politics

WASHINGTON - The House of Representatives on Thursday began its first formal debate on the Iraq war since the 2003 invasion, with GOP leaders saying Congress must restate its support for the mission and Democrats accusing Republicans of rigging the debate.

As the House argued, the Senate quickly brought up and shut down a proposal to withdraw American troops from Iraq by the end of the year, a move that was engineered by the Republican leadership to embarrass Democrats.

In the House, a nonbinding resolution that legislators are not being permitted to amend came up for discussion as the Defense Department announced a milestone of 2,500 U.S. troops killed in Iraq. The resolution could be voted on today.

As written, the resolution may be politically difficult to oppose because it expresses the conviction that the United States will prevail in the global war against terrorism, honor the troops, and support a free and safe Iraq.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., who visited Iraq at the start of this month, said, "I came from Iraq believing even more strongly that it is not enough for this House to say, 'We support our troops.' To the men and women in the field, in harm's way, that statement rings hollow if we don't also say we support their mission."

But the resolution also makes two stipulations to which many Democrats disagree -- that the Iraq war is an essential component of the broader war against radical Islamic terrorism and that any timetable for withdrawal would be against the interests of national security.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a decorated Marine veteran who argues that the United States has exhausted its military usefulness in Iraq, charged Thursday that "there's less than 1,000 Al-Qaida in Iraq, but we're caught in this civil war between 100,000 Shias and 20,000 Sunnis fighting with each other.

"You know who wants us to stay in Iraq right now?" Murtha said. "Al-Qaida wants us there because it recruits people for them. China wants us there. North Korea wants us there. Russia wants us there. Stay and we'll pay, not only pay in dollars. ... I figure it took us through the Reagan administration to pay for the Vietnam War."

Rep. Mark Kennedy, R-Minn., challenged the Democrats on Iraq.

"Cutting and running is one path," he said. "But it is the wrong path. The only path that makes our families secure is victory in the war on terror."

Rep. Martin Sabo, D-Minn., who voted against the 2002 war resolution, submitted a statement for the Congressional Record indicating that he would vote against this one, too.

"I have nothing but respect for the honorable American service men and women who have been put into harm's way," Sabo said. "However, the goodwill I feel for these brave Americans is contrasted by my lack of confidence in President Bush and the Defense Department leadership. Once they got us into this war, they have, time and again, ignored sound military planning and blatantly disregarded the violent, grinding reality that has steadily descended on Iraq over the past three years."

In the Senate, the vote to table an Iraq withdrawal plan came unexpectedly.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., had been trying to round up support within his own party for a proposal for a Dec. 31 timetable for withdrawal. Only it wasn't Kerry but Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who called up the plan. Democrats balked, saying that wasn't a fair way to debate it, and they helped reject the move, 93-6.

A near party-line vote

Kerry said he planned to offer his own amendment next week and hoped for a serious debate.

House Democrats lost their bid to block the no-amendment rule, on a near party-line vote of 222-194.

"The Republican leadership has turned what could have been a serious debate into a charade," said Rep. Tom Lantos of California, ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee.