Democrats' Struggle to Change Course in Iraq Has Produced Much Debate, Little Action

Clinton advisers were anxious to change the terms from past to future. Their view, in the words of one member of her inner circle, was that "the advantage he [Obama] seemed to have from talking about his 2002 speech would disappear" if Clinton could move the debate to the question of who best could end the war.

The moment of confrontation came not between the candidates but between their chief strategists, in a testy exchange between Clinton's Mark Penn and Obama's David Axelrod at a forum at Harvard University on March 19. Penn argued that Obama's record in the Senate is not materially different from Clinton's.

"The immutable fact," Axelrod responded, "is that, had we followed Senator Obama's advice in 2002, we wouldn't be talking about de-escalation right now."

The Power of the Purse

In February, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a House veteran with close military ties, planted the seeds for another approach: to use Congress's power of the purse to curtail the U.S. mission. Republicans assailed the idea as a "slow-bleed" strategy that would harm American troops. But Reid was intrigued.

In late spring, the Senate leader upped the ante by attaching troop withdrawal language to an Iraq spending bill -- one war-related measure certain to reach Bush's desk. But Reid was also working with Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) on a far more ambitious plan, a funding cutoff that would take effect next spring.

Feingold seemed an unlikely accomplice, an aloof intellectual who nurtured his own presidential aspirations. But although he is a passionate war opponent, he has a pragmatic streak. "He has a real knack for finding out about how far you can push everything," Reid said. "So I always try to keep him on my radar screen."

Dodd, toiling in the back of the 2008 presidential pack, hurriedly co-sponsored the cutoff measure and began airing television commercials to pressure Obama and Clinton to join him. On May 16, both were among 29 senators to vote for the Feingold-Reid-Dodd bill. It also was the first time Clinton had signed onto any kind of deadline for withdrawal.

Reid pressed for a vote despite the divisions within his caucus, because no matter the outcome, it was a way to show the left that Democrats were working for a tangible change in policy -- not setting withdrawal goals, but tearing up the checkbook. It worked. Antiwar groups cheered the effort, and Moveon.org even ran a radio ad against Levin, who had opposed the measure.

But the groups were far from pleased on May 24, when the Senate approved a second funding bill, this one with no withdrawal deadline. "Our members were very unhappy about the capitulation to Bush after the supplemental fight," said Eli Pariser, executive director of Moveon.org Political Action.

In the voting, both Clinton and Obama waited until the clock ran out to record their positions, nervously wondering what the other might do. They were among just 14 senators to vote against the package, which funded the war through Sept. 30.

Mixed Reviews

From the Democrats' key antiwar constituency, the reviews for the year are mixed. "The good news is that a majority of Congress clearly supports a timeline for exit, and a big majority of Americans support it," Pariser said. "We're now in a 'majority versus the White House' position -- a place we wouldn't be in if the Republicans were still in power."

But, he added, "The bad news is that Republicans and the president are still blocking an end to the war."

A Democratic congressional aide summed it up differently. After winning 79 votes for a resolution urging a course change in late 2005, the Democratic leadership had managed mostly to offer a series of measures that couldn't command even 60 votes. What had the past eight months accomplished? he wondered.

On June 27, Bush called Smith to lobby him on an immigration bill, and the conversation turned to Iraq. Over the next 20 minutes, the senator from Oregon unburdened himself, explaining why he had turned against the conflict.

"I know he's struggling to find the right way forward. He needs to make that very clear to the American people," Smith said of Bush. He added, "If the answer after Petraeus is we have to stay the course, I think there will be general revulsion in the country."

Whether that would translate into congressional action remains unclear. "I certainly don't know what we have 60 votes for," Reid said. "Much less 67."