Pro-war vote in the House just opening volley
Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Saturday, June 17, 2006
(06-17) 04:00 PDT Washington -- The House passage Friday of a nonbinding resolution on the war in Iraq was a not-so-subtle election-year effort by Republican leaders to portray Democrats as weak on national security and unwilling to support U.S. troops.
But the acrimonious debate that culminated in a 256-153 vote in favor of the pro-war measure suggests that the battle over how much longer to keep 130,000 American soldiers in Iraq will only intensify -- especially as polls show that a majority of Americans want to see a timetable for when U.S. troops will begin to return home.
Republicans, in the 2002 midterm elections and 2004 presidential election, successfully used appeals to "stay the course" in the war on terrorism to preserve their majorities in Congress and re-elect President Bush.
But the public's patience for the "stay the course" strategy has been waning because of rising sectarian violence in Iraq and the mounting death toll of U.S. troops. The point was underscored when the House and Senate halted the war debate Thursday for a moment of silence after the Pentagon announced the 2,500th death of an American armed services member in Iraq.
Even Republican Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio acknowledged Friday that anyone honestly debating the war resolution had to admit that the violence between Sunni and Shiite factions has worsened in recent months, testing the ability of U.S. troops to maintain order.
But Boehner added: "Retreat is not an option in Iraq. The stakes for the American people are too high."
Meanwhile, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco used Friday's debate to suggest that her party -- if it wins back power in the November elections -- would agitate for a very different course in Iraq.
"Our new direction would say to the Iraqi people: We will not be in your country indefinitely, we will not construct permanent bases, and we will not control the flow of your oil," Pelosi said. "We will work with you and your neighbors diplomatically to ensure that the reconstruction of Iraq is successful."
The war resolution was carefully worded by GOP leaders to put Democrats in Republican-dominated "red" states and swing districts in political jeopardy if they voted against it.
First, the resolution contained a patriotic appeal to honor America's fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure also urged the United States to complete the mission of creating a free and secure Iraq.
The resolution opposed setting an "arbitrary date" for withdrawing troops and concluded with a declaration that the United States "will prevail in the global war on terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary."
Forty-two Democrats voted for the measure, many from Southern or Midwestern states that backed Bush in the last election. In California, two Central Valley lawmakers -- Dennis Cardoza of Merced and Jim Costa of Fresno -- were among the Democrats who supported the resolution.
"I reluctantly voted in favor of the nonbinding resolution on the war on terrorism," Cardoza said in a statement after the vote. "If one takes the time to read the resolution, it talks about winning the war in Iraq, supporting our troops and establishing a citizen-based government in Iraq. These are noble goals, and I support them.
"The problem is not what was said in the resolution, but what was not said. We owe our troops more than rhetoric; we owe them a real plan."
Democrats said they already expect to see radio and TV ads running against vulnerable members who voted against the measure.
"It's a trap," Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles, a leader of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said during the debate. "It's an attempt to force Democrats to sign onto a resolution that will do nothing to bring our troops home. All they want to do is make us sound unpatriotic."
In the Senate, Republican leaders achieved much the same result by forcing a vote on an amendment proposed by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to demand a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. The measure failed, 93-6.
But Republicans could find themselves on the wrong side of public opinion on the issue.
A new CNN-Gallup poll found that 53 percent of Americans support setting a timetable for withdrawing troops while 41 percent oppose setting a deadline. Nearly three-quarters of Democrats and 31 percent of Republicans said they backed a timetable for exiting Iraq.
With fading support for the war and growing concern about the president's handling of the conflict, Republicans could face calls from the public before the November elections to begin spelling out when troops would return home.
Two House Republican lawmakers voted against the resolution Friday -- Reps. John Duncan of Tennessee and Jim Leach of Iowa -- and libertarian Ron Paul of Texas.
Duncan, a longtime opponent of the war, told his GOP colleagues they may pay a political price with voters for keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely.
"We need to start putting our own people first once again and bring our troops home," he said.
But many Republicans saw the debate as an opportunity to paint Democrats as soft on terrorism. Many argued that any proposed timetable for pulling out troops represents a retreat from the war against terrorism.
"The left in this country have a position they're advocating for -- it's called 'cut and run,' " said freshman Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C.
But Democrats, including Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the ex-Marine who has become a leading anti-war voice, said the presence of U.S. troops is only fueling the insurgency and attracting terrorists to Iraq.
"The facts are the situation is not getting better," Murtha said. "We have 130,000 troops on the ground, but only the Iraqis can handle this."
