Democrats in Congress bristle when Republicans accuse them of wanting to "cut and run" in Iraq. But here at home, in terms of the politics of the war, that's exactly what they're doing.
Democrats have decided that the Iraq conflict is one ugly baby, and
they're right about that. But from their rhetoric and short memories, you'd
never know they were directly involved in its conception.
That became evident when Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif., a member of the
House Armed Services Committee, sat down for a meeting with the editorial
board of The San Diego Union-Tribune. When asked what might happen in Iraq
if Democrats reclaimed the House of Representatives next month, and
possibly the White House in 2008, Davis tried to temper expectations by
blaming Republicans for botching the war effort.
"Well," she said, "you know, it's always difficult to clean up
someone else's mess."
Let's recap. A majority of Democrats in Congress voted to give
President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq in 2002, and then voted
-- more than once -- to continue to fund the effort. Some Democrats even hit the talk shows early on and made the case that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, or that a war in Iraq figured into the war on terror. And in the 2004 Democratic primary, the most outspoken critic of the war -- former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean -- was treated by several of his opponents as some crazy uncle who didn't understand the stakes in Iraq or the weight of decisions that had to be made by Democratic members of Congress.
Members such as Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. After Kerry became their
presidential nominee, Democrats put on quite a show at their national
convention, where -- despite the anti-war leanings of delegates -- one
speaker after another talked tough, saluted the flag and promised to hunt
down terrorists wherever they were.
And now, Democrats want to turn on a dime and pretend as if the Iraq
War is someone else's mess. With Iraq embroiled in civil war and U.S.
troops overstaying their welcome, it's a mess all right. But let's be
clear: It's a mess that Democrats helped make.
What's unclear is where they intend to go from here if they get the
chance to lead the country. Many opponents of the war take it as a given
that if the Democrats take the White House, an immediate pullout of U.S.
troops would commence.
How can anyone be certain what would happen under a Democratic regime
when Democrats themselves don't seem to know from day to day? This is a
party that has, since the war began, tried to have it both ways.
On the one hand, Democrats wanted to appear strong and resolute in
support of a president who toppled a dictator and liberated an oppressed
people while putting to rest doubts that their party could be trusted to
maintain national security. At the same time, they recognized that their
base -- made up as it is of rabid Bush haters -- became energized whenever
it got a glimpse of someone who opposed the war.
Reconciling all that isn't easy but Chris Wallace, host of "Fox News
Sunday," gave Kerry a chance to do it during a recent interview. Wallace
noted that in 2004, after it was clear that there were no weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq, Kerry insisted that -- knowing that -- he would have
still voted to give the president the authority to go to war. Wallace
contrasted that with what Kerry said just last week about how there was
"nothing in my life in public service I regret more" than voting for the
Iraq War resolution. What changed? Wallace asked.
Kerry said it came down to bad management of the war itself, and that
the administration had abused its authority and made a series of mistakes
including isolating America.
True, perhaps. But, given what we know about Kerry, that's not the
real reason for his conversion. This is: While Kerry spent 2004 trying to
convince the country that he was strong enough to lead at a time of war,
now he's gearing up to run for president again and eager to woo the
anti-war left. Along the way, Kerry has gotten tangled up in knots. The
same goes for other Democrats. Caught between pragmatism and principle,
it's not always clear they know which is which.
No wonder Democrats want to run away from this issue. Wouldn't you?