There has been a lot of talk lately, on op-ed pages and the Sunday news shows, about Democratic opposition to the war on terror. The line usually goes something like, "The Democrats have opposed everything President Bush has done to wage the war on terrorism." As logical as this may seem, it's not entirely true. Actually, it's almost the exact opposite of the truth.
Right wing pundits like to paint the war on terror as a partisan issue, that Republicans are for it and Democrats against it. Whatever President Bush proposes, the Democrats automatically oppose it. If we were to believe this reasoning, we likely wouldn't have the Patriot Act.
When the Patriot Act came up for votes in the House and Senate just weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, Democrats were not up in arms about the erosion of privacy and civil liberties. To the contrary, they showed overwhelming support for the measure. The Patriot Act passed the Senate by a vote of 98 to 1. Only after everyone had the chance to actually read the bill did people start voicing their concerns.
And it is not just liberal organizations and the Democrats who now oppose the act. Sure, many Democrats are concerned with the potential loss of civil liberties, but so are many conservative Republicans. This includes Grover Norquist, founder of the ultraconservative Americans for Tax Reform and strategist for the Republican Party, former U.S. Reps. Merrill Cook of Utah, Dick Armey of Texas, Bob Barr of Georgia, plus current legislators Sen. Larry Craig and Rep. Butch Otter of Idaho and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, just to name a few.
The war in Afghanistan is an even better example of Democratic support for the war on terrorism. Just three days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Congress passed a resolution authorizing the use of force in Afghanistan by a vote of 98-0 in the Senate and 420-1 in the House. In floor speeches on the day of the vote, Democratic House members were praising the armed forces and President Bush's leadership. Liberal New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney urged bipartisan support for the war, saying, "By passing this resolution, the House of Representatives will send a clear message to our country's enemies: The United States is resolute. We stand with the president. We are united in defending our freedom and our liberty."
In all fairness, the right wing pundits haven't been entirely wrong. Some Democrats did oppose Bush's push for a unilateral invasion of Iraq, but it was because they did not want the U.S. to have to shoulder the responsibility of invading and rebuilding Iraq all by ourselves. Democrats knew that Saddam was a tyrant, but they feared the consequences of going it alone, consequences that have since been realized.
Of course the invasion itself was successful-no one would argue against that-but as soon as the major combat operations ended, things went to hell in a handbasket. Because the Bush administration had no plan for post-war Iraq, we have lost more troops in the occupation than we did during actual combat and it is costing the nation more than $1 billion dollars a week.
Democrats are not shy about pointing this out, and they shouldn't be. But, as with the Patriot Act, it is not just the Democrats that are critical of Bush's policies. Prominent Republicans like Sens. John McCain, Richard Lugar and Richard Shelby are starting to speak out and question the president's handling of Iraq.
So no matter how you frame it, the war on terror is not a partisan issue. Parties might disagree on how best to execute the war, but in the end, no one wants terrorism to flourish. Anyone that suggests otherwise is either ignorant or out for cheap political gain.
rseher@chronicle.utah.edu
