In an Election Salvo, House Backs Iraq War

In a vote that quickly reverberated in this year’s congressional campaign, House Republicans won approval Friday of a resolution endorsing President Bush’s policies in Iraq -- a measure Democrats denounced as a charade designed to provide fodder for political attack advertising.

The roll call on the resolution capped a week in which Republican leaders sought to take advantage of events including the death of an Iraqi insurgent leader and the installation of an Iraqi parliament, to assuage public discontent with the war.

House Republicans described the 256-153 vote in favor of the nonbinding resolution as a resounding rejection of what they called “cutting and running” from Iraq. And they noted that a chunk of the chamber’s 201 Democrats were among its supporters.

“Today, the House of Representatives voted to stand up for freedom,” said House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). “We are pleased that 42 Democrats defied their leadership and stood with House Republicans to support both our troops and their mission to win the global war on terror.”

Democrats who opposed the resolution said a vote for it was tantamount to backing a failed status quo, as well as a deliberate confusion of the war on terrorism with the conflict in Iraq.

“Republicans in Congress continue to try to mislead the American people by suggesting a link between the war in Iraq and the war on terror,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco). “They are distinct ... and efforts to portray one as part of the other are a disservice to the truth and to the men and women sent to fight in Baghdad, Kirkuk and Ramadi.”

Many Republicans have been increasingly concerned about their party’s prospects in the November election, in part because of the continuing violence in Iraq.

But after a U.S. airstrike last week killed Abu Musab Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the GOP moved aggressively to rebuild political support for the war, gambling that discussing it works more to their favor than to the Democrats’. The offensive included Bush’s surprise visit to Baghdad on Tuesday.

The latest poll results indicate that the efforts have enjoyed some success but that public skepticism about the administration’s policies remains.

A CNN poll conducted Wednesday and Thursday showed that 39% of Americans approved of Bush’s handling of Iraq, compared with 34% in May. Fifty-three percent said they favored setting a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops -- a proposition Republicans repeatedly criticized as wrongheaded during hours of debate on the House resolution.

Democrats complained that the resolution, at heart, was a partisan political document that the GOP was pushing with an eye on the election.

Shortly after Friday’s House vote, the Republican Senate campaign committee posted news releases blasting two of the Democrats who opposed it: Reps. Harold E. Ford Jr., who is running for an open Senate seat in Tennessee, and Sherrod Brown, who is challenging Republican Sen. Mike DeWine in Ohio.

The releases lambasted the two for voting to “cut and run” -- a characterization that several Democrats staunchly disputed as they laid out their case against the resolution on the House floor.

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) said U.S. troops had come to be seen as “occupiers” by most Iraqis. “We support the troops. It’s the policy we don’t support,” he said. Murtha, a hawk on most military issues, began last fall to push for a phased withdrawal of the troops.

One Republican who supported the resolution and said he hoped it would help his reelection chances was Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut, whose district leans Democratic.

“Mistakes do not justify leaving prematurely,” Shays said, spotlighting the argument the GOP believes will prevail among voters.

He added: “I am not afraid we will lose the war in Iraq in Iraq. I am deeply concerned we will lose the war in Iraq here at home.”

Both sides used the two days of debate -- the House’s first sustained discussion of the war since the United States invaded Iraq more than three years ago -- to detail the rhetorical positions likely to be heard repeatedly in congressional campaigns.

“There are major differences between those of us who support strong national security policies and understand what we have at stake and those who would prefer we retreat from the world stage and attempt to manage the threat of terrorism and the danger it poses,” said House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).

Murtha countered: “There’s a time in our history when we have to be big enough as a country to change direction. If we stay [in Iraq], we’re going to pay, and we’re going to pay long-term.”

Each side chose to highlight different sections of the four-page resolution, which combined statements supporting U.S. troops with the controversial assertion that the Iraq war is an integral part of the global war on terrorism. The measure also rejected setting “an arbitrary date” for troop withdrawal.

