House set to debate resolution on Iraq

WASHINGTON -- The House of Representatives today will launch the most extensive debate on the Iraq war since Congress authorized President Bush to invade Iraq in 2002. After the debate ends, Democratic House leaders will permit a vote only on a two-paragraph, non binding resolution disagreeing with Bush's decision to send additional troops to Iraq.

That resolution is a deep disappointment to many liberal Democrats in the House and Senate, who seek a more aggressive stance that would force the president to end the war. Those Democrats are pressing the party's leaders on Capitol Hill to do more than speak out against a troop escalation.

"It's time to play hardball," said Senator Russell D. Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat who wants to end funding for the war in six months. "I understand taking gradual steps on certain issues. But this is an unusual situation where we have a clear mandate from the American people to end this war, and end it now."

Though each proposal varies widely -- and all face long odds in the closely divided Congress -- rank-and-file Democrats have filed a flurry of bills in recent weeks that have a common theme: concrete actions to hasten the end of the Iraq war.

Last week, 71 House Democrats endorsed a proposal to end US military involvement in Iraq within six months by cutting off funding, the most drastic step Congress can take.

In the Senate, more than a dozen Democrats are backing bills that would compel Bush to withdraw nearly all US troops from Iraq by the middle of next year.

But GOP leaders are practically daring Democrats to try to cut off funding for the war -- an indication of political peril. If some Democrats tried to financially starve the war, others would join Republicans to kill the proposal. The GOP would then accuse Democrats of jeopardizing the safety of American troops.

"If they're really serious about their intent to bring troops home, why not bring a real resolution to the floor and have a debate about whether, in fact, they should cut funding?" said House minority leader John A. Boehner, an Ohio Republican.

Since they regained control of Congress on their opposition to the war, Democrats have approached the issue cautiously. Before the congressional session began, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid both ruled out cutting off funding, saying they didn't want to risk the safety of the troops.

In the Senate, Democratic leaders and some influential Republicans crafted a non binding resolution against Bush's increase in troops. But Republicans, irritated by the terms Democrats wanted to set for the debate, last week sidetracked the measure indefinitely.

Yesterday, House leaders unveiled their own resolution, which will be the subject of this week's debate. It makes two points: that Congress "will continue to support and protect" US troops in Iraq and that Congress "disapproves" of the president's decision to send more troops.

But Bush has said he will ignore any such objections. The slow movement in Congress has upset liberal activists and many Democrats in Congress who believe voters handed power to their party because they want the war to end quickly.

"It's been a month now, and it frustrates me because I want us out of there," said Representative Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat who is cochairwoman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a liberal coalition that has endorsed a withdrawal within six months.

Representative Carol Shea-Porter, a freshman Democrat from New Hampshire who was elected in part on an antiwar platform, said that she is disappointed but added that it is a difficult issue for lawmakers.

"I'd like us to go faster," Shea-Porter said. "But people are searching for answers on this. "

Some Democrats have signaled that they will not wait much longer for party leaders to move. Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, is circulating a proposal that would require Bush to remove nearly all US troops from Iraq within a year. He said he intends to call for a vote on his bill as an amendment to unrelated legislation within weeks.

"There is a pent-up demand here to try to do something real, to have the debate," Kerry said. "The bottom line is the Congress needs to get around to serious business. The American people expect action -- that's what the last election was about."

But with such a narrow majority in Congress, Democrats do not have the votes to pass a resolution ending funding, and any bold move against the war that falls short has the potential to create a political disaster.

Some prominent liberals, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, want bold action to end the war, but recognize the political necessity of moving deliberately.

Kennedy endorsed Reid's decision to start with a nonbinding resolution and has been working with him to prepare steps that would stop the war for a later debate in Congress. House and Senate leaders have made clear that a bipartisan disapproval of the troop "surge" will be followed by legislative action if Bush doesn't change course.

The first opportunity Democrats have to assert themselves could come as early as March, when lawmakers debate a bill on war funding.

Feingold and other Democrats fear that if they do not move decisively soon, they risk losing credibility with the public and that voters will hold them responsible for allowing the war to continue. Even though a vote to cut off funding would almost certainly be defeated, Feingold said pushing the issue would give Democrats momentum to stop the war.

"This is one of those historic moments when you've got to do something stronger than you normally would, and if you don't, it's going to be a historic missed opportunity," he said.