Al Hunt has a nice column about the Dems and Iraq in today's Wall Street Journal. On the assumption that the WSJ makes their columns available to the world through their online service, I'll post the text here.
Hunt has a small table in the article dividing the Dems by their vote for/against the first Gulf War. I see the table will not make it through. The short of it is that the only Dems on the list that voted against sanctions and for an invasion were Al Gore and Joe Lieberman. The remaining names on the list voted in favor of sanctions starting with, on the list again, Sam Nunn. That's a bit surprising to me.
POLITICS & PEOPLE
By AL HUNT
Iraq: Where Have All
The Democrats Gone?
online.wsj.com
On a television program last weekend, I asked John Podesta why the current debate over Iraq was dominated by Republicans with Democrats mainly bystanders.
We are "a little bit bemused at . . . the Freudian psychodrama that's been going on between Bush 41 and Bush 43," replied the former Clinton chief of staff, quickly adding that the Democrats are "talking about a different kind of regime change, one that deals more with the president's economic team."
NO FALLOUT
Democratic vote in 1991 Gulf War resolution.
For Against
Al Gore
Joe Lieberman Sam Nunn
Bill Bradley
Dick Gephardt
John Kerry
Joe Biden
Tom Daschle
That has been the Democratic posture on the emerging debate over war in Iraq: Let Republicans fight it out. Iraq is important, noted Sen. Edward Kennedy, but "we can't let it replace the domestic agenda." This view is unacceptable; the stakes are too large.
The Democrats confidently expect to benefit in the November elections. With concern soaring about health care, corporate corruption and the economy, the president wants to cushion the blow from recent stock market declines; never mind that the market has more than doubled since 1993 when the Clinton administration increased taxes.
With the economy still stalling the Bush answer is -- this isn't a tough one -- more tax cuts tilted to the wealthy. These expected initiatives would exacerbate the fiscal plight of the federal and state governments and not do much to boost the economy or stock markets. But it's his one-size-fits-all panacea. Want to eradicate the West Nile virus? Cut capital gains taxes.
On foreign policy, once considered this administration's forte, the daily sniping reveals a national security team even more divided than the George Shultz-Cap Weinberger conflict 20 years ago; with Iraq the stakes are higher. The president broke no new ground in meeting with congressional leaders yesterday, but may in a United Nations speech next week.
But other than a few like Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Biden, who has launched hearings, and former Clinton U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who laid out a strategic, multinational approach, what is the Democratic take on Iraq? There should be a congressional resolution, a full-scale debate and consideration of consequences. Yet the president says he will take the issue to Congress (a political, and probably a constitutional, requirement); there already is a debate raging, and who's against weighing the consequences?
We're getting Democratic doublespeak. Former Vice President Al Gore says he's all for "the overthrow of Saddam," but "the principle of 'first things first' does apply." North Carolina Sen. John Edwards thinks Americans will support "whatever action is necessary," but argues it'd be "very helpful" to have the support of Saudi Arabia. House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt says he shares "President Bush's resolve to confront this menace head-on," but later says the president has not made the case.
The Democrats' timidity is unnecessary even politically. There was a heated debate in 1991 over the Gulf War and most Democrats -- including Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle -- opposed the first Bush administration's war plans. President Bush waged a highly successful and quick -- if abbreviated -- war, threw Saddam out of Kuwait, and not a single Democrat suffered from their position.
Moreover, to suggest Democrats cannot stake out a position on Iraq and still focus on Mr. Bush's domestic weaknesses is to ignore history; you can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Iraq poses two potentially grave risks: Sending hundreds of thousands of young American men and women into harm's way, destabilizing important allies, then requiring a lengthy and costly occupation of Iraq -- former Reagan Navy Secretary Jim Webb charged that occupation would weaken America's security interests elsewhere, and for decades America would have "50,000 terrorist targets." Or we allow a genuinely evil despot to continue to develop lethal weapons which, under the best case, he would use as dangerous political leverage in a strategically critical region. Top Democrats need to come down in one of three camps:
• Containment: A few Democrats like maverick Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich oppose any conflict with Iraq. The more likely position will be "we have Saddam in a box," for more than 11 years he has been too weak to pose a threat to his neighbors, and the only way he'll use weapons of mass destruction is if attacked. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin is headed here.
• Coalitionists: This is the Holbrooke (and the Jim Baker) position: The road to Baghdad leads through the United Nations and the U.S. must try to assemble international support. Mr. Holbrooke believes it's politically critical to seek an unconditional, no-notice resumption of U.N. inspectors in Iraq. If this is blocked in the U.N., or if Saddam then thwarts this initiative -- one of which Mr. Holbrooke finds inevitable -- then the U.S. would have more standing when it attacks Iraq. Soon Sen. John Kerry, one of the few Democrats willing to criticize the administration's national security team, which he considers unfocused, will take a similar stand. The decorated Vietnam veteran will argue domestic and international legitimacy are essential before going to war.
• Confrontationists: The case was outlined by Vice President Cheney last week that any effort to appease Saddam would pose more of a risk. As for international support, the hawks approvingly cite Don Rumsfeld's argument that "leadership in the right direction finds followers and supporters." Look for Sen. Joe Lieberman to be in this camp.
More than a few Democratic politicians really believe that George W. Bush is over his head in this critical debate, that political guru Karl Rove carries as much weight as Don Rumsfeld or Colin Powell. Far more than his oft-maligned predecessor, they argue the Bush presidency, pandering to the social right on hot button issues, or protectionist sentiment in important electoral states, is driven by political calculations.
Maybe. But that's a tough case to make if you're MIA on the biggest issue of the day. |