E-mail Zachary Coile at zcoile@sfchronicle.com.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
(06-17) 04:00 PDT Washington -- The House passage Friday of a nonbinding resolution on the war in Iraq was a not-so-subtle election-year effort by Republican leaders to portray Democrats as weak on national security and unwilling to support U.S. troops.
But the acrimonious debate that culminated in a 256-153 vote in favor of the pro-war measure suggests that the battle over how much longer to keep 130,000 American soldiers in Iraq will only intensify -- especially as polls show that a majority of Americans want to see a timetable for when U.S. troops will begin to return home.
Republicans, in the 2002 midterm elections and 2004 presidential election, successfully used appeals to "stay the course" in the war on terrorism to preserve their majorities in Congress and re-elect President Bush.
But the public's patience for the "stay the course" strategy has been waning because of rising sectarian violence in Iraq and the mounting death toll of U.S. troops. The point was underscored when the House and Senate halted the war debate Thursday for a moment of silence after the Pentagon announced the 2,500th death of an American armed services member in Iraq.
Even Republican Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio acknowledged Friday that anyone honestly debating the war resolution had to admit that the violence between Sunni and Shiite factions has worsened in recent months, testing the ability of U.S. troops to maintain order.
But Boehner added: "Retreat is not an option in Iraq. The stakes for the American people are too high."
Meanwhile, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco used Friday's debate to suggest that her party -- if it wins back power in the November elections -- would agitate for a very different course in Iraq.
"Our new direction would say to the Iraqi people: We will not be in your country indefinitely, we will not construct permanent bases, and we will not control the flow of your oil," Pelosi said. "We will work with you and your neighbors diplomatically to ensure that the reconstruction of Iraq is successful."
The war resolution was carefully worded by GOP leaders to put Democrats in Republican-dominated "red" states and swing districts in political jeopardy if they voted against it.
First, the resolution contained a patriotic appeal to honor America's fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure also urged the United States to complete the mission of creating a free and secure Iraq.
The resolution opposed setting an "arbitrary date" for withdrawing troops and concluded with a declaration that the United States "will prevail in the global war on terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary."
Forty-two Democrats voted for the measure, many from Southern or Midwestern states that backed Bush in the last election. In California, two Central Valley lawmakers -- Dennis Cardoza of Merced and Jim Costa of Fresno -- were among the Democrats who supported the resolution.
"I reluctantly voted in favor of the nonbinding resolution on the war on terrorism," Cardoza said in a statement after the vote. "If one takes the time to read the resolution, it talks about winning the war in Iraq, supporting our troops and establishing a citizen-based government in Iraq. These are noble goals, and I support them.
"The problem is not what was said in the resolution, but what was not said. We owe our troops more than rhetoric; we owe them a real plan."
Democrats said they already expect to see radio and TV ads running against vulnerable members who voted against the measure.
"It's a trap," Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Los Angeles, a leader of the Out of Iraq Caucus, said during the debate. "It's an attempt to force Democrats to sign onto a resolution that will do nothing to bring our troops home. All they want to do is make us sound unpatriotic."
In the Senate, Republican leaders achieved much the same result by forcing a vote on an amendment proposed by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to demand a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. The measure failed, 93-6.
But Republicans could find themselves on the wrong side of public opinion on the issue.
A new CNN-Gallup poll found that 53 percent of Americans support setting a timetable for withdrawing troops while 41 percent oppose setting a deadline. Nearly three-quarters of Democrats and 31 percent of Republicans said they backed a timetable for exiting Iraq.
With fading support for the war and growing concern about the president's handling of the conflict, Republicans could face calls from the public before the November elections to begin spelling out when troops would return home.
Two House Republican lawmakers voted against the resolution Friday -- Reps. John Duncan of Tennessee and Jim Leach of Iowa -- and libertarian Ron Paul of Texas.
Duncan, a longtime opponent of the war, told his GOP colleagues they may pay a political price with voters for keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely.
"We need to start putting our own people first once again and bring our troops home," he said.
But many Republicans saw the debate as an opportunity to paint Democrats as soft on terrorism. Many argued that any proposed timetable for pulling out troops represents a retreat from the war against terrorism.
"The left in this country have a position they're advocating for -- it's called 'cut and run,' " said freshman Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C.
But Democrats, including Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the ex-Marine who has become a leading anti-war voice, said the presence of U.S. troops is only fueling the insurgency and attracting terrorists to Iraq.
"The facts are the situation is not getting better," Murtha said. "We have 130,000 troops on the ground, but only the Iraqis can handle this."
E-mail Zachary Coile at zcoile@sfchronicle.com.