Parties Throw Sharper Jabs About the War

After mostly ducking debate over Iraq since the 2004 election, both parties are moving to escalate their conflict on two distinct fronts.

Recent attacks from Democrats on the administration’s handling of prewar intelligence -- and forceful counterattacks from President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney -- have rekindled smoldering arguments about why America invaded Iraq.

This week’s Senate debate over the war’s direction -- punctuated by Thursday’s call by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops -- crystallized rising tension over when the U.S. should leave.

One senior GOP strategist said the White House intended to assail Democrats more aggressively on both fronts.

“We are going to fire back, and we are going to keep firing back,” said the strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity while discussing White House planning. “We have a pretty big bully pulpit.... The days of passivity are over, and the days of a free ride for the Democrats in attacking the credibility of the president are over.”

Speaking to reporters traveling with Bush in Asia, White House counselor Dan Bartlett charged that Democrats had crossed a “red line” by accusing Bush of deliberate deception in making the case for war. Bartlett said the White House planned a “sustained” response.

Longtime war critics were encouraged by the signs of a stiffened Democratic challenge to Bush on Iraq, such as the new position taken by the hawkish Murtha, the ranking Democrat on the House defense appropriations subcommittee.

“It looks to me like Democrats are getting on offense with regard to Iraq, and I am hopeful that they are going to stay on offense,” said Eli Pariser, executive director of the political action committee associated with MoveOn.org, the online liberal advocacy group.

On both sides, the renewed hostilities are honing arguments that could reverberate through the 2006 midterm elections and into the 2008 presidential race.

Polls showing continued declines in public support for the war -- and growing doubts about Bush’s trustworthiness -- have fueled the resurgent debate over Iraq.

In a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey released this week, 60% of Americans polled said the war had not been worth the costs -- the highest figure the poll has recorded for this view.

In an ABC/Washington Post survey released earlier this month, 55% said they believed Bush “intentionally misled the American public” in making his case for war -- the worst showing for the president on that question.

Bush “is being squeezed from both sides,” said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. “On the side of the original decision -- ‘Did it make sense to go in the first place?’ as well as on the end game side of, ‘What are we ever going to accomplish there?’ ”

The poll numbers helped spark more Democratic attacks on Bush. And those criticisms strengthened the hand of administration aides arguing for a more confrontational response to the Democrats.

The GOP strategist familiar with White House planning said the debate over how forcefully to counter the Democrats has been settled -- from the top down.

“If there was [hesitation], the ‘let’s fight back’ side has prevailed, and that is certainly the case with the president,” said the strategist. “He’s happy to be fighting back.”

That’s been evident in the last week, as the White House has mounted a media and communications effort that recalls the 2004 presidential campaign.

A week ago, Bush charged that “baseless attacks” on the case for war from Democrats sent “the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America’s will.”

Those remarks stirred angry responses from Democrats, who accused Bush of questioning their patriotism. At a news conference in South Korea on Thursday, Bush denied he was challenging the patriotism of his critics, but reasserted his initial criticism.

It is “patriotic as heck to disagree with the president,” Bush said. “It doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their positions and playing politics.”

Senior administration officials such as Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld reinforced Bush’s message this week with strongly worded speeches attempting to rebut Democratic charges that the administration had misled the country before the war.

The White House’s new aggressiveness has largely won praise from Republicans uneasy about the public souring on the war. “We need to get into the ballgame as Republicans and stand up for our president,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Fox News on Wednesday.

But some independent analysts predict the sharpening exchanges between the two parties are only likely to deepen the public polarization over the war.

“I can’t see how it is going to help [Bush] recover any support among Democrats, or even independents,” said Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University.

Nor is there any sign that the White House counterattack has sapped Democratic enthusiasm for the fight.

“Given the mounting casualties, the public unease, the increasing Republican skepticism within the halls of Congress, Democrats are comfortable having this debate,” said Jim Manley, press secretary for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.

During the Senate’s debate on Iraq this week, Democrats moved toward their clearest break yet with Bush over the war. Although the party’s resolution did not include deadlines for removing U.S. troops, which many liberal activists prefer, it did call on Bush to establish an “estimated timetable” for withdrawal.

That cheered liberals who have long urged Democrats to present a sharper contrast with Bush. “It is a big step in the direction of actually offering an alternative,” Pariser said.

But some Democratic centrists worry that the party may be edging toward positions that could leave it vulnerable to traditional GOP charges that it is soft on defense.

“We need to question [the administration’s] judgment and competence, but not in a way that makes us look weak,” said one Democratic senator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

If the Senate debate demonstrated the growing assertiveness among Democrats on Iraq, it also previewed some of the arguments they may face as they harden their opposition. During the floor debate, several Republican senators charged that even estimated withdrawal timetables could embolden the insurgents and undermine the nascent Iraqi government.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) presented the darkest picture when he charged that a withdrawal timetable could allow Al Qaeda to use a chaotic Iraq as a staging ground for attacks.

“Anyone who believes there would not be a greater probability of our sustaining another 9/11 [attack] on our own soil is kidding themselves,” he said.

With those ominous remarks, Cornyn put a new twist on the administration’s prewar charge that then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein might give Al Qaeda weapons of mass destruction with which to attack the United States.

Before it’s done, the debate over how America should leave Iraq could eerily echo the dispute about how it entered.