That marathon debate in the House of Representatives over the war in Iraq was long overdue. But all it signals for this fall?s congressional elections is a rerun of the Republican appeal to patriotism and fear that gave President Bush a second term in 2004.
Whether there is sufficient credibility left in that pitch among the majority of voters who now tell pollsters the war was a mistake is the critical question as the Democrats bid for control of Congress in November.
Speaker after speaker on the GOP side of the aisle, rather than addressing how to extricate this country from the mess Bush created in Iraq, essentially used the occasion to charge that Democratic neglect made the war necessary, and that Democratic cowardice wants to run away from it now.
One Republican from Michigan, Mike Rogers, showed photos ofpre-Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to argue that former President Bill Clinton?s failure to respond to them made it imperative somehow that Bush invade Iraq. And the phrase “cut and run” fell from numerous GOP lips to describe the policy of eventual redeployment of U.S. troops to nearby locales, for swift return to Iraq if necessary, advocated by Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania.
Murtha, who floor managed the Democratic response, is a blustery decorated Vietnam War veteran who makes up in intensity what he sorely lacks in debating skills. He made a poor cut-and-run target, as fellow Democrats stoutly defended his record as a patriot.
From the viewpoint of Bush?s political strategists, al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in death threw Bush a tactical lifeline, giving the president a peg for at least temporary resurrection from his collapse in the polls. His secret trip to Baghdad for a five-hour visit and then this House debate on the war all clearly were designed to restart his stalled engine.
The Republican resolution before the House, passed 256-153 on a take-it-or-leave-it basis without possibility of Democratic amendment, was transparently a GOP ploy to tie a cut-and-run can to the Democrats? tail. It succeeded in getting 42 Democrats to break with their party in opposition, to only three Republicans who deserted Bush.
As a short-term gambit, it may yield some political gain. But giving the House Democrats hours on C-SPAN to remind Americans of how the Iraq war started, and the administration?s bungling in the three-year aftermath, may prove to be self-defeating.
The Republican presiding from the chair over much of the House debate, Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois, openly questioned the wisdom of his party voluntarily spotlighting that hornet?s nest.
More effective for Bush among Americans watching C-SPAN may be the resolve he displayed in his earlier news conference to “stay the course” in Iraq. But the House debate gave the Democrats hours of opportunity to paint “stay the course” as an endless road to nowhere, or ultimate failure, and they made the most of it.
The intent of the Republican-initiated marathon discussion of Iraq in the House, and a somewhat similar but short-circuited debate in the Senate, was to demonstrate GOP solidarity behind Bush on the war despite growing disagreements with him on other issues, and to put the Democrats on the spot. But they seemed to welcome the challenge.
In 2004, they tried and failed to make the presidential election a referendum on the war, as Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry was a victim of his own inconsistencies on it and of Republican diversions into his recorded as a decorated veteran in Vietnam. This year there is little question that the midterm elections will be just such a referendum.
Still, the Democratic leadership in Congress seems sufficiently shaky on the war as a winning issue that they are focusing on what they call a “culture of corruption” in the Bush administration, and among Republicans in Congress, as a major argument for a change on Capitol Hill.
The Democrats know all too well how White House strategist Karl Rove has successfully played the cards of patriotism and fear in the past, and how he is positioned to play them again in November to hold onto GOP control .
Jules Witcover, a Baltimore Examiner columnist, is syndicated by Tribune Media Services. He has covered national affairs from Washington for more than 50 years and is the author of 11 books, and co-author of five others, on American politics and history.
