Almotamar.net google - WASHINGTON � Swept into power by voters clamoring for an end to the war in Iraq, Democrats have seen their efforts falter under a reality more complicated than they found on the campaign trail.
While the public is fed up with Iraq, there is little consensus over what to do.
Internal party divisions, Republican opposition and a president who � while weakened � still appears to have the dominant voice on the war have all left Democrats flailing in search of a way to change the war's course.
The Democrats' symbolic measure disapproving of President Bush's troop buildup passed the House only to stall in the Senate. Their plan to place strict conditions on war funding appears to lack enough support within their own ranks to succeed. Another bid to narrow the 2002 resolution authorizing the war is unlikely to garner the 60 votes it would need to be approved in the Senate.
The first signs of impatience among Democrats' allies are sprouting.
"The public is saying, 'We hired you to get out of Iraq � now figure it out,'" said Tom Matzzie, Washington director of the anti-war group MoveOn.org. "There is a risk that without action, frustration boils over into anger."
Democrats argue that their failed efforts to thwart Bush's war plans will ultimately pay off by ratcheting up pressure for a change.
"The administration is increasingly isolated and they are increasingly at odds with where the American people are," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We're going to keep on going at it until the administration changes course."
But Democrats also are worried about being at odds with public opinion as House and Senate leaders push divergent measures.
House Democrats, who enjoy a 32-seat majority, this week will try to determine if there is enough support among themselves to pass a proposal by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., to tie war funding to strict training and readiness targets for Iraq-bound troops. Senate Democrats will discuss a plan by Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., to substantially narrow Bush's war authorization to limit the mission. Either or both could easily stall.
Bush told visiting governors Monday that he looked forward to a "healthy debate" on Iraq, but warned Congress against limiting funding for the war or commanders' flexibility in waging it.
"I do not believe that someone is unpatriotic if they don't agree with my point of view. On the other hand, I think it's important for people to understand the consequences of not giving our troops the resources necessary to do the job," Bush said.
Tony Snow, Bush's spokesman, said rewriting the war authorization "seems to be a device by which members of Congress, themselves, would try to get involved in micromanaging the activities of military officials."
Democrats' troubles finding a strategy on the war reflect a wider lack of consensus among the public about what course to take in Iraq. AP-Ipsos polls show that while a clear majority are pessimistic about the war and oppose a buildup, most people do not support cutting funding for the troops.
Zbigniew Brzesinski, Jimmy Carter's former national security adviser, said Democrats "run the risk of losing momentum."
They would be better off pushing some simple policy statements that could garner Republican support � such as opposition to establishing permanent bases in Iraq or to further expansion of the war � than trying to find a way to tie Bush's hands, he said.
"One has to be very careful not to get involved in micromanaging a military engagement," Brzesinski added.
Bush still enjoys substantial advantage when it comes to trumpeting his message on the war, even though his image and clout suffered major blows in last fall's elections.
Democrats, by contrast, have a cacophony of voices � including several presidential candidates � weighing in on what to do next in Iraq.
"The party's not unified. Until you control the executive branch, you really don't have a party � you have all these independent actors," Lawrence Korb, a Reagan administration Defense Department official, said of the Democrats' plight.
Democrats also are running headlong into constitutional questions about how far they can go in constraining the president in wartime. "It's much easier to start a war than to stop one," said Korb, who is now affiliated with the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress.
Congress has never been adept at acting independently on matters of war. It didn't repeal the authorization for the Vietnam war until U.S. troops were already beginning to withdraw.
"There's a certain amount of reluctance among a lot of people in Congress to overstep the line between what their authority is and what the president's authority is," said Richard Stoll, a Rice University political scientist.
___