WASHINGTON _ Usually unified in opposition to President Bush, the Democratic Party is divided over whether to challenge Bush's drumbeat for war against Iraq.

Most prominent Democrats are cautiously straddling the middle ground. All would like to see Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein go, but most refuse to flatly support or oppose a pre-emptive U.S. war as the way to do it.

Few are attempting even to ignite a national debate on the question, even though Bush's assertion of a U.S. right to launch pre-emptive war would shift U.S. strategic policy profoundly away from the doctrines of defense, deterrence and containment that have guided America since the Founding Fathers. Bush announced the new policy June 1.

Democrats fear being labeled unpatriotic. They don't want force a debate now that would divert attention from domestic issues that they think boost their chances in November's elections. And, more than Republicans do, Democrats depend on Jews for money and votes _ and Jews consider Iraq a lethal threat to Israel.

The hesitance of the nation's opposition party to help shape the debate on war stands in stark contrast to the position of several prominent Republicans who openly oppose an unprovoked U.S. invasion as either un-American or a blunder that would set back the broader war against terrorism, undermine America's alliances and threaten the U.S. economy. House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas, former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, all recently took those stands.

Despite such stakes, most leading Democrats _ including those angling to run for president in 2004 _ simply sidestep the big question. Among them are former Vice President Al Gore, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt of Missouri and Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina and John Kerry of Massachusetts _ all possible presidential candidates.

"It's overly simplistic to say are we in favor of a war or against a war," Edwards said in an interview Wednesday. "Saddam is dangerous and he needs to be gone. But there are many things that need to be done before any decision is made or action taken."

"I would love to see (Saddam) replaced," Gore said recently in response to a question from a group of college interns. "I have an open mind about the best ways to do that."

Perhaps the clearest national Democratic voice on the question rises from another possible contender in 2004, Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, the party's vice presidential nominee in 2000. He joins Bush in favor of war against Iraq.

Few Democratic candidates for Congress even raise the issue when campaigning for the Nov. 5 elections. "I don't hear Democrats muttering a word about this," said Stuart Rothenberg, an independent analyst who monitors campaigns.

"There's a certain amount of fear, let's face it," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who opposes war against Iraq. "The nature of politics is caution. People are just watching and wondering what's going on here."

Kucinich said he tried to convince Democrats in the House of Representatives to take a united stand against the war in a closed-door meeting before Congress' August recess. His colleagues, he said, didn't want to turn the national political debate away from corporate scandal and economic anxiety.

"There's a feeling that, look, let's not distract attention from the economy," Kucinich said in an interview Tuesday.

Most leading Democrats confine their qualms about war to reservations about how Bush is selling it. They question whether he has adequately made his case to the American people or U.S. allies, and whether he has worked hard enough to end Israeli-Palestinian violence, which makes it harder to build an Arab coalition against Iraq.

Only a handful of Democrats in Congress have similarly challenged Bush's argument for war.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, contended recently that attacking Iraq to prevent it from using weapons of mass destruction could actually incite him to fire them, for he would be a cornered dictator with nothing to lose. Containing Saddam has worked for 10 years, Levin said; why war now?

Others, including Reps. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas and Kucinich, want their party to boldly oppose Bush's rush toward war when Congress returns to Washington next month.

"Where else are we going to have the kind of debate we need if we don't have it in the United States Congress," Jackson-Lee said.

hello there & you too