Democratic win may prod Bush on Iraq
By Paul Richter, Times Staff Writer
November 4, 2006


WASHINGTON — A Democratic capture of the House or Senate on Tuesday would generate powerful pressure on President Bush — from Republicans as well as Democrats — for a fundamental change of direction in the increasingly unpopular Iraq war.

With polls casting the midterm election as a referendum on Iraq, a Democratic victory in either chamber would give party lawmakers a national platform with which to prod the president, through public hearings and investigations into how the war has been conducted.

ADVERTISEMENT
For Republicans, a significant Democratic advance would be proof that voters are fed up with the current course of the war and expect changes from the nation's leaders.

While Bush still will hold the lead role in foreign policy, a Democratic win would be a sign of an overpowering public sentiment "that Republicans here won't overlook," a senior GOP congressional staffer said. "The White House will have to adjust to that reality too," said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing party strategy.

"It will be a new day," said Marshall Wittmann, a former aide to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who is now with the moderate Democratic Leadership Council. "The real factor [Bush] has to fear is a collapse of support among Republicans, as well as Democrats."

Vice President Dick Cheney, in an interview with ABC's "This Week" to be broadcast Sunday, acknowledged that Tuesday's vote "will have some effect, perhaps, in the Congress." But Cheney pointed out that Bush is not up for reelection this year and is proceeding "full steam ahead" toward his goal of securing a victory in Iraq.

However, Wittmann said that while Republican pressure on the president so far has been muted by party loyalty, a Democratic victory would be "a psychological blow" that would bring expressions of unhappiness from Republicans who don't want to be saddled with the war going into the 2008 election.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters recently that a Democratic victory in either chamber "would have a huge motivating force on the president to change course." Levin added that "more and more Republicans would join with Democrats in trying to get the administration" to change direction.

At the same time, lawmakers and experts don't expect Democratic victories to force a quick withdrawal of troops from Iraq — even though polling suggests that is what many Americans expect.

A New York Times-CBS poll released this week found 75% of respondents believed that U.S. troops would be taken out of Iraq more swiftly under a Democratic-led Congress. The same poll found 29% of Americans supported Bush's leadership of the war, matching the lowest point of his presidency.

Bush and Republicans would strongly resist any withdrawal effort, and Democrats remain deeply divided on the issue of a rapid pullout. Many Democrats, eager to avoid possible future charges that their party forced a "defeat" in the war, have ruled out any cutoff of funding of the kind that halted Vietnam War spending in the 1970s.

A Democratic win also would increase the visibility and weight of a congressionally appointed panel that since March has been reviewing the Bush administration's war strategy.

The panel, co-chaired by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton of Indiana, is expected to issue recommendations soon that will call for a new direction. The report is expected to propose a path to an eventual withdrawal but not call for an immediate departure. Congressional hearings on the report, possibly in both chambers, are expected.

Although Democrats have signaled that they intend to investigate the conduct of the war, including pre-war planning and management of the reconstruction, some analysts predicted that they will avoid going too far, lest they alienate the public.

The public "will balk if oversight becomes overzealous," Lee Feinstein of the Council on Foreign Relations said in a posting on the organization's website. "If oversight becomes 'gotcha,' that's a dangerous place for Democrats to be."

Feinstein noted that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), who is in line to become House speaker if Democrats win, has said that any committee investigations of administration actions would require approval from the House leadership.

Feinstein, who was a Pentagon and State Department official during the Clinton administration, predicted that the election could cause lawmakers to try to work out a bipartisan solution to the war — both because of the issue's importance and out of a desire to neutralize it before the presidential election in 2008.

Some analysts, including Wittmann, expect that Democrats would use any new leverage to push Bush to replace Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; his ouster has been demanded by a growing list of Republicans as well as Democrats.

And Democratic control would make it more difficult for Bush to push through legislation that might be needed for any substantial new foreign policy initiative, whether related to Iraq or not.

One senior Democratic congressional aide said that while party victories in one or both houses would bring bipartisan support for a change in the conduct of the Iraq war, a failure by the Democrats in next week's election could freeze policy.

"My fear is that it would be interpreted by Cheney and Rumsfeld as an affirmation of 'stay the course,' and it could have a dramatic effect on policy," said the aide, who declined to be identified because of the rules of his office. Republican lawmakers "could conclude that the whole Iraqi issue was overblown and that they can get away with more of the same."

The possibility of a Democratic takeover also has raised questions about the administration's policy on Iran. Many Democratic lawmakers are strong supporters of Israel and advocate aggressive action against Tehran.

Kenneth M. Pollack, a top Mideast specialist during the Clinton administration, said that many Democrats "would be willing to support some very aggressive policies toward Iran, and that could set up a range of options for the administration," which has been internally divided on the issue.

At the same time, Democrats are likely to impose limits, said Pollack, now research director at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Studies.

