Yesterday's Senate debate on the war in Iraq fell along predictable, partisan lines...the Democrats on one side and the Republicans and Joe Lieberman on the other. So with few exceptions, the debate on implementing a plan to bring our troops home versus staying the same disastrous course, is being presented
as:
While congressional Republicans continued to show almost unanimous support for President Bush's handling of the Iraq war, Democrats struggled for consensus yesterday,
And so a key talking point is decided on: While the Republicans stand together, the Democratic Party is
divided, fractured and frustrated.
Let's start with a look at CNN's American Morning, with Soledad O'Brien and John Roberts giving a fair and balanced look at that "struggle."
[The excerpts from CNN were transcribed, courtesy of TiVo.]
From this morning's report from Dana Bash:
Good morning, Soledad. And it is the differences inside the Democratic Party that will be on display with those votes this morning. [...]
The Republicans looked on in delight as some Democrats labeled Kerry's plan a mistake. [...]
GOP senators didn't offer their own plan, happy they said to stoke Democratic differences and paint them as weak on National Security. [...]
But some Democrats remember all to well how easily the Bush White House beat them on National Security in the last two elections and some Democrats, most of them actually, are reluctant to talk about it in public because it feeds into what the Republicans are saying, which is that they are a party divided.
On a side note, following Bash's report, they went to Suzanne Malveaux, who is in Budapest with Bush. She began her segment by saying:
Good morning, John. President Bush of course was received very warmly here in Hungary...
Of course...naturally. And at the end of her report, Roberts thanked her and said:
We should point out, Suzanne, that the struggle for democracy in Hungary went on for 35 years.
The White House couldn't have said it any better themselves. Anyway...
From the New York Times we learn that:
Democrats had worked for a week to bridge a divide among themselves, but instead presented two alternatives.
Followed by the inevitable:
Some Democrats agreed. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, who is facing a primary challenge in Connecticut from an antiwar candidate, said he would vote against his party's amendments.
Some + Democrats = Lieberman
And maybe it's just me, but I would have liked to see the reporter address this bit of confusing information:
Mr. Warner worked with Democrats last year to get the Senate to agree on a resolution saying 2006 should be a year of "significant transition" toward Iraqis' taking control of their country. But he made it clear there would be no working together this time.
Last year Warner agreed that 2006 was the year for Iraqis to begin to take control of their country and now it would be a "historic mistake" to even discuss it? But the New York Times didn't choose to address that little inconsistency.
And from the Washington Times?
Some Democrats privately complained to reporters that Mr. Kerry and his bill's co-sponsor, Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, are jockeying for position in the 2008 presidential race and said the timetable is distracting in an election year in which Democrats are trying to take back the Senate. They said Mr. Kerry appears to be playing to anti-war liberals who were frustrated by his often stumbling position on Iraq during his 2004 presidential bid. [...]
Mr. Kerry negotiated with party leaders before introducing his amendment, but the competing measures have allowed Republicans to paint the minority party as deeply fractured over the Iraq war.
Still, Democrats tried to claim unity...
Well, the Washington Times certainly won't let the Democrats get away with claiming that.
So let's get back to that liberal media, the Washington Post:
...with Senate Republicans happy to clear the way for Democrats to showcase their divisions. Senators predicted that few, if any, Republicans will embrace the Democrats' proposals, mirroring the nearly unanimous support House Republicans displayed last week for Bush's policies.
Once again, we are divided while the Republicans stand as one...never mind that the difference is proposing either a phased withdrawal starting this year or a complete withdrawal in one year, verus doing nothing but staying the course.
And from the Associated Press, which is the story that will go out to news outlets around the country, we get:
On Wednesday, Senate Republicans welcomed the Democratic-engineered debate because it highlighted divisions in the Democratic Party little more than four months before Election Day.
And finally, in the yes-we-got-the-White-House-memo coverage, the Denver Post says that:
The two plans reflect divisions among Democrats over the party's response to the war as fall elections approach.
It apparently didn't occur to them that it was simply two opinions on how to achieve the same result...getting our troops home.
But the coverage wasn't all bad. In fact, kudos to the Los Angeles Times, who actually managed to bring up and address the issue of the competing amendments:
"It's been interesting to watch the Democrats debate among themselves exactly what position they might have," said Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who mocked one as "cut and run" and the other as "cut and jog."
Democrats contended that the measures were not contradictory.
"Both amendments are a step in the right direction as they begin the process of winding down what has been the most tragic exercise of U.S. military power since Vietnam," said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who said he planned to vote for both.
But instead of both amendments being a "step in the right direction" to escape the quagmire in Iraq, most media outlets are painting them as proof (once again) that the Democrats are divided. The Los Angeles is the best article on the subject I've seen so far, but even it had:
It was a Democrat, though, who was the first speaker Wednesday to oppose that amendment: Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut...
It's hard to escape the Joementum, isn't it?
I'll finish with a bit more of the CNN coverage, an interview with Soledad O'Brien and former Ambassador Madeline Albright. After Soledad pushes the new talking point, Madeline delivers a very nice smackdown:
O'Brien: The Democrats, as you well know, have sort of two plans about getting out of Iraq. Is there going to be a problem because they don't seem to have a united front on this issue? That eventually it's going to alienate voters in and of itself and that's going to be a big problem come November?
Albright: I don't think so. You know, so much is being made about Democrats being divided. I don't see it that way. I think that what is happening here is all Democrats want to figure out how to end this war. This was a war of choice, not of necessity. More than 2500 Americans have died, and thousands have been injured. Everybody wants our troops to come home.
O'Brien: But when you have two plans, it send a message...like, 'Wow, they don't necessarily see eye-to-eye on this.'
Albright: No, they're saying that they have to figure out a way to come home. Both ideas frankly say that, the American presence there has to be drawn down. It's better to have some discussion about it than to be where the administration is, which is following blindly on a course that isn't leading in the right direction. I am very troubled by the fact that the administration continues to live in a parallel universe where they are seeing that things are going well in Iraq when in fact there are very serious problems...
Ms. Albright needs to be a regular feature on the TV talk-show circuit.
So there you have it...for the most part, what the American people have learned from the Senate debates on our future direction in Iraq is, the Democrats are divided.