Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Bush allies look past Iraq vote

GOP leaders can't stop a rebuke, but they're ready to fight over war funding.

By WES ALLISON
Published February 16, 2007

WASHINGTON - Today's vote in the U.S. House on a resolution condemning the surge of U.S. troops in Iraq offers all the suspense of a scripted pro wrestling match: It will pass easily, with strong support from the public and Republican defectors.

And with thousands of troops already on their way, it will have no immediate effect.

But soon the larger debate over Iraq will shift, as congressional Democrats seek to restrict how President Bush uses the money Congress appropriates for the war. It will be a far tougher fight - and one Republicans believe they can win.

All week, as members debated the resolution on the House floor, Republicans set the groundwork for that next stage of battle, arguing that Congress should not micromanage the war and portraying the Democrats as prepared to take ammunition from soldiers fighting on the front lines.

Many Democrats, in turn, acknowledge that making the case that Congress should intervene in military policy will be far harder than passing a nonbinding, symbolic resolution opposing the president's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.

"You move from the general to the specific, and that's always more difficult, it's always more complex," said Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass.

Today's resolution will mark the first substantive criticism of the war that Congress has leveled against the administration since the invasion in early 2003.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats announced Thursday they would take up the House resolution this weekend, with a vote expected Saturday on whether to proceed with the debate. Last week, Republican senators blocked a vote on bipartisan resolution opposing the surge.

So far, Democrats have not strayed from the safety of public opinion. Polls show most Americans oppose the surge.

But polls also show Americans are far less certain what Congress should do next. The public opposes cutting funding. And it is uncomfortable with Congress influencing military policy.

Karlyn Bowman of the conservative-leaning American Enterprise Institute said polls show "a profound ambivalence."

"The public always wants Congress to be involved in a major issue ... but I'm not sure they know what they should do next," she said.

"They don't think the Bush administration has a clear plan, they don't think the Democrats in Congress have a clear plan."

Republicans already are trying to exploit this uneasiness.

Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, a former Air Force fighter pilot who spent seven years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, recalled his captors blared "anti-American messages from back home over the loudspeakers."

"The enemy wants our men and women in uniform to think that their Congress doesn't care about them ... that they're going to cut the funding and abandon them and their mission," he said.

Democratic leaders say they plan to continue funding the president's requests for the war, including the latest request for $100-billion. But Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the subcommittee that controls military spending, has said he does want to limit how the money may be used, a tactic many Democrats endorse.

Murtha and others say they also would like to link funding with requirements that the Bush administration meet certain conditions - for diplomacy, for troop training and equipment, and for forcing the Iraqi government to reach more goals.

"We're not going to give the president a blank check on Iraq," said Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Broward County, a member of the Democratic leadership team. "There is a system of checks and balances, and they're going to have to make this policy in conjunction with the Congress."

Aside from drawing Republican opposition, the approach may challenge Democrats' unity. Some are uncomfortable with limiting in any way the commander-in-chief's ability to fight the war.

"I wouldn't support anything that deals with funding," said Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., who supported the resolution. "We have troops in the field of battle."

Michael O'Hanlon, a defense policy analyst at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institute, said for now "the most logical thing is to watch and wait what happens with the surge."

If it fails, then Congress could consider funding restrictions, O'Hanlon said.

"A lot of Democrats want to go on record as opposing it, but it's also happening," he said. "At some level, we should all be rooting for it to work."

Members of the U.S. House on Thursday continued debating a resolution that opposes the president's plans to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq. Each member was given about five minutes to speak. A vote is scheduled for today. From remarks by Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Brooksville:

"This week, the House is debating a useless Democratic resolution that's only purpose can be to weaken and divide. The American people are not stupid. They can see through this charade for what it is; a toothless effort only meant to provide political cover for Democrats. ...

"My sole concern today is for our troops. The litmus test for my vote is whether or not this resolution makes our troops safer. ... Will this resolution protect one more of our soldiers? Will this resolution make one piece of our armor thicker? Will these empty words make a single IED less lethal? Sadly, the answer is no.

"You know, I am not a blind supporter of this president's policies. If Democrats want to make this a debate about policy, I will be there to work with them. ... But the Democrats have not allowed a debate about policy change; instead this resolution is about pandering and politics."

[Last modified February 16, 2007, 00:41:37]