Iraq vote tough for GOP lawmakers

WASHINGTON — Today's milestone vote in the House opposing President Bush's troop increase in Iraq will be no cliff-hanger — it's certain to pass — but lawmakers are grinding their teeth over its potential political consequences.

The nonbinding resolution could influence lawmakers' re-election prospects, their willingness to back stronger anti-war policies and how other nations view the United States.

No one feels more pressure than mostly Republican lawmakers who won election in November by narrow margins.

Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., whose 369-vote margin is still being contested, said he had struggled over this vote for weeks as he met with intelligence experts, ambassadors and war veterans. He said he would announce his decision on the House floor. Whatever he does, he said, "A lot of people want to make this about politics. This shouldn't be about politics."

Republicans in swing districts who don't back the resolution can expect to be attacked in next year's elections. They include Reps. Dave Reichert of Washington state, Deborah Pryce of Ohio, Thelma Drake of Virginia and Robin Hayes of North Carolina. Each barely won re-election in November.

"There are a lot of seats in play," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. "I think this is going to be a big issue for voters in 2008."

Dozens of Republicans are expected to vote for the Democrats' resolution opposing the 21,500-troop increase. Some hail from conservative districts and won re-election last year by wide margins. Others won with 55 percent of the vote or less, including Reps. Ric Keller of Florida, Phil English of Pennsylvania and Tom Davis of Virginia. By crossing party lines, they could build support from independents and Democrats, but they also could court primary challenges.

A few Democrats from conservative districts also are torn.

Bush has said the resolution won't change his plans no matter how many Republicans support it. But the president took a swipe at critics Thursday.

"This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle," Bush said.

The Senate unanimously confirmed Gen. David Petraeus last week to take over as the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Once the vote clears, House Democrats intend to shift to binding legislation to limit deployments and funding.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., the chief House defense appropriator, detailed a plan Thursday that he hopes the full House can vote on by mid-March.

It would ban troop deployments in Iraq from being extended beyond a year, require troops to have at least one year home between deployments and require them to be certified as fully trained and equipped before being sent into combat. It also would end the "stop-loss" program that forced some service members to remain on active duty beyond their enlistment periods.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Murtha's proposal would hurt troops already there. He called it "unthinkable."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is trying to pressure Republicans to let the Senate vote on the House's nonbinding resolution, and he unexpectedly scheduled a test vote for Saturday.

Republicans have insisted on equal treatment for an alternative that rules out the "elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field."

Details on the Senate and Bush's comments were provided by The Associated Press.