"I think it's pretty clear that the Democratic leadership is not in the mood for a war with Iran. And I think that those voices within the administration and outside the administration who are calling for military operations against Iran are going to have a harder time if you've got a Democratic Congress."

Ahh.. a little more propaganda from the NYT. Will we ever get enough of it?

bottom line is bush and company don't want dems because unlike bush we don't believe in a blank check to do whatever you want,believe it or not there is a thing called check and balances in the contitution,maybe repubs should spend time reading it

bush has already said a change in either houese wont change the his goals for Iraq. So what are you trying to spin

THey should be scared. If Kerry could have kept his darn mouth shut, the dems would have won by a landslide all over the country. Dems are still gonna take over but not in as big of numbers.

bush will have to go thru the political process if dems win instead of doing whatever he feels fit to do,finally he will have to play by the rules something he hasn't had to do for 6 yrs

What a bunch of political hype.. good grief.

SCREW War Criminal Bush. Bush had better hope against all get-out both houses don't change hands. Anyway---Bush is a lame duck presesident and the Military only needs to hang on for another 2 years; before that Little Hitler Wanna Be Son-of-Bitch finally leaves office!

__________________
AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE--BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

From the narrowly averted plot to blow up airliners bound for the USA to North Korea's nuclear detonation to last week's missile test by Iran, we are constantly reminded of the threat against free nations by terrorists and despotic leaders who support them. The war we fight today is not a new war. For a generation, terrorists have attacked free nations, from the 1972 Olympic Games in Munich, to the U.S. hostages in Iran, to Beirut, to the World Trade Center in 1993, Riyadh in 1995, Khobar Towers in 1996, the U.S. Embassy attacks in 1998, and the USS Cole in 2000. Too often, free nations responded weakly or not at all, so the enemy grew emboldened, leading to 9/11.

(Ken Mehlman / USA TODAY)



Today, the Republican Party has learned the lessons of Sept. 11, and understands the importance of using every single tool at our disposal to win this war — but some Democrat leaders would take those tools away. Democrats in the House and Senate voted against re-authorization of the USA Patriot Act. The overwhelming majority of House Democrats voted against legislation to make it easier to intercept terrorist communications. Democrats voted against tribunals that will help us get the information we need, and have time and again voted against missile defense.

War on terror and Iraq

Even more dangerous is that Democrats truly seem to believe that Iraq is completely separate from the greater war on terror. Al-Qaeda's leaders are not confused about the importance of Iraq to their goal of global jihad. Osama bin Laden's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has said his goal is to use Iraq as a base to launch further attacks, with the goal of creating a new caliphate in the Middle East. On Tuesday, we must ask ourselves: Would surrendering Iraq to the enemy so they can use it as a base from which to launch attacks make us more or less safe?

Voters face another choice Tuesday: Republicans have cut taxes every year since George W. Bush was elected president. Democrats, on the other hand, have said outright that they plan to raise your taxes. If you're a typical American family with two kids earning $30,000 a year, the Democrats would raise your taxes by more than $2,000. They'd raise your gas taxes just as gas prices are finally coming down. Where would it end? Well, the man who would be in charge of tax policy in a Democrat-controlled House came right out and said it: No tax increase will be out of bounds.

What the GOP wants

Republicans want to eliminate the death tax once and for all. Democrats want to bring it back. Republicans want to explore new sources of energy to bring gas and heating prices down. Democrats want to block domestic exploration. Republicans want small businesses to be able to band together to provide health care to their employees at a reasonable cost. Democrats don't believe entrepreneurs and their employees should have that freedom. Republicans want all parents to be able to choose where they send their kids to school. Democrats would limit that choice to the rich and powerful. The list goes on and on.

There is one more choice voters face Tuesday: The Senate has approved two superb new Supreme Court justices, John Roberts and Sam Alito. Republicans supported Justices Roberts and Alito because they understand that judges need to interpret the law, not invent it. Many Democrats, on the other hand, vocally fought — and then voted against — Justices Roberts and Alito. Why? Because they depend on activist judges to hand them the victories they can't win at the ballot box.

Tuesday, Americans will have the opportunity to choose between a party that wants to use every tool to keep us safe, or one that would take those tools away; between a party that wants to let you keep more of your own hard-earned money, or one that believes that money belongs to Washington; between a party that understands judicial restraint, or one that wants activist judges to fight its battles.

Two very different visions for America, and one very strong reason for the American people to help Republicans make history and maintain our majorities in Congress.

Ken Mehlman is chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Here you go MCF24.. something I'm sure the NYT didn't realize they let slip:

Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the Democrat leading his party’s effort to win control of the House, said, “It’s inevitable that there would be some tightening in the end.”

Still, Mr. Emanuel, who has been careful this campaign to avoid the public expressions of optimism voiced by other Democrats, added, “This is making me nervous.”