The Terrorism Card
With Election Day looming, the president tries to put the focus on one big issue
What a difference two months can make. In late June, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt two major blows to President Bush's strategy in the war on terrorism, ruling that the military tribunals his administration established to try al Qaeda suspects was unconstitutional and that the Geneva Conventions' standards for prisoner treatment applied to suspected terrorists in U.S. military custody, a view at odds with the White House. Last week, in announcing that his administration would reverse course and meet those demands, the president-to the surprise of almost everyone in Washington-appeared to score a political victory, at least for the moment.
Bush's call for Congress to pass legislation authorizing a revised version of his military tribunals succeeded not only in co-opting the last congressional session before the midterm elections; it came in a speech in which the president disclosed that CIA interrogations in secret prisons abroad had foiled a series of deadly terrorist plots. The revelations raised the specter of more attacks just two months before the midterm elections, playing to one of the only political advantages Republicans have left. On the same day, the Defense Department announced that all detainees in U.S. military custody would now be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions, depriving Bush critics of a main attack line. "The White House just gave all Republican congressmen exactly what they need," says GOP strategist Scott Reed. "Every time you see mug shots of those [terrorists], it reminds people that Republicans are on the offensive, and that Democrats don't have a plan."
GOP control. It also reminds the country that, as it marks the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks this week, another anniversary looms: the third national election in which the GOP hopes to maintain control of Washington by arguing that it will provide Americans with more security than the Democrats. "Terrorism is not at the top of people's minds day in and day out," says Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll. "Republicans are trying to drive it to the fore of public consciousness." The campaign includes Bush's request late last week for congressional authorization of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program, and even the launch of a new anti-Democrat online newspaper called America Weakly, paid for by the Republican National Committee. With the president's approval rating under 40 percent and a majority of Americans continuing to view the Iraq war as a mistake, the Republicans have little choice but to turn their focus to terrorism, where 42 percent of Americans think the GOP is stronger, compared with 34 percent for Democrats.
But Democrats say the Republican national security campaign, which Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid summed up as "fear, fear, fear, and more fear," won't yield the benefits it did in 2002 and 2004. Even as Democrats pledged cooperation on tribunals legislation, they upped the ante and claimed that they are in fact stronger than their opponents on security issues, framing the Iraq war as a distraction from the war on terrorism. Last week, party leaders distributed a report alleging that Bush has made the country weaker and called for implementing more 9/11 commission recommendations. Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg says last week's White House offensive was another instance where "they get a few points bump up, and then the reality of Iraq ... sets back in, and their numbers go back or even worsen."
Indeed, there are serious questions about the viability of either party's strategy. Many Democratic challengers running in the midterms are still uneasy about their party's stances on security issues. Many Republican incumbents, meanwhile, are distancing themselves from an unpopular president and the unpopular Iraq war, despite the GOP security offensive. "At some point, voters become calcified in their views about the war, the president, and Congress," says Amy Walter, a House analyst with the Cook Political Report."Debate in Washington is not going to change that."
"Less murky." A poll last month showed that 61 percent of Americans see Iraq as either a minor part in the war on terrorism or as completely unrelated. That helps explain why Democrats are becoming more aggressive in calling for a redeployment of troops from Iraq. "We have men and women dying in Iraq, and they're serving with no clear mission," says Patrick Murphy, a Democrat challenging Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick in suburban Philadelphia. One top Democratic strategist says that last month's primary in Connecticut, where the antiwar Ned Lamont defeated Sen. Joe Lieberman, emboldened Democrats to more forcefully denounce the Iraq war. "The party is a lot less murky than it was a year ago on Iraq," says Lamont. "I think we can always be clearer."
But many Democratic candidates are worried about too much clarity. Jim Webb, challenging Virginia Sen. George Allen, rejects setting a timeline even to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, a position held by nearly all Democratic senators. "The Democratic Party ... continues to fall into the trap the Republicans set," Webb says. "They want Democrats to talk about specific dates for withdrawal so they could attack us." Like Webb, a secretary of the Navy under President Reagan, other Democratic challengers are emphasizing how their professional backgrounds give them terror-fighting skills. "People called me a no-nonsense prosecutor, and I want to be a no-nonsense fighter in this war on terror," says Claire McCaskill, challenging Sen. Jim Talent in Missouri.
Other Democratic candidates attempted to distance themselves from last week's Senate debate calling on Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld to resign. "Getting Rumsfeld to resign for the sake of saying 'I told you so'-I'm not interested in that," says Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq war vet running for Congress in suburban Chicago. "I'm more worried about coming up with solutions."
Many vulnerable Republicans, meanwhile, are stepping up criticism of Bush and the Iraq war or attempting to ignore both on the campaign trail. Florida Rep. Clay Shaw, facing a serious challenge this year, visited Iraq last month but spoke little of his trip other than answering some questions for local media. Shaw is focusing instead on issues like healthcare and Everglades restoration.
It's Republican incumbents in conservative areas who embraced the White House last week. "Our opponents want this election to be a referendum on George Bush," says Dick Wadhams, Allen's campaign manager in red state Virginia. "But there's a real choice on the war on terror and Iraq, and the president succeeded in laying that out." A key Republican strategist explains that the terrorism offensive is intended to excite the party's base, not swing voters. But that raises more questions about how successful it will be in states and districts where Republicans are most vulnerable.
With Kenneth T. Walsh, Angie C. Marek and Bret Schulte
This story appears in the September 18, 2006 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.