Democrats’ Iraq Gap Narrows, Clinton Says

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said Friday that this month’s congressional debates had narrowed Democratic divisions on the war in Iraq, and she charged that Senate Republicans had “abdicated” their responsibility to question President Bush’s management of the conflict.

Clinton, who recently was booed by antiwar activists at a liberal conference, acknowledged that differences remained within the party on Iraq. But she said the Senate resolution Democrats offered this week that called on Bush to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by year’s end provided the basis for a greater party consensus.

Republican opposition derailed the resolution, but Clinton said she believed Democrats were “more united” after the debate.

“I actually think we have come out for a more effective road map to the goal that all of us want, which is a successful outcome -- an Iraqi government that can govern itself, keep its country together, and fend off insurgents and sectarian violence,” Clinton told reporters after a speech at the annual conference of NDN, an advocacy group formerly known as the New Democrat Network.

Clinton has opposed a firm timetable for complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. But, like many Democratic senators, she moved closer to critics of the war by supporting a resolution, sponsored by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.), that urged Bush to start troop redeployment.

On Friday, she said the measure showed Democrats coalescing around a message that seeks “success in Iraq” but stresses that the Iraqi government must understand “it cannot have an open-ended, unconditional commitment from the United States.”

Clinton’s remarks underscored a surprising turn in the high-profile discussions about Iraq that occurred in the Senate this week and in the House last week.

Republicans, who encouraged the debates, generally believe the encounters strengthened their position for the 2006 election by highlighting disagreements among Democrats and identifying the party with a call for troop withdrawals that the GOP derided as a retreat from the global fight against terrorism.

“Our position was clear: Arbitrary timetables before getting the job done in Iraq not only makes all the sacrifices and service in vain but is also taking a step back in the war on terror,” said Brian Nick, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. “As opposed to that, you had a Democrat mixed message ranging ... from ‘cut and run’ to ‘cut and jog’ or ‘cut and walk.’ ”

But as the debates proceeded, congressional Democrats were heartened that their party increasingly was identified with a call for changing direction whereas almost all congressional Republicans stood behind a policy of unconditionally staying the course in Iraq.

Many Democrats maintain that by the November election, Republicans could regret their decision to harden their association with Bush’s management of the war.

“We are not going to back down -- we are going to keep going right after these guys” in questioning the administration’s policy, said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

One manifestation of that strategy will come Monday, when Senate Democrats convene an informal hearing on the White House’s use of prewar intelligence. Witnesses are to include several former Bush administration officials.

Clinton on Friday encapsulated many of the emerging Democratic arguments. She charged that the Senate deliberations revealed a willingness among GOP senators to “blindly follow the president” without asking questions about the war’s direction.

“The Democrats may have somewhat different views about how we succeed in Iraq, but we are ... unified in fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities to engage in a legitimate debate ... and to offer honorable, responsible positions,” she said.

Amy Call, communications director for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), said in response: “Republicans take very seriously the responsibility to conduct oversight. Supporting our troops and the mission in Iraq does not mean Republicans are not engaged in a thoughtful and thorough examination of the issue.”

Republicans backed Bush almost unanimously in the recent congressional debates. Only three of the House’s 231 Republicans voted against a GOP-sponsored resolution endorsing Bush’s Iraq policy and rejecting an “arbitrary” deadline for troop withdrawal. In the Senate, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island was the sole Republican to support the Democratic measure calling for a troop drawdown by year’s end.

Among Democrats, the result was more ambiguous.

In the House, 42 of the chamber’s 201 Democrats broke with party leaders to vote for the resolution backing Bush’s course in Iraq. And in the Senate, Democrats splintered over a measure sponsored by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) to require Bush to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by July 31, 2007.

Kerry rejected suggestions from Senate Democratic leaders that he pull back his proposal in favor of the more moderate resolution offered by Levin and Reed.

Kerry’s measure was overwhelmingly defeated, with 31 Democrats joining Republicans to oppose it.

Voting for it were 12 Democrats and the Senate’s lone independent, Jim Jeffords of Vermont.

The Levin-Reed resolution was backed by 37 Democrats; six opposed it. Those supporting it included not only longtime critics of the war, such as Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), who cosponsored Kerry’s proposal, but most Democrats who have defended the decision to invade Iraq. The latter group included Sens. Clinton, Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Evan Bayh of Indiana, all potential contenders for the 2008 presidential nomination.

The lopsided rejection of the Kerry plan frustrated some antiwar activists. Tom Andrews, national director of the antiwar coalition Win Without War, said the Democrats who preferred the Levin-Reed alternative had failed to lead.

Those Democrats, he said, “were not quite ready to stand up, but ready to crouch.”

Other Democratic activists agreed with Clinton that the vote for the Levin-Reed approach represented progress toward a consensus party position.

“I think she’s right,” said Roger Hickey, co-director of the liberal Campaign for America’s Future, which sponsored the recent conference at which Clinton was booed. “To embrace a resolution calling for redeployment from Iraq is a significant change for her