by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright June 18, 2006
All Rights Reserved.

gnoring the polls, President George W. Bush pressed on with his Iraq War, capitalizing on Abu Musab Al Zarqawi's June 7 death, paying a surprise visit to the troops six days later. With his chief strategist Karl Rove off the hook in the Valerie Plame affair, the White House can concentrate on rehabilitating Bush's battered image, paving the way for a repeat of Rove's 2004 election message: Democrats are weak and have no answer for Iraq. Getting Al Zarqawi and going to Iraq fanned the hopes of GOP prospects heading into November's midterm elections. Al Zarqawi's death was the biggest windfall since Saddam's Dec. 13, 2003 capture near Tikrit. Since then, Iraq has given Bush nothing but bad news, dropping his approval ratings from over 60% to under 30%. Since Saddam's arrest, Democrats let Iraq's bad news drive the debate—but they must do more.

      White House strategists pounced on Al Zarqawi's death to resuscitate dwindling hopes that the Iraq War was indeed winnable. Al Zarqawi was the White House's tenuous connection to Sept. 11, where the Jordanian-born hoodlum anointed himself as “Al Qaeda leader in Iraq.” In point of fact, Al Zarqawi was part of a little known Kurdish separatist group Ansar Al Islam. He became a totem for Osama bin Laden's outstretched arm, yet no one knows the extent of Al Zarqawi's connection to Al Qaeda. While there's no denying Al Zarqawi's death was welcomed relief, he represents small potatoes when it comes to the numerous Sunni and Shiite groups fueling the insurgency, especially radical Shiite cleric Muqtada Al Sadr, whose 10,000-plus Al Mahdi army drives much of the guerrilla war. Now that Rove's escaped special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the Iraq War becomes Bush's crowning achievement.

      Over 2,500 deaths, more than 18,000 disabling injuries and a whopping $400-billion price tag can hardly be regarded as a huge success. Expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan threaten the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, leaving the future of 70-million baby boomers uncertain. Yet Democrats have not articulated a uniform Iraq position or, for that matter, clear talking points on major election-year issues. Until Democrats map out a consistent position on Iraq, Bush will continue to enjoy a public relations bounce. Since Al Zarqawi's death and his trip to Baghdad, Bush has enjoyed a 5% bounce, pushing his approval ratings to 35%, according to the latest AP-Ipsos poll. “The U.S. is not going to leave until the (Iraqi) government wants us to leave and when the job is done,” said White House press secretary Tony Snow, echoing Bush dogged talking points.

      Bush insists that Iraq's newly minted Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki is a man of character and determination, throwing unequivocal support behind Iraq's new government. While Al Maliki wants to end the insurgency, he knows many of his supporters oppose U.S. occupation. He also knows that his own military and security services are infiltrated by insurgents seeking to end U.S. involvement. Speaking on CBS's “Face the Nation,” Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), a likely presidential candidate, blasted the White House for failing to articulate a clear Iraq strategy. Whether misguided or not, Bush's strategy has been anything but ambiguous, consistently saying U.S. forces would remain in Iraq until “victory,” something defined by Iraq's ability to defend itself. Democrats, not Bush, have shown equivocation, unwilling to adopt a clear antiwar message or exit strategy.

      Facing midyear elections, voters prefer clarity over equivocation, something so far Democrats haven't articulated. Divisions on Iraq inside the Democratic Party cast doubt on expected gains next November. Voters aren't comfortable with ambiguity, preferring Bush's certitude over Democrats' divisiveness. “If I had known this president would be this incompetent, I would not have given him the authority” to go to war, said Biden, ranking Democrat of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Biden, like other Democrats, offers no competing plan, only armchair quarterbacking. When former Democratic presidential candidate and current DNC chairman Howard Dean opposed the war before the 2004 presidential elections, he gained unparalleled support. Dean and the Democratic Party offer no option to war, other than criticizing Bush for fighting the war and defending national security.

      Approaching midyear elections, Democrats can no longer straddle the fence and act like Republicans. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) faces a tough reelection bid precisely because he supports the Iraq war. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), an expected presidential candidate next year, generated boos for her support of the Iraq War. There's plenty of bad news and public support for Democrats to adopt a strong antiwar message. Calling for patience, Sen. Lindsay Graham, a possible vice presidential pick in 2008, echoed the White House call for more patience. “We do need to do a better job, but it takes time,” said Graham, hoping that Al Zarqawi's death and the latest crackdown in Baghdad buys the president more time. Democrats must do more that attack Bush's Iraq policy: They must get off the fence, coordinate their message, and propose a coherent alternative.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.