Senate set to refight Iraq resolution battle

As rhetoric heated up in the House on Thursday over a measure to protest President Bush’s buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq, Senate leaders moved toward a new showdown over conducting a similar debate.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) -- whose bid to bring up a nonbinding resolution opposing the troop increase has foundered for nearly two weeks -- decided to have senators work in a rare Saturday session to revisit the issue.

Reid said he wanted a vote that would clear the way for debate on the House resolution, a two-sentence measure that expresses support for the U.S. troops serving in Iraq but opposes Bush’s plan to increase their numbers by 21,500.

But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said he opposed Reid’s move, meaning the Democrats might fall short of the 60 votes they need to discuss the resolution.

Reid has cast the Republicans as obstructionists unwilling to confront a pressing issue, and his scheduling of a Saturday session was widely seen as an effort, in part, to underscore that argument.

McConnell and other Senate GOP leaders have sought consideration of an alternative resolution that does not criticize Bush’s new strategy and opposes any attempts to cut funding for troops in the field.

Reid has rejected that request, sparking Republican attacks that he was trying to muzzle their point of view.

Heated House debate

The renewed skirmishing between the two came during the House’s third full day of debate on its measure. Backed by virtually all Democrats in a chamber the party now controls, the resolution is expected to pass today.

The major political question surrounding the vote is how many of the House’s 201 Republicans will break ranks and favor it. About 20 have indicated support for the measure, but Democratic leaders hope for more.

In Thursday’s debate, both parties turned to lawmakers with military backgrounds to speak for or against the resolution.

Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), recalling his 2,494 days of “hell on Earth” in a North Vietnam prisoner of war camp, told his colleagues about the “emotional torture” of hearing broadcasts of “anti-American messages from back home.”

“The enemy knows that any anti-American murmur can be used as a weapon -- and the same holds true today,” the former fighter pilot said.

Democrats seeking to counter such arguments included Rep. Timothy J. Walz of Minnesota, who was elected this fall and served 24 years in the Army National Guard.

“This body has a sacred duty to protect this nation, our citizens, and especially those we send into combat in our name,” Walz said. “Constant vigilance, questioning and adjustments to courses of action are our No. 1 priority, and this newly elected Congress intends to do just that.”

Joining Johnson in speaking out against the measure was Rep. Geoff Davis (R-Ky.), who served 11 years in the Army.

Davis contended that in debating the troop increase, Congress was injecting itself into a decision that “should be made by commanders in the battlefield.”

He asked: “What are we going to be debating next week ... which block in Baghdad to target?”

‘Change the course’

But Rep. Christopher P. Carney (D-Pa.), a lieutenant commander in the Navy Reserve, said, “In the Navy, when we run a ship aground we change the course. It is now time to change the course in Iraq.”

As the debate proceeded, Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr. (R-Va.), who recently made controversial remarks about Muslims, used his speech opposing the resolution to warn against the threat he said was posed by “Islamic jihadists.”

Goode said he was convinced that these “radical Muslims” wanted to “destroy this country” and see “In God We Trust” replaced on U.S. currency by “In Muhammad We Trust.”

In a letter to constituents late last year, Goode said that unless the United States tightened its immigration policies, “many more Muslims” would be elected to office and follow the lead of Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who used the Koran at his swearing-in this year.

richard.simon@latimes.com

noam.levey@latimes.com

Times staff writer Nicole Gaouette contributed to this report.