Advertisement

Top Democrats Back Bush on Waging Iraqi War

Mideast: Hawkish consensus among possible presidential contenders could boost fortunes of Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

The World

September 18, 2002|RONALD BROWNSTEIN, TIMES STAFF WRITER

WASHINGTON — In rapid succession, the leading Democrats considering a race against George W. Bush in 2004 are lining up behind the president's push for possible military action against Iraq.

Since Bush's speech last week to the United Nations, Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John Edwards (D-N.C.) have made clear they would back the use of force against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, while House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) has suggested he would, as well.


Advertisement

Sources close to former Vice President Al Gore, the 2000 Democratic presidential nominee, say he will shortly endorse the prospect of military action. Even Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who has consistently raised questions about a potential strike against Iraq, appears to be moving toward supporting force, sources close to him say.

This hawkish consensus could leave an opening for a so-called peace candidate in the developing Democratic race. At the moment, Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who's openly exploring a presidential candidacy, appears the most likely to audition for that part. The little-known Dean has been more critical of possible military action than any other potential candidate.

That could help him gain a foothold in Iowa, site of the first caucus in January 2004 and traditionally a state where antiwar sentiments run high among Democratic activists. But, on both substantive and political grounds, most leading Democrats appear to have concluded that opposing action against Hussein could be an insurmountable burden to carry into a 2004 race.

"There is an opportunity in the primaries for an antiwar candidate, particularly in Iowa, but that disqualifies you for the general election," said a top aide to one of the likely 2004 candidates.

That sentiment--which has quickly become conventional wisdom among Democratic strategists working with the possible 2004 contenders--represents a marked change from 1991. At that time, many leading Democrats opposed then-President George Bush when he sought congressional approval for the use of force to dislodge Iraq from Kuwait, which it had invaded.

Since then, several factors have shifted the Democratic attitudes about confronting Hussein.

One is the successes of the U.S. military in the 1990s: After the armed forces' decisive performances in the Persian Gulf War, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo and Afghanistan, few officials in either party are expressing the concern that a war with Iraq could become a "quagmire"' or another Vietnam--a common contention from critics before the Gulf War.

Los Angeles Times Articles
|