01:00 AM EST on Tuesday, December 6, 2005

It's time -- now -- for U.S. Senate candidates to start debating the war in Iraq. They've done interviews and news releases. But let's see actual face-to-face dialogue between incumbent Lincoln Chafee and Republican primary challenger Steve Laffey and between Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse and Matt Brown.

Spare us the posturing over timing and sponsorship. And, sure, now or later, debate other issues too. But begin with Iraq.

Rhode Islanders deserve to see in depth what the candidates make of this debacle. Where does the war fit in their scale of priorities and outrages? What can a senator -- or even a candidate -- do about it?

Secretary of State Brown has been vocal in calling for a withdrawal of American troops. He asks you to sign a petition urging President Bush to set a timetable. Brown even hired a firm to make phone calls to drum up interest in the petition. And he has called on former Attorney General Whitehouse to debate Iraq. But Brown hasn't bombarded the airwaves with TV ads to push his Iraq policy or, for that matter, to pressure Whitehouse into meeting him.

Whitehouse says there'll be debates -- but closer to the primary. If he is running as well as he claims he is and if, as he constantly says, he is so much more experienced than Brown, he should have no fear of facing him now -- as a favor, not to Brown, but to the citizenry. I repeat: to the citizenry. Iraq is too important to stand on political orthodoxy, which cautions frontrunners against giving their foes' debate exposure.

Cranston Mayor Laffey, the only candidate who thought it was right to invade Iraq, called on Chafee months ago to face him in debates -- no specific issue -- and Chafee said he'll do it, some day. How about now, Senator, on Iraq? (To Chafee's credit, he is, in general, extraordinarily accessible. Laffey often speaks via statements or aides and can be tough to pin down.)

Beyond specifics of the war, I'd like to see candidates debate broader, related topics. Ever since Vietnam, governmental abuses, and abuse by government of facts and of the English language, has become so commonplace, that citizen senses have been dulled and the capacity to be shocked diminished.

Like, say, the United States denounces torture but, at Abu Ghraib, engages in it itself.

Last week came news of a covert multimillion-dollar American military campaign to, as The New York Times put it, "plant paid propaganda in the Iraqi news media and pay friendly Iraqi journalists monthly stipends."

This is not supposed to be the way things go in a democracy, which is what the United States says it is trying to build in Iraq. But, as The Washington Post editorialized: "This is an administration that paid a U.S. columnist and peddled phony video news releases at home, too."

And consider also last Wednesday's Bush speech with the Plan for Victory signs. This was not a plan for victory in Iraq, it was a plan for lulling Americans into thinking there is a plan. And repeated use of the word "victory" -- 15 times in the speech itself -- was central to the effort. A Sunday New York Times piece detailed the influence on the presentation wielded by Peter Feaver, a Duke University political scientist who joined the National Security Council staff as a special adviser in June. He and Duke colleagues had presented the administration with a public opinion analysis that said Americans would support a war with mounting casualties -- if they believed it would ultimately succeed.

But I don't know anyone now who does believe it will ultimately succeed. Do you?

M. Charles Bakst, The Journal's political columnist, can be reached by e-mail at mbakst@projo.com