Supporters said the resolution would send an important message about the U.S. commitment to establishing a democracy in Iraq and thwarting terrorists.

“Retreat is not an option,” Boehner said. “Achieving victory is our only option.”

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of three Republicans to vote against the resolution, said the measure’s wording was designed “to trick as many people as possible into supporting the president’s policy.”

“If you voted against it, your opponents can say you’ve voted against the troops and for terrorism,” Paul said.

Five House members -- two Republicans and three Democrats -- skirted a yes-or-no position on the resolution by voting simply “present.”

One was Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks), who said he did so because “to endorse a flawed process seemed like a bad idea.”

“There are so many provisions of this resolution that I don’t want to vote against, and others that are artfully written that I don’t want to vote for,” Sherman said.

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) said he voted “present” because he considered the resolution’s language too weak, particularly its use of the word “adversary” to describe Al Qaeda.

“The House must not parse and equivocate in its statements regarding the war on terror,” he said. “In the Cold War, President Reagan had the moral courage to call communist Russia an ‘evil empire.’ In the war on terror, the U.S. House must have the moral courage to call Al Qaeda our enemy.”

Throughout the debate, Republicans argued Democrats were too weak and indecisive to address the challenges in Iraq.

“Capitol Hill Democrats, once again, put their divisions and incoherence on display for the American public to see, offering no alternative except rhetoric about how to best concede defeat in Iraq and across the globe,” Boehner said in a statement after the vote.

On the other side of Capitol Hill, Senate Democrats continued to work behind closed doors on developing a consensus position on Iraq that they hoped would deflect such charges.

Senior Democrats, including Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, were discussing a proposal that would require the administration to begin a “phased withdrawal” of troops by the end of the year. The proposal, which was still under negotiation, would not set a deadline for ending the U.S. military presence, but would require the administration to produce a plan to continue the withdrawal beyond 2006.

The Democratic position would say that the mission in Iraq should change to one of “training, logistical support and targeted counter-terrorism operations,” according to a party member familiar with the proposal. The source requested anonymity when discussing the internal discussion among Democrats.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Breaking ranks

On a 256-153 vote, the House on Friday approved a nonbinding resolution that rejects setting a timetable for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, labels the war in that country part of the global fight against terrorism, and praises American troops. Voting for the measure were 214 Republicans and 42 Democrats; voting against it were 149 Democrats, three Republicans and one independent.

Republicans voting no

John J. “Jimmy” Duncan Jr., Tennessee

Jim Leach, Iowa

Ron Paul, Texas

Democrats voting yes

John Barrow, Georgia

Melissa Bean, Illinois

Howard L. Berman, Valley Village

Marion Berry, Arkansas

Sanford D. Bishop Jr., Georgia

Dan Boren, Oklahoma

Leonard L. Boswell, Iowa

Rick Boucher, Virginia

Dennis Cardoza, Atwater

Ed Case, Hawaii

Ben Chandler, Kentucky

Jim Cooper, Tennessee

Jim Costa, Fresno

Jerry F. Costello, Illinois

Robert E. “Bud” Cramer, Alabama

Henry Cuellar, Texas

Lincoln Davis, Tennessee

Chet Edwards, Texas

Bob Etheridge, North Carolina

Bart Gordon, Tennessee

Gene Green, Texas

Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota

Brian Higgins, New York

Tim Holden, Pennsylvania

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Rick Larsen, Washington

Daniel Lipinski, Illinois

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts

Jim Marshall, Georgia

Jim Matheson, Utah

Carolyn McCarthy, New York

Mike McIntyre, North Carolina

Charlie Melancon, Louisiana

Dennis Moore, Kansas

Collin C. Peterson, Minnesota

Mike Ross, Arkansas

John Salazar, Colorado

Adam Smith, Washington

Vic Snyder, Arkansas

John M. Spratt Jr., South Carolina

Gene Taylor, Mississippi

Bennie Thompson, Mississippi

Source: U.S. House of Representatives

Los Angeles Times