Return to Lesson Plan
WASHINGTON — AS President Bush sought Congressional support last week for a resolution authorizing "all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force" to confront Iraq, the nation heard little dissent from the Democrats.
In fact, with few exceptions, the Democrats are climbing on the administration's war wagon. Senator Tom Daschle, the majority leader, predicted lawmakers would approve Mr. Bush's request with bipartisan support before the November elections, which will decide control of the House and Senate.
As Congress considers the fine print of the resolution and all its consequences, there still might be some debate. But some Democrats as well as Republicans say that Mr. Daschle and other top Democrats like Representative Richard A. Gephardt and Senator John F. Kerry are haunted by their 1991 votes against authorization for the gulf war.
Largely missing has been any contemporary praise for what was then described as a somber and vigorous public debate.
Now, these Democrats, especially those with their eyes on the White House, are loath to be seen as undercutting a president on foreign policy. They have before them the path of the only Democrats nominated for the national ticket since the gulf war, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Joseph I. Lieberman — all of whom had bucked the party's majority and supported the battle to free Kuwait.
For these Democrats, the legacy of Vietnam has dissipated — certainly, under President Clinton, the party spent much of the 1990's banishing that cloud in places like Haiti and Bosnia. Instead, the gulf war — bold, successful and quick — offers the guiding principle.
"They're afraid of being on the wrong side of this war," said Michael Kazin, a professor of history at Georgetown University who is the co-author of "America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960's."
So far the one-sided debate hardly resembles the run-up to the gulf war in 1991. Then, Senate Democrats took the lead, with many of them arguing that the administration had not given sanctions enough time, even as administration officials described Iraqi brutality.
The provocation was clear, but agreeing on methods tore at the Democrats — 45 out of 55 Democratic senators and 179 of 265 House members opposed war. Yet Congress rallied behind the troops once they were deployed.
Today, the national mood is far different. The effect of the terrorist attacks is still strong, largely muting the Democratic opposition.
"There are many Democrats who have great misgivings about this war, but who feel it has no payoff for them" if they oppose it, said Alan Brinkley, a professor of American history at Columbia University. "This is the first war in our modern history in which we've been the instigator, so you would assume there would be more debate." Instead, he added, "it's as if Iraq has attacked us."
The draft resolution President Bush sent to Congress is a open-ended request for military action. Professor Kazin said the language recalls the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which he said "was quite sweeping."
"The president was given the power to do whatever he needed to do to repel North Vietnamese aggression against American troops," Professor Kazin said.
With his request, Mr. Bush would be free of strictures involving the United Nations. It establishes no time limits or reporting requirements and does not even confine the president to Iraq, but rather speaks of restoring peace and security "in the region."
"This thing is broad, unchecked authority," said Representative Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat critical of what he says is a rush to war. "This is basically giving the president the authority to start a war, and saying `Don't bother to call me, I'll read about it in the newspaper.' "
Just last month, it appeared that there might be vocal debate, if not opposition. The Bush administration appeared in disarray, with officials duking out their differences in the press.
Overall, the White House seemed to be headed into an electoral season with a sinking economy.
THIS summer, the Democrats wanted answers: Why attack Iraq, when America's beef is with Al Qaeda? Why now? Will America occupy it? Does Washington dare attack without provocation? What about the world reaction? What is the cost? Former Presidents Clinton and Jimmy Carter raised red flags, and Democrats demanded to know the intentions of the president.
President Bush responded forcefully. He deployed his aides on Sunday talk shows. Intelligence sources raised concerns about Saddam Hussein's progress toward a nuclear weapon. Most effectively, the day after Sept. 11, Mr. Bush made a speech in which he warned of what might come next from Baghdad, then scolded the United Nations for failing to stand up for itself.
The Democratic challenge backfired. The subject turned to war on the president's terms, without a substantive review of what is being undertaken.
"They've allowed a course of action to be put in place that will make Iraq the dominant issue until November," said Dick Morris, a political adviser to the Clinton White House. For the time being, the Democrats have forfeited the political issues that may work to their advantage.
"Here they have a weakening economy, a growing deficit, a falling stock market and corporate crimes, and they can't get any traction against the party of big business," said Marshall Wittmann, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative research organization. "This is driving them insane."
But as Senator Daschle acknowledged last week, the prospect of war trumps all else. Now, the Republicans have identified national security as the Democrats' Achilles' heel and they are already using it in television ads to sway close races.
Meanwhile, Democrats who seek the White House must support use of force and get in sync with American opinion, Mr. Morris said. . For Senator Daschle, who counts former Senator George S. McGovern among his mentors, this has disappointed many liberal supporters.
"He really hurt his ability to lead his party when he let it trickle out that he's intrigued by the presidency," said Alan K. Simpson, the former Republican senator from Wyoming who calls Senator Daschle a friend.