Hussein, but a multilateral one.
Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, too, has been calling for Mr. Bush to build an international coalition against Mr. Hussein, and says that Congress should not vote on force until the United Nations is given some time to act. Mr. Kerry said war should be the last step — yet warned that he might yet vote for a resolution of force.
Some Democrats say such stands are squarely in their party's tradition of being internationalist. Michael D. McCurry, who had been State Department spokesman and White House press secretary under Mr. Clinton, said Democrats "can't be squishy on security, but they can be tough on what it takes to lead the world."
Mr. McCurry said, "You could stand up and make an argument that it is in America's long-term interest to do this multilaterally, and here's why."
A clear worry for Democrats is how an all-consuming Iraq debate and an October vote could affect them heading into the November elections, when control of the House and Senate is at stake.
Some strategists are advising party leaders to vote on a resolution authorizing the use of force quickly, the better to return the campaign agenda back to the domestic issues that the Democrats consider their strengths. Others say that with public sentiment on Iraq unsettled, they would prefer to put off the vote until after the election so that candidates cannot be attacked for where they stood on the issue.
Representative Martin Frost of Texas, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus who says he is undecided about the use of force, said he had been telling colleagues that "as long as they carefully think about it and have good reasons for their vote, I don't think it will impact the election."
Indeed, some Democratic strategists still say November's races will turn on domestic issues. "People have made a fundamental distinction," said Mark Mellman, a pollster. "They see the president dealing with foreign policy. They see their Congressional vote as dealing with domestic policy."
But others call Iraq a wild card. Fred Yang, a pollster for several Democratic candidates, said the issue was just starting to show up as a concern in polls and focus groups. Mr. Yang speculated that it could produce a "rally-around-the-country phenomenon" that could help incumbents of both parties.
"I think it's a big issue," he said. "I'm just not sure if it will be a big voting issue."
In other words, to not be Democrats...
Since the onset of Clintonism, Democrats have always put themselves (personally) ahead of the nation -- the unique joining of personal and national interests that one always sees in un-democratic regimes of all stripes, i.e. my interest is the national interest.
The difference now is that Bush has manuevered them into the position that they APPEAR that are putting themselves ahead of the nation publicly. It is not hidden under layers of garbage, class-warfare type, issues. It's right out in the open and highlighted for all to see.
That's what's killing the Democrats in this election, and maybe in the next one as well. And to think, it was some dunder-head, drunk frat-boy who manuevered them into this position. ;-}
It is a more a matter of we Republicans not the Republicans . The President needs all Republicans to help make that point and insure that he has a congress he can work with for the next 6 years.
They could still avoid it by coming out in support of the president on the war. For some reason I still don't understand, they don't.
Let's begin with their "questions", shall we? Tell me, if the Democrats had any serious views about foreign policy, if any one of them actually had sincere "objections" to Bush's plans in Iraq, why are we hearing only now about them? If they had qualms with Bush's clear and obvious desire to confront Iraq, why not introduce debate back in January? Why not after Bush spoke at West Point in June?
Can it be more transparent that the Democrats don't care one way or the other whether Iraq gets a nuclear bomb, whether our militant Islamic enemies become stronger and more determined, or even whether the U.N. tries to put the U.S. in serious danger? They have been about as obvious as they can be that they care only about their domestic power. They would trade the security of America and of the international order for their own domestic power. What difference does it make if America is a second-rate power, intimidated by malignant barbarians, if Democrats can increase taxes to their heart's content?
That's why they have paid no attention whatsoever to Bush's clearly stated objectives, objectives stated since last January, until they woke up at the 11th hour. Even now, their "objections" are motivated only because they noticed that Bush might get some political gain from his sincerely motivated defense initiatives, and for no other reason. Rat b*st*rds!
Lest this seem like ranting, just look at this Times article again. The point of this article is to help the Democrats come around gracefully, without looking like they have capitulated opportunistically to the president. That's why the article is about the "debate", as opposed to a more fire-breathing article about Democratic "charges" that Bush's timing is politically motivated. This latter sort of article is what the Times would run if it sensed that Democrats were really serious about opposing Bush, of course. But, like everyone else, the Times can see retreat when it's happening, so we have this article instead. But even this article doesn't pretend the Democrats have real geopolitical concerns. Even this article, printed by their most influential cheerleader, doesn't pretend the Democrats care about anything other than their own domestic political fortunes. And why not? The Democrats don't care about anything else.
This is as plain a demonstration of the Democrats' duplicity and indifference to the strength of the United States as we have seen in in a generation. Yet, we hear relatively little about this. Why?
Yes, I know, because the press agrees with the Democrats about these matters. But what about our side?
What about the slow-witted, flat-footed congressional Republicans? Why aren't they using this opportunity to pound this point home? Now? With attention focussed on the Congress closely, even the press couldn't ignore pointed Republican remarks. So where is Trent Lott, pointing out unmercifully the Democrats' plain opportunism? Why isn't he appearing on television as I write, castigating Democrats for their feckless cynicism? Does anyone think that if the tables were turned Daschle would show any of the hapless Republican tendency to chivalry?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Democrats can only let our country be fatally weakened if we let them. It would be nice, then, if the Republicans took the opportunity to win for once, instead of letting the Democrats escape to pretend they were always on the winning side after all.
Dems don't give a fig about war with Iraq, EXCEPT as it affects their political aspirations.
Dems don't give a sh*t about the country, only about their power. Period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.