WASHINGTON -- For months, the politics of the Iraq war have been frozen in place, with stalwart Republicans defending President Bush's policy and most Democrats shunning a direct challenge.

Now, the ice has begun to crack.

In the face of solidifying public opposition to the war, a mounting U.S. body count and a renewed focus on the faulty intelligence used to justify the war, Democratic lawmakers and candidates have sharpened their critique of the administration's policy and, in some cases, urged a withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"The mood has really shifted," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), who in August became the chamber's first member to call for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. "We are in a whole different period."

Meanwhile, some Republicans who were strong backers of Bush's policy increasingly are distancing themselves from his optimism that the U.S. mission will be successful — even after the recent approval of a new Iraqi constitution.

"I hope that is a turning point," Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said of the constitution's passage. "But there is increasing skepticism. We've had a lot of events that appeared to be turning points, but the violence continues."

The changing political dynamic was dramatized this week when Democrats launched an unusually bold challenge on war policy: They essentially shut down the Senate to force release of a languishing report on whether the administration distorted or mishandled intelligence in making the case for invading Iraq. Chastened Republicans quickly agreed to investigate the status of the report.

Even before the Senate showdown, challenges to administration policy were multiplying in recent weeks: Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) for the first time called for new ways to accelerate troop withdrawals. Several Democratic congressional candidates began to urge Bush to set a timeline for ending U.S. involvement in the war. And more Republicans in competitive races — including a senior Senate leader — pointedly questioned the administration's rosy assessment of the war's prospects.

The new focus on Iraq — especially in the wake of the U.S. casualty count passing 2,000 last week and in connection with the indictment of a top White House aide involved in discrediting a prominent Iraq war critic — underscores the issue's likely prominence in next year's election.

When other hot issues fade, "the first thing that pops back up is concern about Iraq," said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster. "Iraq is fundamental to the political debate in 2006. People are going to focus on and want to know, 'Where are we going and what's the plan?' "

The debate over the war next fall could look very different from the arguments today. In both parties, many believe the administration next year could reshape the political landscape by beginning to withdraw troops. And many Republicans believe that, as Democrats present a more concrete alternative to Bush's policies, they will drive more Americans to rally behind the president.

Democrats remain deeply divided on what alternative to offer — and even whether they should offer one. Yet persistent public discontent with the war has clearly strengthened those Democrats urging more confrontation.

Most Americans now say in polls that they consider the decision to invade a mistake. In a mid-October Pew Research Center survey, a narrow majority said the United States should set a timetable for withdrawing its forces.

Among rank and file Democrats, disillusionment with the war has become overwhelming.

After months of nearly complete disconnect, more Democratic elected officials and candidates are echoing those sentiments.

In a speech last week, Kerry rejected a fixed date for withdrawal but argued that the United States should link troop reductions to "specific, responsible benchmarks" of progress in Iraq — the first time the former presidential candidate had proposed a plan to end U.S. involvement.

Similarly, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the traditionally hawkish ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, wrote Bush last week that the United States should withdraw one combat brigade each time three Iraqi brigades are fully trained.

More Democratic challengers are moving in this direction, too. Bryan Lentz and Patrick Murphy, two Iraq war veterans challenging Republicans in competitive Pennsylvania House races, are both promoting benchmark-linked timelines for withdrawing U.S. troops.

"As long as we are doing the job, the Iraqis are going to say, 'The Americans are here,'" said Murphy, who served in Iraq for eight months as an Army captain. "You need to give them the incentive to do it."

In Ohio, Paul Hackett, another Iraq war veteran, generally opposed a timetable for withdrawal during his high profile, but unsuccessful, campaign for a House seat during a special election last summer. But now Hackett has embraced the idea as he faces off in a Democratic Senate primary against Rep. Sherrod Brown, who has endorsed legislation that would require Bush to draft a withdrawal plan by year's end.

Democratic Senate contenders in Rhode Island and Minnesota are backing a complete U.S. withdrawal by the end of next year.

Liberal activists, such as Tom Matzzie, Washington director of MoveOn.org, welcome these moves, arguing that the party will benefit from disillusionment over the war in next year's election only if it presents voters "a vision for how America will get out of Iraq."

But most of the big names in the Democratic foreign policy establishment — ranging from Sen. Joseph R. Biden of Delaware to retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark — still fear that this push for a fixed timetable for withdrawal would hurt the war effort in Iraq and the Democratic cause in the 2006 election.

"I think the only thing that can rescue Bush from the consequences of his inept handling of Iraq is overkill by zealous Democrats," said Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist Democratic think tank.

The movement and divisions among Republicans are more subtle, but also growing.

The vast majority of Republicans have remained in support of the war, and argue that there is no viable alternative to staying the course. But it is increasingly difficult for them to keep the bad news from Iraq from eclipsing what they see as good news.

"We try to keep an ear to the ground, and the ground is rumbling," said Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.). "I offer my constituents the assurance that this is a path on which we must be successful. But it's being reacted to with unease and uncertainty."

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), facing a tough reelection fight in 2006, has been hammered by his opponent, Democrat Bob Casey, for his support of Bush policies, including the war in Iraq. After Casey accused Santorum — who is the Senate's No. 3 Republican leader — of uncritically supporting the administration's policy in Iraq, Santorum's staff combed his record to find an occasion where he criticized aspects of the war's conduct.

Rep. Anne Northup (R-Ky.), who is potentially vulnerable because she represents a Democratic-leaning district, put a big distance between herself and Bush's Iraq policy in a recent interview with National Public Radio.

"I don't say, as the president does, that I am sure that we are going to be successful in Iraq," she said. "I don't say that because I am not sure."

In Ohio, where the situation hits close to home because more than 100 residents have died in Iraq, GOP Sen. Mike DeWine is far more cautious than Bush's confident pronouncements. When asked about the war by worried constituents, DeWine said, "I tell them the jury is still out. People are very concerned."

One vulnerable Republican who sees the issue working for him next year is Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, the only Senate Republican who voted against the 2002 resolution authorizing war with Iraq.

"Having been in opposition to it, and very vocal ... now people are saying, 'He was right,' " said Chafee.

Commentary:
I've suggested many times that dems take control of the government - a shadow government that would run things until the next election. Reid has done just that. For whatever reason the Senate stayed in closed session after Reid invoked Rule 21 They could have voted no after being closed, but clearly a lot of republicans were tired of carrying water for Bush so they gave in to Reid's demands and stayed closed until he got what he wanted.

What didn't the President know and when didn't he know it? After the war started and after it became clear there were no WMD, Bush still claimed he had "good intelligence." Intelligence that allowed him to go to war for no reason. The Senate Committee on Intelligence blamed the CIA but that bordered between pathetic and insanity. And the fact that democrats let them get away with it still sickens me. But, that was then, this is now. Dems have found their voice. Thank god.

The GOP is still the "Don't Blame Bush" party but that should change quickly.