Democrats Shy From Iraq Exit Timetable

Democratic congressional leaders distanced themselves Monday from Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s call for a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, but urged President Bush to present a detailed exit strategy in Wednesday’s State of the Union speech.

Remarks by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) reflected the dilemma Democrats have faced -- and their presidential nominee could not resolve -- since the U.S. toppled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein but then confronted a violent insurgency.

The party has grappled with how to criticize the administration’s handling of the violence in Iraq without appearing to undercut the U.S. effort to bring democracy to the Iraqi people.

The party’s task grew more complicated Sunday, Democrats and Republicans said, when Iraqis conducted their first free election in half a century.

“When a party establishes a position where they win politically by things working out poorly for the U.S., that creates a conundrum,” said Mike Franc, vice president for governmental relations at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. “It is a political strategy, not a policy strategy.”

In his remarks Monday, Reid praised Iraqis for voting, noting that “millions of Iraqi citizens risked bloodshed in order to raise their ink-stained fingers in a powerful symbol of democracy.”

But he gave little credit to the administration for helping Iraqis hold the election and said, “We all know that these brave men and women will never be truly freed until they can walk through their cities and towns without fear.”

The American people, he said, need an “exit strategy” for Iraq “so that we know what victory is and how we can get there; so that we know what we need to do, and so that we know when the job is done.”

Still, setting a timeline for a troop withdrawal would not be “a wise decision,” he said.

Kennedy, in a speech Thursday, urged Bush to begin negotiating a withdrawal timetable with the Iraqi government immediately after the election. “At least 12,000 American troops, probably more, should leave at once to send a strong signal about our intentions and to ease the pervasive sense of occupation,” Kennedy said.

The Massachusetts Democrat was one of 23 senators to vote against the authorization to use force against Iraq more than two years ago and has been one of his party’s most outspoken critics of Bush’s Iraqi policy.

Pelosi sided with Reid in discussing Kennedy’s withdrawal proposal.

Ending the U.S. military presence in Iraq “is not about a calendar, it’s about performance,” she said. “You have to establish

She added: “But if you have no plan, no road map, no standards, it’s very hard to judge whether you have succeeded and whether it’s time to come home.”

Pelosi and Reid made their comments as they delivered what they called a “prebuttal” to Bush’s State of the Union address. They faulted him on a variety of issues, including his push to restructure Social Security.

The Democratic balancing act on Iraq will likely be highlighted again when the administration seeks congressional approval for $80 billion in emergency funding for the U.S. military operation and rebuilding effort.

Many Democrats plan to use the debate on the request to stress their criticism of administration policy in Iraq. But most say they probably will vote for the funds because they want to support the troops.

“Many of us really feel, even those who voted against the Iraq war, that given that [the funding] is for the supply of the troops, we would rather not vote against it,” said Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.).

Feingold said Sunday’s elections in Iraq had intensified the debate about an exit strategy not only among Democrats but among Republicans.

“This step ... has moved us into a new period,” he said. “Both Democrats and Republicans are reevaluating the situation and what our commitment should be. I don’t think it is peculiar to Democrats.”

But Marshall Wittmann, a spokesman for the Democratic Leadership Council, a group that promotes centrist views within the party, said the apparent success of the Iraqi vote complicated the larger debate for Democrats about U.S. policy.

“It is always difficult for the party in opposition to weigh in on a matter when it redounds to the benefit of the party in power,” Wittmann said. “How do you celebrate the success and still maintain your strong opposition to the administration?”

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said most of his Democratic colleagues “disagree with Sen. Kennedy.”

Nelson said Sunday’s elections were “a first successful step in a long journey” toward stabilizing Iraq. That goal cannot be achieved, he added, by moving now to establish a timetable for pulling out U.S. troops.

Sen. John F. Kerry, who enjoyed strong support from Kennedy in his successful quest for the Democratic presidential nomination last year, also differed with his fellow Massachusetts lawmaker.

“Obviously, you’ve got to provide security and stability in order to be able to turn this over to the Iraqis and to be able to withdraw our troops,” Kerry said in an interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press.” “So I wouldn’t do a specific timetable.”

But Kerry added: “I certainly agree with him [Kennedy] in principle that the goal must be to withdraw American troops.”

The Bush reelection campaign relentlessly criticized Kerry for supporting the authorization-of-force resolution in October 2002, but then opposing emergency funding for the Iraq operation a year later.

Kerry also was criticized by some Democrats during the campaign for not, in their view, clearly articulating his position on Iraq.

He sharpened his message in the campaign’s closing weeks, charging that Bush had neglected the larger war on terrorism to pursue “the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.”