2 S.C. leaders, 2 views on Iraq

Clyburn, Graham agree to disagree on war's next step

Both lawmakers represent South Carolina in Washington, and both are playing high-profile roles as Congress continues its debate about the ongoing war in Iraq.

So why do Rep. Jim Clyburn and Sen. Lindsey Graham say such different things about what the United States should do next?

Their contrasting views are expected to be on display again this week as Congress continues to turn its attention toward the war-torn nation and as U.S. commander Gen. David Petraeus testifies about what's going on.

Clyburn, a Democrat whose position as Majority Whip makes him the third-highest-ranking leader in the House, said the military success of the surge has not been matched by political progress among Iraqis and that it is time for America to redefine its mission in Iraq and begin redeploying its forces. He also is wary of efforts to spin Petraeus' report.

"It seems as if this White House is trying to politicize everything and everybody. They have politicized the Department of Justice and that's why the attorney general is now gone," Clyburn said. "They now seem to be politicizing the men and women in uniform.

"That to me is very untoward. There's always been a saying that politics ought to stop at the water's edge. There's no better example of why that is than to keep the politics out of the military. This White House is politicizing the military in a way I don't think is healthy."

Graham, a Republican who is one of the staunchest defenders of President Bush's new Iraq policy and invited Bush to visit Charleston and talk about Iraq earlier this summer, concedes that political progress in Iraq has been slower than he would like, but says the surge is succeeding and must continue.

"Any effort to mandate withdrawal, no matter how well intended, will have the unintended consequence of empowering a diminished enemy. I think the worst thing we can do now in Washington is to send mixed signals," Graham said.

"It will not be long before there's a major breakthrough politically in Baghdad. That will be due to a better security environment and a powerful Iraqi people who are speaking up, who feel empowered by the surge to speak up."

Clyburn, whose whip position keeps him in close contact with his Democratic colleagues, told The Washington Post this summer that a positive report from Petraeus would "pose a real big problem" in keeping the Democratic caucus together. Some seized on the remark to imply that the Democrats are rooting for failure, but they didn't necessarily read what Clyburn said a few sentences after that: "None of us want to see a bad result in Iraq. If we are going to get in position to yield a good result, I think Democrats want to see that. We love this country, we are as patriotic as anybody else about this, and we have loved ones involved in this issue, just like everybody else."

Graham, whose eagerness to discuss Iraq has made him a frequent guest on Sunday morning talk shows, said he plays a far different role than Clyburn. "The Democratic hard left, they're over the top about Iraq. They want to get out by next Friday," Graham said. "Jim, as a Democratic leader, has to worry about that. I don't."

Graham and Clyburn said they don't talk to each other much, particularly about Iraq. "I respect Jim. We just differ on what to do in Iraq. We have for a long period of time," Graham said. "We have a great relationship when it comes to helping South Carolina. We agree on some national issues."

Clyburn agreed and suggested that the reasons might be found in their respective backgrounds.

"(Graham) supported this war in the first place. I didn't. The military solutions may be a part of his orientation, but I'm much more the seeker of diplomatic solutions and political solutions to problems," Clyburn said. "I've always been more interested in finding common ground than I've been in standing my own ground."

Reach Robert Behre at 937-5771 or rbehre@postandcourier.com.