House vote to back war puts Dems on defensive

WASHINGTON — The House on Friday voted 256-153 to support the military mission in Iraq after two days of passionate and partisan debate in which Republicans tried to recast an unpopular conflict as part of a broader war on terrorism and totalitarianism.

Forty-two Democrats bucked their leadership to join a virtually united Republican Party and declare that the United States must complete "the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq" without setting "an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of U.S. troops.

Three Republicans — Reps. Ron Paul of Texas, John Duncan Jr. of Tennessee and Jim Leach of Iowa — joined 149 Democrats and one independent to oppose the resolution. Three Democrats and two Republicans voted present in protest. Nineteen lawmakers did not vote.

In the Washington state delegation, Democrats Rick Larsen and Adam Smith joined Republicans Doc Hastings and Cathy McMorris in supporting the nonbinding resolution, while Democrats Brian Baird, Norm Dicks, Jay Inslee and Jim McDermott voted against it. Republican Dave Reichert, in the Seattle area at a fundraiser headlined by President Bush, did not vote.

Public-opinion polls continue to show the Iraq war is unpopular, even after the death last week of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Convinced they cannot avoid the issue in an election year, Republicans tried to put Democrats on the defensive with the first extended debate on the war since Congress authorized the use of force nearly four years ago.

House Republicans linked the war to the Sept. 11 attacks, the war on terrorism and to what they view as the Clinton administration's repeated failures to act after terrorist attacks in the 1990s.

"The American public deserves to hear how their elected leaders will respond to international terrorism and those enemies who seek to destroy our American way of life. Will we fight or will we retreat?" asked House Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio. "Let me be clear: Those who say this is a war of choice are nothing more than wrong. This is a war of necessity."

Information

To read the resolution: thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.RES.861:

Iraq's limited role in international terrorism, however, mushroomed only after U.S. forces toppled Saddam Hussein in spring 2003 but weren't prepared to halt widespread looting and growing strife between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said the question before the House was whether "the global war on totalitarianism is worth fighting."

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, of California, countered: "Republicans in Congress continue to try to mislead the American people by suggesting a link between the war in Iraq and the war on terror. They are distinct ... and efforts to portray one as part of the other are a disservice to the truth and to the men and women fighting in Baghdad, Kirkuk and Ramadi."

Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the hawkish Democrat who rocked Capitol Hill last year by calling for a rapid withdrawal of forces, said, "We've become the enemy. We've given a microphone to people like Zarqawi. We [war opponents] support the troops. It's the policy we don't support."

For the most part, House Republicans have avoided serious debate on Iraq. The Senate, not the House, held hearings on prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. The Senate, not the House, descended into bitter debate last year over an amendment by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to ban torture at U.S. detention facilities. And the Senate, not the House, pushed into law a measure declaring 2006 a "year of significant transition" in Iraq.

But with midterm elections less than five months away, House leaders decided their members needed to engage the Iraq issue, under the most favorable circumstances. House members debated a leadership-tailored resolution over more than 10 hours that would not be subject to amendment and would not face competing policy statements.

"Hard not to support"

By drafting a resolution that supported U.S. troops, emphasized triumphing over terrorism and called for victory in Iraq, GOP leaders constructed a measure that was "hard not to support," said Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va.

After the vote, Republicans said they had held ranks while highlighting Democratic division.

"We are pleased that 42 Democrats defied their leadership and stood with House Republicans to support both our troops and their mission to win the global war on terror," said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.

The 42 Democrats were dominated by southerners and members in Midwestern and Western swing districts, but they included a few surprises, such as Reps. Howard Berman of suburban Los Angeles and Stephen Lynch of Boston.

Still, Democratic defections were about half the 81 who voted in October 2002 to authorize the use of force, an indication, some said, that the importance of expressing support for the war is ebbing even in swing districts.

Dicks, a top defense appropriator, and other hawkish Democrats who voted for the invasion — such as Rep. Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and Harold Ford Jr., a candidate for Tennessee's open Senate seat — felt free to vote against the resolution. Ford was attacked immediately by the National Republican Senatorial Committee for voting to "cut and run."

Note of caution

Some lawmakers who voted for the measure cautioned the Bush administration not to read it as an endorsement of its policy.

"There're a lot of members who are not comfortable with the course [of the war] but don't want to set an arbitrary deadline" for withdrawing troops, said Davis, the Virginia Republican.

Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Kan., who voted for the resolution, said he opposed setting a public timetable for withdrawal but that he urged the administration to begin private discussions on a time frame. "The president is going to get the message that the course is not fine from the American people," Moore said.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that al-Zarqawi's death did not alter the perceptions of a majority, 53 percent, that the Iraq war is a mistake. Fifty-four percent of those polled said they would back a congressional candidate who favored pulling all U.S. troops out of Iraq within 12 months. Only 32 percent said they would vote against that position.

"The public, in my estimation, has reached a firm, fixed decision about Iraq, and it comes down to 'Let's find a way to bring the troops home,' " said Peter Hart, who helped conduct the poll.

The House vote sets up a debate in the Senate next week, prompted by calls from Democratic senators to begin withdrawing troops this year. Liberal activists have pressed Democrats to set a timetable for troops to come home, a demand many Democratic lawmakers have resisted. A Senate proposal to withdraw troops by the end of this year failed Thursday, 93-6.

Material from Gannett News Service, Knight Ridder Newspapers and The Associated Press is included in this report.