WASHINGTON: Democrats, unable to use their slender congressional majority to force an end to the Iraq war, see Senate hearings with the top US commander and upcoming votes as a new opportunity to turn the war into an election-year hammer against Republicans.

Swept into power in a wave of public distaste for the drawn-out conflict, Democratic leaders find themselves preparing to face voters in November with nothing to show for their repeated efforts to compel a US troop withdrawal or impose conditions on military deployments.

They have virtually no hope of better success in the months to come.

That leaves them scrambling for ways to draw distinctions between themselves and the Republicans on Iraq and to show they are committed to ending the war, even as they resign themselves to the fact that they lack the votes to do so.

“That’s what this presidential race is about,” said Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democrats’ 2004 presidential candidate. “It is clear that we do not have the votes in the United States Congress at this moment in time. And that’s part of what the Senate races will be about. People are going to challenge the folks who have a different point of view about this policy. The American people are going to speak on this in November.”

Complicating Democrats’ task is evidence that President George W. Bush’s unpopular troop buildup has helped secure key areas of Iraq and slow the pace of US deaths.

With the faltering US economy eclipsing the war as voters’ top worry, Democrats are putting more emphasis on the domestic and military side effects of the Iraq conflict, such as neglecting infrastructure investments at home, overstretching the military and losing sight of the al-Qaida threat.

In a memo circulated recently among Democratic senators, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, said Democrats need to avoid “getting into a defensive crouch” on Iraq.

They should acknowledge that the troop buildup has succeeded in reducing violence, Biden said, and stress their argument that it has not brought the war any closer to ending or reduced the costs of the conflict.

Testimony on Tuesday and Wednesday by Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker will bring all three presidential candidates back to Capitol Hill to showcase their Iraq stances.

As important, it will give congressional Democrats a high-profile chance to call attention to what they argue are the war’s damaging consequences in preparation for votes in the next month on funding the conflict or reducing US combat presence in Iraq.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi circulated a fact sheet outlining domestic needs border security, student loans and health care for the uninsured that could be met with the $339 million per day that congressional researchers say is being spent on the war.

“Every day that we are spending millions in Iraq means missed opportunities to invest in critical priorities here at home,” her summary said.

The House and Senate could vote within weeks on legislation to continue funding the war, which will likely become a forum for Democratic demands that troops start coming home. That effort is likely to be a rehash of what occurred last year, when Democrats repeatedly pushed anti-war measures only to back down after falling short of the votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate.

“The key is to continue to keep the pressure on and continue to take the measures that we’re taking to make sure that we have a president and a House and Senate that are willing to change direction in Iraq beginning in 2009,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who heads the Democrats’ House campaign committee.

Democratic leaders are well aware that failing to take an aggressive anti-war stance could sap the enthusiasm among their base that will be vital to maintaining their majority and electing a Democratic president.

Activists warn that voters will lash out at lawmakers they consider complicit in continuing the war. They cite the primary defeat of eight-term Rep. Albert Wynn, a Maryland Democrat who supported the war, by an opponent who had the backing of the anti-war group MoveOn.org.

“If the Congress doesn’t hold the president accountable, voters can hold Congress accountable,” said former Democratic Rep. Tom Andrews, director of the anti-war group Win Without War.

As they vie for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are promising to begin withdrawing US forces from Iraq. Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain said Monday those pledges amount to a “failure of leadership”.

Republicans charge that the Democrats’ new tack on the war is a tacit acknowledgment they lack the votes to force a change and that their arguments are losing steam with the improvement of conditions in Iraq.

“They can talk about it a lot, and they’ve done that,” said Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican. “The only thing that appears to have changed is that the facts on the ground have improved.”

Kyl, his party’s No. 2 official in the Senate, said he resents Democrats’ attempts to tie the nation’s economic woes to the war.

“It’s a blackmail, using our troops and their requirements as a hostage to Democrat’s desire to spend more money on their favourite projects,” he said.—AP