Gold9472
02-14-2007, 11:54 AM
House Begins Full Debate on the Iraq War
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/washington/14cong.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1171467791-Lx5K9rEekPH9j+OPtegBBg
(Gold9472: Be prepared to throw up.)
By JEFF ZELENY and MICHAEL LUO
Published: February 14, 2007
WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 — The House opened a full-throated debate on Tuesday over the Iraq war as lawmakers began considering a resolution to denounce President Bush’s plan to add troops. Democratic leaders said the debate was the first step in using Congressional authority to intervene in the conflict.
“There is no end in sight,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. “The American people have lost faith in President Bush’s course of action in Iraq, and they are demanding a new course of action.”
In the first hours, Democrats sought to present their case through the voices of veterans who are in Congress, offering a narrative running from World War II battlefields to Iraqi deserts.
The debate on the nonbinding resolution, scheduled to end on Friday, is the first substantive war deliberation since the Democrats won control of Congress last year.
Republicans said at least 24 members of their party might join the rebuke of Mr. Bush, and party leaders forcefully defended the Iraq strategy. The resolution would not only send a disturbing message to American troops, they said, but also endanger America.
“This is a political charade lacking both the seriousness and the gravity of the issue that it’s meant to represent,” said Representative John A. Boehner, the Ohio Republican who is minority leader. “The question is. ‘Do we have the resolve necessary to defeat our terrorist enemies?’ ”
After negotiations over competing proposals faltered last week in the Senate, the House picked up the discussion and boiled down its resolution to express support for American forces and disapproval for the plan to add 20,000 troops in Iraq.
On its face, several Republicans conceded, the resolution was difficult to oppose. Two Republicans, John Shadegg of Arizona and Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, instructed their colleagues to make the debate about the fight against terrorism.
“If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose,” they wrote in a letter.
Many Republicans who spoke on Tuesday appeared to heed that message, framing the war as an important battleground in a global struggle against militant Islam.
“It’s not George Bush’s war,” Representative J. Gresham Barrett, Republican of South Carolina, said. “This is our war. There is only one way out of this war — victory.”
With Democrats controlling the chamber for the first time since the war began, they did not allow Republicans to present amendments to the resolution. The tactic drew objections from Republicans, including Representative David Dreier of California, who said, “Our Democratic colleagues are running roughshod over our national security.”
Democrats dismissed the criticism, but sought to temper the tone of the debate, and the scope of the resolution, to avoid alienating all Republicans. Democratic leaders also distributed information sheets to help respond to Republican criticisms and shape floor speeches. Each representative is allotted at least five minutes for the floor speeches.
The debate, which was scheduled to proceed to midnight for three days in a row, was tightly choreographed. Democrats started with the war veterans, leaving many of the fiercest war critics until later. Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, for example, did not speak until after the dinner hour.
“My experience during World War II was much different than the hell our men and women in Iraq now must face,” said Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan. “Sixty years ago, we knew our mission. We knew the outcome, and we knew the battle lines.”
Representative Patrick J. Murphy, Democrat of Pennsylvania, is the lone Iraq veteran in Congress. Before winning election in November, he was a captain in the 82nd Airborne. He was awarded a Bronze Star for his Iraq service from 2003 to 2004.
“The president’s plan to send more of our best and bravest to die refereeing a civil war in Iraq is wrong,” said Mr. Murphy, who recalled leading convoys up what was known as Ambush Alley in Baghdad. “The president’s current strategy is not resolute. It is reckless.”
Off the floor, both parties monitored the debate, particularly its ramifications for new members who could be vulnerable in the next elections. Shortly after Mr. Murphy finished speaking, Republican strategists sent an e-mail message to reporters highlighting a quotation from 2004 when he spoke highly of the administration’s Iraq plan.
Republican leaders and administration officials worked behind the scenes to prevent a wide defection. The White House arranged a briefing for selected members, linking them by secure satellite to Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV in Baghdad, who spoke of the need for a troop increase.
Ambassadors from several Middle East countries met several Republicans and warned them of the consequences of withdrawing troops.
Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, ranking Republican on the House International Relations Committee, seized on that argument and suggested that a rebuke to the president would resonate far beyond the Capitol and make the United States look weak.
As Ms. Ros-Lehtinen spoke, she pointed to photographs of two family members in uniform who have served in Iraq.
“Our words will be heard by our friends, but also by our enemies,” she said. “No weakness of ours will go unnoticed.”
The discussion foreshadowed an intense debate as Democrats prepare to assert authority over war spending. To fight accusations that they are failing to support the troops, Democratic leaders are leaning toward attaching conditions to money, not simply blocking it for financing the Iraq and Afghanistan operations.
The conditions could include barring the financing of permanent military bases in Iraq and limiting deployments of National Guard troops to no more than two tours of duty.
As the debate proceeded, the rumblings of the far more complicated debate on financing began to surface from several Democrats who are urging the party to consider reduced war financing. Such a step is precarious, particularly for lawmakers outside Democratic strongholds.
Not so for Representative Maxine Waters of California, who leads the 75-member Out of Iraq caucus. Ms Waters called the resolution a first step in “reining in this president and his misguided policies.”
