NYT: House Rejects Timetable for Iraq Pullout

WASHINGTON, June 16 — The House of Representatives voted, 256 to 153, today in favor of a resolution promising to “complete the mission” in Iraq, prevail in the global fight against terrorism and oppose any “arbitrary date for withdrawal” of American troops.

The nonbinding but politically significant resolution was approved with just a handful of Republicans voting against it and a few dozen Democrats voting for it. The measure also expresses gratitude for the valor and sacrifice of American and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and congratulates the new Iraqi government.

This morning’s vote, coming after an emotional and partisan debate, was a victory for President Bush, who has declared that it is in the national-security interest of the United States to stay in Iraq until that country is secure. It was a victory, too, for the House Republican leadership.

“Retreat is not an option,” Representative John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, said just before the vote.

But Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic minority leader, called the Iraq war “a grotesque mistake” during the debate over the resolution.

Republicans have been seeking to rally support for the Bush administration’s policies and exploit Democratic divisions in an election year shadowed by unease over the war.

The House vote followed one of the sharpest legislative clashes yet over the three-year-old conflict as President Bush and his aides have been trying to portray Iraq as moving gradually toward a stable, functioning democracy, and to portray Democrats as lacking the will to see the conflict through to victory.

In the Senate on Thursday, lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to shelve an amendment calling on the United States to withdraw most troops by the end of this year, although Democrats vowed to revisit the debate next week.

Both actions were carefully engineered by the Republicans in charge, and for the moment.

During Thursday’s debate, House Republicans asserted that their resolution was essential to assure American troops and the world that the United States was behind the war in Iraq and the broader struggle against terrorism.

Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois opened the formal debate on a war that, the government announced Thursday, had claimed the lives of 2,500 American troops. “It is a battle we must endure and one in which we can and will be victorious,” he said of the fight in Iraq and beyond. “The alternative would be to cut and run and wait for them to regroup and bring the terror back to our shores.”

He said the American troops in Iraq knew their cause was noble. “It is time for this House of Representatives to tell the world that we know it, too, that we know our cause is right and that we are proud of it.” Democrats, divided over the wisdom of the war but more or less united in condemning Mr. Bush’s management of it, countered that the Republican resolution was a political ploy, “a press release for staying the course in Iraq,” as Representative Jane Harman, Democrat of California, put it.

At the start of the debate, Representative Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri, asked for a moment of silence to recognize the 2,500 American military deaths in Iraq. Many lawmakers talked about visiting the troops, in Iraq and in hospitals, and about the toll in death and suffering.

Representative John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat and Vietnam War veteran whose call for a speedy withdrawal of troops transformed the debate last year, rose repeatedly to tell Republicans, “Rhetoric does not solve the problem.” He added: “We need a plan. It’s not enough to say stay the course.”

Referring to the sectarian violence cleaving Iraq, Mr. Murtha said, “They’re fighting each other, and our troops are caught in between.” Five months before the November elections, partisan passions ran high. Republicans argued repeatedly that their Democratic opponents lacked the toughness to confront terrorism, returning to themes that they used successfully in 2004. “Many, but not all, on the other side of the aisle lack the will to win,” said Representative Charlie Norwood, Republican of Georgia. “The American people need to know precisely who they are.” He said: “It is time to stand up and vote. Is it Al Qaeda, or is it America?”

Democrats countered, at times with barely controlled fury. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, described the war “as a grotesque mistake.” She and others said Congressional Republicans were simply trying to “trap” Democrats, not engage them in a true debate. The resolution Republicans offered could not be amended, but only voted up or down.

Democrats in the Senate cried foul when Republicans forced a vote on a withdrawal amendment originally developed by Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts. Mr. Kerry had held off from seeking a vote on it, while working with other Democrats to seek a broader consensus. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican whip, simply scratched out Mr. Kerry’s name, replaced it with his own and offered it for debate. Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, characterized the amendment as “cutting and running.”

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, one of many Senate Democrats who oppose Mr. Kerry’s amendment, rose to declare, “There are two things that don’t exist in Iraq: cutting and running, and weapons of mass destruction.” Mr. Reid moved to remove the amendment from consideration, and his motion was approved by a vote of 93 to 6. Senate Democrats promised to return next week with additional amendments on an exit strategy for American troops.

Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, portrayed the vote to table the amendment as a declaration of support for the fledgling Iraqi government. “This sends a good message that the United States government opposes, overwhelmingly, a cut-and-run strategy.”

But Democrats said the vote was just a political game. “It’s just kind of a jump-ball, stick-it-to-them kind of thing,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat.

Democrats have been divided over a deadline for the withdrawal of American troops. Last November, they rallied around legislation, which passed in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, that declared 2006 should be a “year of significant transition” in Iraq. In both chambers, Democrats have been trying to arrive at language that goes beyond that, but stops short of a firm deadline.

In a highly unusual attempt to influence the debate, the Pentagon sent a 74-page “prep book” to several members of Congress, outlining what it called “rapid response” talking points to rebut criticism of Mr. Bush’s handling of the war and prewar intelligence. The Pentagon sent the book to Democratic leaders on Wednesday night, apparently in error, then sent an e-mail message two hours later asking to recall it.

The resolution under debate in the House declares that the United States and its allies are “engaged in a global war on terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world.” It also declares that “the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology.”

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, asserted that “the war in Afghanistan was the response to the terrorist attacks” — not the war in Iraq.

The combination of the popular and unpopular in this resolution — support for the troops, combined with an endorsement of the administration’s policy and a rejection of any withdrawal deadline — left many Democrats in a bind as they headed toward Friday’s vote. But some Democrats argued that it left Republicans in a bind, too, committed to an open-ended presence in Iraq.

David Stout and Eric Schmitt contributed reporting for this article.

 

 

This entry was posted on Friday, June 16th, 2006 at 9:28 AM and filed under Articles. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.