Behind the Show of Bipartisanship: Muted Dissent
Crisis-Inspired Unity Shows Signs of Crumbling as Democrats Air Concerns Over Bush Response

By John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 17, 2001; Page A13

The rush by lawmakers to give rhetorical support, money and broad war-making authority to President Bush to respond to terrorism was a display of bipartisan unity and deference to the executive branch that is without precedent in Washington in recent decades.

But lurking beneath the surface of this united front is a more complicated reality. A host of suspicions and resentments make it likely, said many Democrats, that the fractiousness that has defined modern politics could soon reappear.

Democrats, and even some Republicans, have expressed concern that the necessity to give broad powers to the White House could go too far, robbing what they said was Congress's constitutional authority to appropriate money and hold the administration accountable for policy decisions it makes to meet the crisis.

On a less philosophical plane, there is already private grousing about intelligence briefings -- considered by some lawmakers to be inadequate -- about the attacks and Bush's intentions for responding. And while virtually every Democrat is publicly expressing support for Bush, there is considerable not-for-attribution criticism among lawmakers and political operatives about the sense of command he has conveyed in public performances.

These so-far muted notes of dissension suggest Bush cannot for much longer expect a reprieve from opposition during a war against terrorism. Democrats said this is especially so because -- despite the unanimous desire to respond and the unanimous outrage at events -- many of the specific choices he faces are inherently controversial: Should there be a ground war to evict Middle Eastern regimes that support terrorism? How much must Americans' freedoms be curtailed to protect security?

Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), reflecting an agony echoed by many colleagues, said he worries that, in a national emergency, asking searching questions can look unpatriotic. "The most dangerous time for any democracy is at times of crisis," he said. "Asking even the most innocent and basic questions is seen as being nonsupportive."

"In the heat of the moment," he said, "everyone wants to rally around the flag, and sometimes they do that to the great benefit of the country, and sometimes to the great detriment."

Obey, who is the ranking Democratic appropriator in the House, faced the tension at close hand last week. In behind-the-scenes negotiations, he first threatened to oppose the administration's emergency spending request because he did not believe it contained adequate provisions for congressional consultation. An agreement was eventually struck.

While nearly all politicians in the past week said their responsibilities have changed -- the need to reach agreement has transcended the usual instinct to highlight differences and score political points -- changing habits and burying old grievances is a challenge.

House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said when he spoke with Bush and pledged Democrats' support, "We need to trust him, and he needs to trust us."

"This is a stern test" of Washington's political culture, Gephardt added. "We don't have a great history of this. We're learning new things."

The newest experience for many Democrats, who just a week ago began each day searching for ways to make Bush's life miserable, is to find themselves wishing him well. "This is sort of against my DNA -- I'm actually pulling for him now," said political consultant James Carville, who has long cultivated a reputation as the most vociferous of Democratic partisans.

In fact, an entire Washington industry -- employing untold numbers of professional agitators and message mavens -- finds itself without a market and has been shut down by events as abruptly as was Reagan National Airport. When two leaders of the religious right, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, last week said liberals, abortion rights advocates and others were partly responsible for terrorism because they had incited God's anger, one Democratic operative said excitedly to a colleague that the inflammatory remarks would be great for use in direct-mail solicitations -- only to be reminded that congressional Democrats have canceled their direct-mail operations for the indefinite future.

"This is not a time for any kind of partisan activity, both out of patriotism and good political sense," said Howard Wolfson, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "The average person overwhelmingly wants the president to succeed, as do I."

But wishing Bush well is not the same as thinking he is doing well. Running through Democratic circles last week was a steady current of dismissive commentary -- nearly all of it spoken with an insistence on anonymity -- questioning whether Bush has the political and policy skills to heal the nation and rally an effective response.

"I thought he was terrible," said one Democratic operative. "He just seemed so small, especially compared to [New York Mayor Rudolph W.] Giuliani." Several Democrats expressed frustration that giving voice to what they see as legitimate doubts about Bush's leadership -- once a constant endeavor -- is now forbidden. "We are forced to stick together and be almost more patriotic than they [Republicans] are."

"The irony is that the weaker he comes across," said one prominent Democratic operative, "the more you have to support him."

This instinct to support without reservations is already being tested. Gephardt said some of his members have not been happy with the flow of information from the administration, though he said he has counseled patience under the circumstances.

One Democratic senator said: "I'm not satisfied with the briefings at all. They need to be much more frequent and much more in depth." Insisting that his remarks not be attributed by name, the senator said, "I should be positive."

Some issues aren't likely to promote unity no matter the circumstances. Gephardt, for instance, said in an interview this week some of the enormous costs of the attack could be funded by diverting money the administration planned to spend on missile defense. He said the attacks showed that the real peril is delivered in much more mundane ways. Vice President Cheney, in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," said the potential of even worse terror makes missile defense that much more urgent.

Former representative Lee Hamilton (Ind.), one of the Democrats' ranking voices on foreign affairs when he served in the House, said his colleagues face what can be an agonizing balance of responsibilities. "A member of Congress has to be both a partner and a critic, and those two roles are not easily reconciled," he said. While people rightly expect lawmakers to defer to presidents in a crisis, he continued, "you have your constitutional responsibilities, and you have to try to exercise those. You are a partner in creating a policy."

The remarkable nature of last week's congressional actions can hardly be overstated, several current and former members said. Bush's father as president narrowly won a highly partisan vote for a resolution authorizing force in the days before the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Last week's resolution authorizing Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to respond militarily passed both chambers with one dissenting vote.

But even these votes masked natural tensions between the branches of government that have already emerged. Democrats insisted the resolution ratifying Bush's authority to respond military be more narrowly drafted.

And it was not only Democrats who were alert to the hazards of the moment. Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said he wanted a resolution "that does everything it needs to do, making sure that we're retaining, you know, our responsibilities." Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told National Public Radio that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution empowering President Lyndon B. Johnson to prosecute the Vietnam War "taught us that we ought to be very careful what we do in the passion of the moment and we may regret it later on."

Hamilton, while applauding the unity displayed so far, said he expected disagreement on the question of whether to accept every recommendation made by experts for increased security -- "they do cut down on freedom, and they do cost a lot of money" -- as well as on other questions: Why did intelligence agencies fail to predict the attack? Should covert actions or ground troops be part of a military response?

Hamilton said Democrats should raise questions, respectfully but without apology: "You have to support the president and certainly want to give him the benefit of the doubt. But you also know that presidents can make mistakes and they need independent advice and judgment."

Staff writer Michael Grunwald contributed to this report.