As her voice rose, she said she had no choice but to oppose continuing to funnel money to this “war giant whose appetite cannot be satisfied.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/washington/14cong.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1171467791-Lx5K9rEekPH9j+OPtegBBg
(Gold9472: Be prepared to throw up.)
By JEFF ZELENY and MICHAEL LUO
Published: February 14, 2007
WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 — The House opened a full-throated debate on Tuesday over the Iraq war as lawmakers began considering a resolution to denounce President Bush’s plan to add troops. Democratic leaders said the debate was the first step in using Congressional authority to intervene in the conflict.
“There is no end in sight,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. “The American people have lost faith in President Bush’s course of action in Iraq, and they are demanding a new course of action.”
In the first hours, Democrats sought to present their case through the voices of veterans who are in Congress, offering a narrative running from World War II battlefields to Iraqi deserts.
The debate on the nonbinding resolution, scheduled to end on Friday, is the first substantive war deliberation since the Democrats won control of Congress last year.
Republicans said at least 24 members of their party might join the rebuke of Mr. Bush, and party leaders forcefully defended the Iraq strategy. The resolution would not only send a disturbing message to American troops, they said, but also endanger America.
“This is a political charade lacking both the seriousness and the gravity of the issue that it’s meant to represent,” said Representative John A. Boehner, the Ohio Republican who is minority leader. “The question is. ‘Do we have the resolve necessary to defeat our terrorist enemies?’ ”
After negotiations over competing proposals faltered last week in the Senate, the House picked up the discussion and boiled down its resolution to express support for American forces and disapproval for the plan to add 20,000 troops in Iraq.
On its face, several Republicans conceded, the resolution was difficult to oppose. Two Republicans, John Shadegg of Arizona and Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, instructed their colleagues to make the debate about the fight against terrorism.
“If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose,” they wrote in a letter.
Many Republicans who spoke on Tuesday appeared to heed that message, framing the war as an important battleground in a global struggle against militant Islam.
“It’s not George Bush’s war,” Representative J. Gresham Barrett, Republican of South Carolina, said. “This is our war. There is only one way out of this war — victory.”
With Democrats controlling the chamber for the first time since the war began, they did not allow Republicans to present amendments to the resolution. The tactic drew objections from Republicans, including Representative David Dreier of California, who said, “Our Democratic colleagues are running roughshod over our national security.”
Democrats dismissed the criticism, but sought to temper the tone of the debate, and the scope of the resolution, to avoid alienating all Republicans. Democratic leaders also distributed information sheets to help respond to Republican criticisms and shape floor speeches. Each representative is allotted at least five minutes for the floor speeches.
The debate, which was scheduled to proceed to midnight for three days in a row, was tightly choreographed. Democrats started with the war veterans, leaving many of the fiercest war critics until later. Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, for example, did not speak until after the dinner hour.
“My experience during World War II was much different than the hell our men and women in Iraq now must face,” said Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan. “Sixty years ago, we knew our mission. We knew the outcome, and we knew the battle lines.”
Representative Patrick J. Murphy, Democrat of Pennsylvania, is the lone Iraq veteran in Congress. Before winning election in November, he was a captain in the 82nd Airborne. He was awarded a Bronze Star for his Iraq service from 2003 to 2004.
“The president’s plan to send more of our best and bravest to die refereeing a civil war in Iraq is wrong,” said Mr. Murphy, who recalled leading convoys up what was known as Ambush Alley in Baghdad. “The president’s current strategy is not resolute. It is reckless.”
Off the floor, both parties monitored the debate, particularly its ramifications for new members who could be vulnerable in the next elections. Shortly after Mr. Murphy finished speaking, Republican strategists sent an e-mail message to reporters highlighting a quotation from 2004 when he spoke highly of the administration’s Iraq plan.
Republican leaders and administration officials worked behind the scenes to prevent a wide defection. The White House arranged a briefing for selected members, linking them by secure satellite to Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV in Baghdad, who spoke of the need for a troop increase.
Ambassadors from several Middle East countries met several Republicans and warned them of the consequences of withdrawing troops.
Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, ranking Republican on the House International Relations Committee, seized on that argument and suggested that a rebuke to the president would resonate far beyond the Capitol and make the United States look weak.
As Ms. Ros-Lehtinen spoke, she pointed to photographs of two family members in uniform who have served in Iraq.
“Our words will be heard by our friends, but also by our enemies,” she said. “No weakness of ours will go unnoticed.”
The discussion foreshadowed an intense debate as Democrats prepare to assert authority over war spending. To fight accusations that they are failing to support the troops, Democratic leaders are leaning toward attaching conditions to money, not simply blocking it for financing the Iraq and Afghanistan operations.
The conditions could include barring the financing of permanent military bases in Iraq and limiting deployments of National Guard troops to no more than two tours of duty.
As the debate proceeded, the rumblings of the far more complicated debate on financing began to surface from several Democrats who are urging the party to consider reduced war financing. Such a step is precarious, particularly for lawmakers outside Democratic strongholds.
Not so for Representative Maxine Waters of California, who leads the 75-member Out of Iraq caucus. Ms Waters called the resolution a first step in “reining in this president and his misguided policies.”
As her voice rose, she said she had no choice but to oppose continuing to funnel money to this “war giant whose appetite cannot be satisfied.”