Site Presented By
Monday, Nov 9, 2009
Antiwar lefties aren't the only ones criticizing Bush's Iraq policy these days. Republicans concerned about their own political future are more openly opposing the unpopular war.
Jun 23, 2005 | There is an unmistakable sound in Washington as politicians gear up for midterm elections: Amid plummeting public support for the war in Iraq, a growing chorus of congressional voices is opposing the Bush administration's policy.
Alarmingly for President Bush, the dissent isn't coming just from Democrats. Leading Republicans are increasingly expressing their frustration with the war effort -- and this may only be the beginning of Bush's problems within GOP ranks as Republicans assess whether they'll run as allies or critics of Bush's policy in 2006.
The Bush administration, publicly at least, still insists the war in Iraq is proceeding as planned -- even as U.S. casualties continue to mount and the insurgency shows no indications of letting up. Bush spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters at the White House on Tuesday that "the facts on the ground show that the Iraqi people are making important progress on the political front to build a free and democratic future." The next day, McClellan said that success in Iraq was critical because "wherever you stood before the decision to go into Iraq, I think we can all recognize that the terrorists have made it a central front in the war on terrorism."
But increasingly, key Republicans do not see the same Iraq Bush sees, even if the GOP leadership remains lockstep behind the commander in chief. Over the weekend, Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said in an interview with U.S. News & World Report that "the White House is completely disconnected from reality ... The reality is that we're losing in Iraq." On Sunday, Sen. John McCain was asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether Vice President Cheney's comments last week that Iraq is in the "last throes" of the insurgency were correct. "No," McCain tersely replied.
That frank sentiment comes on the heels of a well-publicized reversal from an early outspoken supporter of the war, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., who coined the term "freedom fries" to express his outrage with France. Perhaps more than many of his colleagues, Jones faces potential electoral fallout from the war in Iraq: He has three major military bases in his district at the eastern end of the state, and counts tens of thousands of veterans among his constituency.
Few Republicans seem prepared to follow Jones in a call for troop withdrawal. Yet their alternative is equally problematic. If Republicans maintain their support for President Bush, they will be hard-pressed to convince voters, as support for the war nears lows of 40 percent, that the war was worth the cost in lives as well as the hundreds of billions in U.S. tax dollars. And with a stalled domestic legislative agenda added to the mix, this could all add up to electoral trouble for Republicans.
"You are looking at a political problem right now," said the chief of staff of a Republican House member on the International Relations Committee, who spoke on background in order to be candid. "Iraq is conceivably a very big problem. It's one of the top three or four issues and it's not going well; the casualties are mounting and it is costing a lot of money, and the light at the end of the tunnel isn't there."
But the problems go beyond Iraq, the advisor said. "There has been no real good news in anything the Congress has done this year, and the polls are showing dissatisfaction with the president. And Republicans are starting to worry about their reelection."
And with good reason. With ethics questions dogging House members, most prominently GOP House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the president's plan for Social Security reform not gaining momentum, and his choice for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations stalled in the Senate -- not to mention anemic poll numbers -- Republicans are wondering what they'll run on next year. "There is no piece of bright news that you can build a campaign around," the GOP advisor said. The lack of "bright news" gives Republicans an opening to criticize the administration, or may force them to, on Iraq and other issues, with a great deal less political risk than in 2002.
"There comes a point where the leverage of the administration in the second term becomes mighty small," the chief of staff said, "and they will go out and display their own feelings more openly."
Democrats are already doing just that, becoming progressively more vocal in their demands that President Bush alter his strategy in Iraq and define his objectives to the American people. Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware called on Tuesday for Bush to set "clear benchmarks and goals" that speak to "security, governance and politics, reconstruction and burden sharing," and to "report on the progress toward these goals every month in public testimony."
In arguably the most detailed address yet by a leading member of Congress on an alternative strategy in Iraq, Biden also chided Bush for "misleading statements and premature declarations of victory" in the war effort, stating that Bush was remiss for arguing that Iraqi oil would pay for reconstruction and warning that unless the administration's strategy is amended, Iraq could fall into civil war.
Yet Democrats vocal against the war also remain in a tenuous political position. The party is trying to walk a fine line: voicing dissent on the policy while not appearing to politically capitalize on U.S. casualties. To do this, Democrats consistently reaffirm their support for U.S. soldiers as a qualification to any criticism of the war effort.
