Jockeying For Position On Iraq

(CBS)  This news analysis was written by CBS News Producer Steve Chaggaris

---

It's almost as if President Bush's actual address on Iraq Wednesday night was a mere afterthought.

Pundits and politicians have been debating his expected proposals since before the Democrats' official takeover of Congress last week.

Official pre-reactions from members of Congress and those thinking of running for president flooded the airwaves and reporters' in-boxes earlier this week.

And throughout the day on Wednesday, snippets of the president's speech were handed out, culminating in the entire speech being posted on the Drudge Report at 8:22 pm EST - 39 minutes before the White House wanted it out there.

But finally, after all that buildup, Mr. Bush went on with his remarks as scheduled and let all of America know what Washington had been buzzing about for days - that he's changing his "strategy in Iraq," a change that includes the much-maligned commitment of "more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq."

The president acknowledged those Democrats - and Republicans - who have spent the past days maligning him saying, "Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny."

But what Mr. Bush didn't refer to in his 2,900-word speech is what the media have been chewing on the past several days: the political implications of this proposal here at home.

First off, polls showed that the wave that washed the congressional Democrats into power was due in large part to the war in Iraq. In response, Democrats will be holding week after week of hearings on the war.

Democrats also been mulling over legislation that would actually have some teeth - from threats to cut funding for more troops to an idea that Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy proposed Tuesday: forcing a congressional vote any time the president wants to increase the number of troops.

That's easier said than done, however. So in the meantime, the newly emboldened Dems are eager to get Republicans on the record on Iraq, not just to have the upper hand now - but for the next election as well.

For instance, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid indicated he's going to bring a non-binding resolution to the floor next week that says the Senate disagrees with sending more troops to Iraq. If it's non-binding, what's the point?

"If there is a bipartisan resolution saying, 'We don't support this escalation of the war,' then the president's going to have to take note of that," Reid told reporters.

That's one reason. But it will also put the 21 Republican senators who are up for re-election in 2008 on the spot, giving those who vote against it an opening for their opponents next year.

In fact, four of those senators are on the record already saying they're not fans of the troop increase: Sens. Norm Coleman, R-Minn.; Susan Collins, R-Maine; Gordon Smith, R-Ore.; and John Warner, R-Va.

The ripple effect of the president's proposal is also evident in the nascent 2008 presidential race, with the liberal group MoveOn.org going as far as running a TV ad in Iowa and New Hampshire next week against yet-to-announce candidate Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

McCain has not been shy about his support for the president's plan, unlike some of his other potential rivals.

Interestingly, the Republicans who are comfortable with their standing among conservatives are the ones bucking the president, while those who feel the need to burnish their conservative credentials are coming out in support of the troop escalation.

For instance, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a darling of the right who will announce his White House candidacy next week, said in a statement, "I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer."

On the other hand, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney - both who have something to prove to conservatives - felt the need to publicly announce their support of the president.

Meanwhile, the Democratic candidates and candidates-to-be have been trying to out-sound bite each other with criticism of the Bush plan.

Former Sen. John Edwards has even gone so far to label the president's plan "the McCain Doctrine" - a dig at the presumed Republican front-runner.

Even though Mr. Bush spent most of his 20-minute speech detailing his changes and not directly talking about the domestic political implications of the war and his proposal, he did briefly seem to acknowledge the long-term political effects and attempt to deflect criticism away from potentially vulnerable members of his party.

"The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people - and it is unacceptable to me," Mr. Bush said. "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."

[gunnerv1]

Hi abby59, welcome home I retired in '86 as E-8 Gunner's mate

[hamiltongrad]

I believe that this is a prelude to confrontation with Iran and Syria, IF they continue to incite and give arms to terrorists in Iraq. If they step down, then we will continue to build Iraq into a Democratic State. If you listen or read the speech , you will hear this threat, concerning the borders, and moving the fleet into the region.
I personally think, IT IS ABOUT TIME.

