From the House floor, dozens have their say

By Noam N. Levey and Nicole Gaouette

Feb. 14, 2007 12 AM PT

Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON —

One by one they stepped to the front of the House chamber Tuesday, where lawmakers have debated every major U.S. military conflict since the Civil War.

There was the Iraq veteran elected to Congress in November who is pushing for an end to a war he said was “immoral.” From the other side came the stepmother of a Marine pilot who warned that any retreat in Iraq would aid only “the suicide bombers, the leaders of Al Qaeda [and] the rulers of Iran.”

Deep into the night, a parade of lawmakers from both parties drew on philosophers, generals and former presidents to make their points. They talked of wars long over and those that haven’t begun. It was the opening act in a weeklong rhetorical battle over a resolution renouncing President Bush’s latest proposal to quell the violence in Iraq.

The measure is expected to pass in the Democratic-controlled House, but it will not have a direct effect on the president’s plans to deploy 21,500 more troops in Iraq, in what has been billed as a last bid to restore order to Baghdad and other parts of the country.

The two-sentence, nonbinding resolution expresses “support” for U.S. forces and “disapproval” of the White House plan; Bush has said he will ignore it.

Still, Congress’ first full-scale debate on the war since Democrats won control of Capitol Hill has been cast as the prelude to a looming faceoff over concrete efforts to end the U.S. involvement in Iraq.

In making their case for the resolution, Democrats on Tuesday said it would help end what Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri called a “great American tragedy” that was destroying the military and weakening the nation.

Republican after Republican countered that the resolution represented what Rep. Duncan Hunter of El Cajon termed “the first sign of retreat” by America in the war on global terrorism.

Dozens of speakers from both sides of the aisle aired their views. Dozens more will be heard from today. And by the time of Friday’s scheduled vote, most of the 434 members of the House are expected to have said their piece -- a rarity that underscores the importance of the topic.

Many Democrats, including Iraq war veteran Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, made clear that they wanted to follow the resolution vote with binding steps to force the Pentagon to begin withdrawing the more than 135,000 U.S. forces now in Iraq.

“Walking in my own combat boots, I saw firsthand this administration’s failed policy,” Murphy said in his floor speech. “It is immoral to send young Americans to fight and die in a conflict without a real strategy for success.”

Murphy is pushing legislation with California Rep. Mike Thompson of St. Helena, a Vietnam veteran, that calls for a phased withdrawal. So too are Democrats Lynn Woolsey of Petaluma, Barbara Lee of Oakland and Maxine Waters of Los Angeles, the leaders of the congressional “out of Iraq” caucus.

Rep. John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania -- a Vietnam veteran whose call for a withdrawal more than a year ago helped energize Democratic opposition to the war -- has said he plans to use congressional authority over the Pentagon budget to limit Bush’s planned troop buildup.

“We must be mindful of the sacrifices our military personnel are being asked to make in this war and the toll it is taking on them, on their families and on our veterans,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said as she opened debate on the resolution Tuesday.

“In the spirit of responsibility for our troops and the patriotism we all share, let us consider whether the president’s escalation proposal will lessen the violence in Iraq and bring the troops home,” said Pelosi, who sought to focus the debate over the resolution on the well-being of the U.S. military.

Republicans have long tagged Democratic opposition to the war as an attack on the military.

On Tuesday, Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas) -- a Vietnam veteran who 34 years ago Monday was released after seven years in a North Vietnamese prisoner of war camp -- called the Democratic resolution a “first step for them to cut funding for our troops in harm’s way.”

Johnson made his remarks to reporters; he and other Republican war veterans plan to deliver their House speeches opposing the resolution on Thursday.

Many GOP lawmakers who spoke Tuesday adhered to a message delivered by Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio, who cast the Democratic measure as a road to surrender.

“We know what Al Qaeda thinks when America retreats from the battlefield,” he said. “They think we can’t stomach a fight. This is why they haven’t been afraid to strike us whenever they’ve had the opportunity.”

Invoking President Lincoln’s perseverance during the Civil War, Boehner said: “History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.”

Two other Republican lawmakers sent their colleagues a letter that made a similar point.

“The debate should not be about the [troop] surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date,” Reps. John Shadegg of Arizona and Peter Hoekstra of Michigan wrote.

“Rather the debate must be about the global threat of the radical Islamist movement.... If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose.”

Several Republican lawmakers -- including Rep. Walter B. Jones of North Carolina, who is cosponsoring the resolution -- have broken with their party over the war. Those voices were not heard Tuesday, however, and it remains uncertain whether the measure will attract a significant number of GOP votes.

Typical of the Republican message that emerged Tuesday were comments by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida. Her stepson and his wife are Marine pilots, and she expressed concern that they would face a more determined enemy if the resolution were adopted.

“If we run, [terrorists] will pursue,” she said, standing in front of large photos her two loved ones in uniform. “If we cower, they will strike.”

Ros-Lehtinen closed by saying she was worried that her daughter-in-law, who is about to be deployed to Afghanistan, “could face a more deadly enemy” depending on what House lawmakers do this week.

In the Senate last week, another nonbinding resolution opposing the troop buildup was cut short when Democrats failed to gather enough GOP support to debate the measure. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday he would bring up the House measure for discussion later this month.

noam.levey@latimes.com

nicole.gaouette@latimes.com

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Resolution before the House of Representatives: (1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and (2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on Jan. 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

JOHN SHADEGG

“The debate must be about the global threat of the radical Islamist movement.”

(R-Ariz.)

PATRICK MURPHY

“Walking in my own combat boots, I saw firsthand this administration’s failed policy.” (D-Pa.)

JOHN A. BOEHNER

“History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.” (R-Ohio)

NANCY PELOSI

“Let us consider whether the president’s escalation proposal will

(D-San Francisco)

SAM JOHNSON

The resolution is a “first step for them to cut funding for our troops in harm’s way.”