Reflecting on the Democrats Again

The Iraq war is paradoxical in any number of ways. Although many of the issues involved are extremely complicated, but the U.S. participation boils down to a couple of simple questions: Are we leaving, and if so, how quickly? Similarly, the fallout from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker can raise a number of issues, but the primary result we're concerned about is whether or not the Democrats will cave or put up a fight against the White House's stay the course intransigence. I'm already on the record with what I expect, but Frank Rich jumped on that same bandwagon in his column today. In fact, playing off the MoveOn.org ad in The New York Times, he titles the column, "Will the Democrats Betray Us?"

The public is and has been way ahead of our political leaders. The Republicans were dumped from control of Congress and the Democrats brought in because we want to see something happen. Rich takes some of his space to marvel at what the Democrats seem to refuse to do.

Even if military "victory" were achievable in Iraq, America could not win a war abandoned by its own citizens. The evaporation of that support was ratified by voters last November. For that, they were rewarded with the "surge." Now their mood has turned darker. Americans have not merely abandoned the war; they don't want to hear anything that might remind them of it, or of war in general. Katie Couric's much-promoted weeklong visit to the front produced ratings matching the CBS newscast's all-time low. Angelina Jolie's movie about Daniel Pearl sank without a trace. Even Clint Eastwood's wildly acclaimed movies about World War II went begging. Over its latest season, "24" lost a third of its viewers, just as Mr. Bush did between January's prime-time address and last week's.

You can't blame the public for changing the channel. People realize that the president's real "plan for victory" is to let his successor clean up the mess. They don't want to see American troops dying for that cause, but what can be done? Americans voted the G.O.P. out of power in Congress; a clear majority consistently tell pollsters they want out of Iraq. And still every day is Groundhog Day. Our America, unlike Vietnam-era America, is more often resigned than angry. Though the latest New York Times-CBS News poll finds that only 5 percent trust the president to wrap up the war, the figure for the (barely) Democratic-controlled Congress, 21 percent, is an almost-as-resounding vote of no confidence.

Last week Democrats often earned that rating, especially those running for president. It is true that they do not have the votes to overcome a Bush veto of any war legislation. But that doesn't mean the Democrats have to go on holiday. Few used their time to cross-examine General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker on their disingenuous talking points, choosing instead to regurgitate stump sentiments or ask uncoordinated, redundant questions. It's telling that the one question that drew blood - are we safer? - was asked by a Republican, John Warner, who is retiring from the Senate.

The big argument against doing anything much is that the Democrats have a bare majority in the Senate and not much more in the House, so what can they actually pull off? It's true that they don't have the votes to force Bush to back down completely, but certainly there are strategies that can be put into place. If Democrats want to show us why they deserve to win the White House, rather than replace the current occupant for little reason beyond default, they've got to come up with a proactive agenda. Here's Rich again.

It's also past time for the Democratic presidential candidates to stop getting bogged down in bickering about who has the faster timeline for withdrawal or the more enforceable deadline. Every one of these plans is academic anyway as long as Mr. Bush has a veto pen. The security of America is more important - dare one say it? - than trying to outpander one another in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The Democratic presidential candidates in the Senate need all the unity and focus they can muster to move this story forward, and that starts with the two marquee draws, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It's essential to turn up the heat full time in Washington for any and every legislative roadblock to administration policy that they and their peers can induce principled or frightened Republicans to endorse.

They should summon the new chief of central command (and General Petraeus's boss), Adm. William Fallon, for tough questioning; he is reportedly concerned about our lapsed military readiness should trouble strike beyond Iraq. And why not grill the Joint Chiefs and those half-dozen or so generals who turned down the White House post of "war czar" last fall? The war should be front and center in Congress every day.

Mr. Bush, confident that he got away with repackaging the same bankrupt policies with a nonsensical new slogan ("Return on Success") Thursday night, is counting on the public's continued apathy as he kicks the can down the road and bides his time until Jan. 20, 2009; he, after all, has nothing more to lose. The job for real leaders is to wake up America to the urgent reality. We can't afford to punt until Inauguration Day in a war that each day drains America of resources and will. Our national security can't be held hostage indefinitely to a president's narcissistic need to compound his errors rather than admit them.

He's completely right. The Dems are as good as abandoning the field to the lame duck president and his abysmal approval ratings. I wasn't the only one hoping that Democrats returning home for the summer break would spend enough time with their constituents to realize that the inside the beltway attitudes defining this whole situation have no bearing in truth and no relevance to the vast majority of citizens. We saw very little indication of that last week, but I guess there's always room to be surprised. I'm ready for a startling truth like that anytime the Democrats wish to offer it.