[reallygone]

The Dems have as much to lose on this vote as the Republicans. Comeone who votes against it and the plan succeeds will find it hard to avoid being labelled "cut and run" in the next election.

[antoniof123]

Some lively comments today I wonder how many will be talking the same after a few months. We had over 500,000 in Viet Nam and they still kept coming till we left then the war ended and now we do business with them. When will you learn you can not force something on someone else. Of course that is not the Republican way is it they want to force everybody to do as they say. Then of course they try to do a song and dance to make it someone else's fault. I can not stand people that just follow with no brains to do anything by themselves. Instead of saying that *** enlist and go to Iraq then I will believe you.

[moosescout1]

Why don't you elitists admit that you would be against anything that Bush said, no matter what. This has very little to do with Bush but has everything to do with your loss of power when Bush became president. If it was your "Holy Grail" Clinton who was fighting this war you would be behind him all the way. Harry Reid is an idiot and an embarrassment to his faith. The Dem's definition of Bipartisanship is "do what I say and want". I don't vote for someone to be a bipartisan. Debate is good. Thats why there is more than one party. The Democrat hypocrasy is a joke. They turn their collective heads and ignore a drunk like Kennedy who has the morals of a junkyard dog. Not to mention his inability to navigate a canal system. They applaud a pedifile "cause he's one of them." They even give credence to an old fool who used to wear the white mask of the KKK because he bows to them. Yet they call Republicans corrupt because of an idiot like Foley. At least he resigned, which was the correct thing to do. America needs to wake up or we'll all be using prayer rugs. (course we better not buy them at Walmart)

[jpdunlop]

Why does the "author" (clearly a commentator, not a reporter) choose to place the words "strategy in Iraq" in italics in the 5th paragraph? The only purpose that can be supported is that the writer disagrees that it is a strategy, or that he is mocking the president for suggesting that he has a strategy. I am almost surprised that he did not refer to him as "President" Bush.

[nupriorities]

abby59 urges American ground troops remain in the middle of the Iraqi Civil War because if we ever leave, as she says, "the jihad johnnies will come over here." That's what the hawks threatened would happen if Vietnam were ever left to its own to settle its civil war, yet now American businesses are thriving there. Time to bring our brave troops home from this latest misgudided adventure into a culture, language and political history we simply America doesn't understand and certainly cannot conquer with another few brigades of cannon fodder.

[trueprogress]

promo we will never hear.... "TEDDY'S MONEY SAFE IN TAHITI- TAX DODGE FOR THE SUPER RICH ? ? SENATOR CONFRONTED BY ANGRY VOTERS SEE THE CBS NEWS TONIGHT !!" $$$$$$$$$$$$$


Yes ! Re Kennedy blow hard. How come there is the Kennedy Family Trust in Tahiti ? TAHITI Not in US ? Because..... far less taxes of course. While the good Senator brays about the "rich" paying their fair share, I guess the "super rich" don't. Come on Senator. Come on CBS and Big money media..give us a break/
CBS---PLEASE DO STORY ABOUT KENNEDY FAMILY TRUST IN TAHITI !!! Clear the AIR once and for all.

Won't we all feel better "moving on" after the Senator is confronted, apologises, and asks for forgiveness, goes to a H and R tax course and retreat for treatment, re emerges a "new man" all slim and trim, does diet book, goes on the Letterman, has a few laughs, CBS morning show, dooking tips to stay thin, talks about diet tips and such, and is re elected , a new man. AN INSPIRATION TO US ALL !!!!

[abby59-2009]

President Bush is not an idiot so...get over it. You should worry more about the Kennedy's not paying taxes on the bootleg money their old man made. Kennedy did the same thing to Jerry Ford as he is doing to Bush. Look at the outcome. Great? If there is a pull out, we will have the jihad johnnies over here. You can take that to bank from a retired Navy sailor (female type). It will be interesting to see what Pelosi and her animal house will do.

[landlord61]

Hey Steve, you are supposed to be a writer, where did they teach you that nouns and adverbs are interchangable? They are the Democrat party not the Democratic party.