ASHINGTON, April 1 — The Bush administration's war policy is coming under steady criticism, but not from Democrats in Congress, where the opposition party has been remarkably silent.Posted on 04/01/2003 10:38:13 PM PST by JohnHuang2
ASHINGTON, April 1 — The Bush administration's war policy is coming under steady criticism, but not from Democrats in Congress, where the opposition party has been remarkably silent.
Except for a few persistent voices, Democratic lawmakers are holding their tongues on the war in Iraq, allowing generals to take the lead in challenging Pentagon planners while they avoid taking positions they fear could invite Republican retaliation.
The decision by House and Senate Democrats — and, to a lesser extent, some presidential candidates — reflects a belief that most of the nation remains firmly behind the war, along with the traditional inclination by political leaders not to second-guess a president's foreign policy while the nation is engaged in battle.
But Democrats say they are responding, as well, to the politically damaging storm that broke around Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the minority leader, after he said on the eve of the war that Mr. Bush's diplomatic efforts had been a failure. Since then, Mr. Daschle has been thrashed by Republican and conservative leaders in Washington and, not incidentally, back home in South Dakota, where he faces re-election next year.
What is more, several Democrats said they were reluctant to criticize the war two weeks into it, particularly amid what some see as signs that it might not be going well for the administration, a perception underlined by the daily television narration of the war by mostly retired generals.
"Democrats don't need to do any criticism of the Bush administration right now," said Jenny Backus, a Democratic Party consultant with close ties to Congress. "The unnamed generals are doing that job for us."
So it is that most Congressional Democrats, including members who voted against the resolution last year that gave Mr. Bush authority to move against Iraq and opposed the policy until the bombing in Baghdad began, have muffled any reservations they have.
"We had a very vigorous debate," said Senator Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who was an opponent of the Iraq resolution. "Now the president is executing the war."
Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, acknowledged that Democrats were being extremely cautious in their remarks, but said that there was good reason for it.
"I think in time of war the first instinct is to be supportive of the troops in the field," Mr. Reed said. "You think, How is it going to play with the soldiers doing their job. I think that is our overriding concern."
Speaking of what some see as Republican intimidation, another Democratic senator said: "There is a view that these guys play hardball. They do not brook dissent."
There is no better example of that than Mr. Daschle, who went almost overnight from being a leading Senate critic of Mr. Bush's war policy to being, by all appearances, a strong supporter.
Since March 17, when Mr. Daschle said Mr. Bush's diplomatic failures had helped cause the war, he has been nothing but complimentary. Today, he again sidestepped a question about whether the administration had misjudged resistance, saying there would be time later for such an examination.
"I think our troops are doing an absolutely superb job," Mr. Daschle said. "We get briefed daily, and I am struck by the extraordinary professionalism that is demonstrated each and every day."
Allies of Mr. Daschle and other Congressional Democrats insist that they are not cowed by the prospect of a tough Republican response and that Mr. Daschle was treated unfairly. His aides said he would not hesitate to speak out if events warranted.
The change in tone has not been lost on Republican leaders, who showed that they were willing to take off the gloves at the first sign of a break with the president.
"It is hard for me to get into their heads," said the House majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas, who was among those who flayed Mr. Daschle, as he looked at the Democratic strategy today. "What I have noticed is the rhetoric has toned down considerably, which I greatly appreciate."
Democratic lawmakers and strategists say it makes sense to stay mum when the war plan is under fire from senior military officers, former commanders and establishment Republicans. Charges from those quarters carry much more weight than partisan carping from Capitol Hill, where some members are willing to concede a lack of military expertise.
"It is clearly not going as some had anticipated," Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, said. "Why that is and who is at fault I am not competent to judge."
The conflict with Iraq has confounded the Democrats politically for months as they have struggled with how to respond to the president and the Republicans on the issue. Their approach for the moment appears to be to stay silent and see how events unfold and to use the debate over domestic security financing as a proxy, accusing the administration of shortchanging safety and forcing local governments to pick up the bill.
Democrats also say the Republican effort to muffle dissent has been scurrilous, a strategy of impugning the patriotism of people who dare speak out against administration policy. Some critics suggest that the party has not been aggressive enough in fighting that idea, limiting Democrats' ability to weigh in.
"Until the leadership of the party is willing to say, `Don't tell me that I can't be for the troops and against the war,' nothing will change," said Representative Jose E. Serrano, Democrat of the Bronx.
Representative Charles B. Rangel of Manhattan was the latest Democrat to find himself on the receiving end of Republican and conservative attacks after suggesting last week on a Fox News program that Iraqi women and children were being bombed in the effort to overthrow President Saddam Hussein.
That touched off a harsh exchange on the program and set the telephones ringing in his Congressional office. On conservative Web sites, Mr. Rangel's remark was portrayed as near treasonous, and he was savaged on the weekend talk shows. But Mr. Rangel, who said he faced no political risk, because his constituents share his views, said he would not be silenced.
"I am not going to stop," he said today. "There is nothing so important to me than the taking of life."
D.C. Democrats: Treasonous bastards.
The grandstanding by these retired generals during wartime is disgusting.
It seems that these retired generals(especially McAffrey) are mostly concerned in becoming Katie Couric's and other liberals in the media newest bestest friends by bashing Bush and Rumsfeld.
You are right Barney!
With G.O.P.'s Surge to Control Comes Weight of Responsibility. For all the jubilation in Republican circles, there was a sobering thought as the party prepared to take control of Congress: Now they are responsible. For it all. By Robin Toner and Carl Hulse.
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.