Knowing when to tone it down

Democrats tread carefully on war at time of crisis

By Glen Johnson, Globe Staff, 8/21/2003

On the stump, Senator John F. Kerry is unafraid to let fly with criticism of President Bush and his foreign policy, which just last week the Massachusetts Democrat termed "blustering, arrogant, unilateralist."

Yet at times of crisis such as Tuesday, when terrorists used a truck bomb to blow up the United Nations headquarters in Iraq, Kerry is far more cautious.

That pattern is proof of a careful political calculus being used by many of his party's nine presidential candidates. They are trying to distinguish themselves on national security issues while not alienating a citizenry that to date has rallied behind the president in a time of war.

Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who has premised his candidacy on challenging whether Bush is the right leader for the times, had conference calls from New Hampshire with his aides before issuing three statements after the bombing.

Two dealt directly with the attack; the third was a broad denunciation of Bush for declaring an end to combat operations in Iraq during a "Hollywood-style moment" aboard a US aircraft carrier on May 1.

"If you are arguing that you are a strong leader, these are the moments when you have to stand up and make a statement," said Graham's communications director, Steve Jarding, who helped craft the media releases.

Kerry was meeting on Cape Cod with his senior colleague, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, while both were on vacation. One aide said Kerry consulted with Rand Beers, an adviser who recently left the National Security Council, before his campaign headquarters issued a statement that criticized the administration's plans for the occupation and called for more international participation. The statement said Tuesday's attack "underscores the need for the administration to quickly reassess the situation in Iraq."

When it comes to criticizing the commander-in-chief, said Jim Jordan, Kerry's campaign manager, "tone, modulation, and appropriateness matter an awful lot. The public reacts very badly to the perception of playing politics with foreign policy.

"Offering a statement that is thoughtful and well-informed is much more important than being the first campaign to hit the `send' button," Jordan added. The bombing "was an event the senator wanted to know more about before responding to requests for comment."

Some party groups such as the Democratic Leadership Council have urged the president's challengers not to shy away from criticism of national security policy.

"They need to convince the American people that they can be trusted with the nation's security and that they will keep our country safe," Al From, the centrist council's chairman, and Bruce Reed, its president, wrote in a May memorandum to their membership. "That will require more than me-tooing the president on national security and fighting terrorism. Democrats will have to engage that debate and offer ideas of their own."

William Schneider, a political analyst with the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, said the candidates and their staffs face a common challenge in executing that mandate, regardless of their differing viewpoints on the war in Iraq.

"They have to be very cautious about this because they don't want to be perceived as being unpatriotic. Rule No. 1 is to wait a decent interval," said Schneider. He cited a recent poll showing that more than 60 percent of the American people believed the United States was doing the right thing in Iraq, while only 35 percent thought it was wrong.

"If that starts getting to be a majority, then the tide has turned," Schneider said from London, where he was on vacation. "And that's when the politics in the United States could sound like it is over here in England, where they are raking the prime minister over the coals."

In his initial statement, Graham overshadowed his criticism of the administration's Iraqi policy with words of comfort.

"Many of us back home disagree on whether or not the military operation in Iraq is good public policy, but we haven't wavered in our unified support of the men and women of America's military and others in Iraq trying to secure the peace and provide stability today," he said.

Yet by late Tuesday, his political disagreement with the president was more prominent.

"Had the president pursued the war on terrorism prior to initiating military action against Saddam Hussein -- as I advocated last year -- it is likely that Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks would not have been able to take advantage of the chaos that now exists in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq," Graham said.

Before responding on foreign policy issues, Kerry is likely to talk with Richard Holbrooke, a former US ambassador to the United Nations, and Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy specialist at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Other advisers include former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and William J. Perry, who was defense secretary in the Clinton administration.

In his statement on Tuesday, Kerry said it is becoming "increasingly clear each day that the administration misread the situation on the ground in Iraq and lacks an adequate plan to win the peace and protect our troops."

In line with the Democratic Leadership Council's suggestion, however, Kerry offered his own policy prescription.

"We must immediately and thoroughly review the security situation in Iraq, accelerate the training programs for indigenous Iraqi military and police security forces to protect those already working in Iraq, and we must move quickly to add more international troops in Iraq through an expanded United Nations Security Council mandate," he said.

Glen Johnson can be reached at johnson@globe.com.