Posted on 03/18/2004 10:18:36 AM PST by Pyro7480
House Iraq Resolution Turns Into Debate
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The House on Wednesday approved a simple four-point resolution praising U.S. troops and the Iraqi people on the first anniversary of the war in Iraq (news - web sites), but only after a raucous debate over whether the war was warranted and had made the world a safer place.
Democrats said the Republican-written measure was aimed at endorsing President Bush (news - web sites)'s flawed policies, while Republicans said the removal of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was an unequivocal victory in the war against terrorism.
The measure passed 327-93, with numerous Democrats displeased with the way it was crafted, saying they voted yes as a show of support for American troops.
It "really sends a message to the world that this country stands resolute in celebration of the first anniversary of our commitment to Iraq," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.
But Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., spoke of the "hypocrisy and inconsistency" of the Republicans in honoring American troops while advancing a budget that Democrats say doesn't provide enough for military operations in Iraq.
The measure was subject to some six hours of debate. It listed the acts of crimes and terrorism perpetrated by the Saddam regime, and it concluded with four points:
_The world has been made safer by Saddam's demise.
_The House commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of Saddam's oppression.
_The House commends Iraqis for adopting an interim constitution.
_The House commends U.S. and coalition forces for their valiant service.
"Americans should be proud that we are again confronting an evil threat to the Western world. We should be proud of our president and proud of our soldiers," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.
Democrats stressed their gratitude to the troops but questioned the idea that the military action in Iraq had reduced threats from America's enemies. "Our mission in Iraq has not been accomplished," said Democratic Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland. "Even as we speak here, a car bomb has rocked Baghdad and killed more than 20 people."
Democrats also were angry that the resolution was written by Republicans without any Democratic input. "I'm indignant, I'm insulted and I'm embarrassed," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a defense expert who normally works closely with pro-defense Republicans. He voted against the resolution.
Democrats wanted to offer a substitute bill stating that "a final judgment on the value of activities in Iraq cannot be made until Iraq is stable and secure." They also wanted to add language assuring that troops in Iraq would receive the armored vehicles they need to keep them safe and urging the president to "take steps to correct the failure of the United States government to plan adequately for the postwar occupation of Iraq."
"The American people have not sent us here just to be an amen chorus for this administration. There are serious problems and we should be debating serious solutions," said Rep. Tom Lantos of California, top Democrat on the House International Relations Committee.
Outside the Capitol, opponents of the Iraqi operation, including military families, rallied against administration policies. "Our message to Congress today is clear: spare us the platitudes, the pious rhetoric, the empty slogans. Give us the truth," said Sue Niederer, of Pennington, N.J., whose 24-year-old son, Dvorin, was killed in Iraq in February.
But Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., countered that U.S. action had "brought freedom for tens of millions, toppled one of the most despicable regimes in the history of the world and strengthened the national security for the American people."
He said Republicans simply wanted to congratulate the troops. "I don't understand why there is any controversy."
___
The resolution is H.Res. 557.
__
On the Net:
Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov/
Washington -- The House passed a resolution Wednesday praising American troops and the Iraqi people on the Iraq war's first anniversary, but only after partisan wrangling between Bush administration supporters and minority Democrats angered over being shut out of the measure's drafting and opposed to wording saying the war has made the world safer.
The final 327-93 vote after more than five hours of debate masked the angry split in the House. Some Democrats eventually voted for the symbolic resolution even though they objected to pieces of it because they felt majority Republicans had set a trap for them. No amendments were allowed, and some Democrats didn't want to head into November's elections with a vote against the resolution, fearing they would be vulnerable to charges they weren't patriotic and had abandoned America's fighting forces.
In many ways, the debate was a proxy for the competing arguments over Iraq offered by President Bush and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee. The measure also was part of the administration's weeklong effort to highlight the one-year anniversary of the war as a successful U.S. operation.
Republican leaders said the measure was aimed at showing support for the 120,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and for the Iraqi people's efforts to emerge from more than two decades under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. "Regardless of our disagreement on process, I will ask, dare I say it, in the spirit of patriotism ... let's stand as one with our military people,'' said International Relations Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill.
As he does only rarely, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., took to the floor this time to encourage members to support the resolution and to link a vote against it to the European "appeasement" of Hitler.
"We should never let the terrorists take heart from anything we do on the battlefield or in this chamber," Hastert said.
The Republicans said the invasion had rid Iraq of Hussein's brutal regime, led to a new democratic constitution, started the reconstruction of Iraq's economy, deprived terrorists of a sympathetic state and led such other governments as Libya and Iran to cooperate with international efforts to destroy weapons of mass destruction.
But Hyde's counterpart, Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, the Foreign Relations Committee's ranking Democrat, said the White House had misled the world about the intelligence behind the invasion and called for a new independent investigation into alleged manipulation of that intelligence.
Lantos, who on March 2 won a Democratic primary in which he was criticized for helping lead passage of the October 2002 resolution authorizing a war in Iraq, agonized over how to vote Wednesday. His quandary, whether to vote for a resolution honoring the troops despite his misgivings, was typical of many Democrats.
"Many of us in this House who have been committed to, and who have worked for, a bipartisan foreign policy for decades know that this is a slap in our face,'' Lantos said of the resolution. "The American people have not sent us here just to be an amen chorus for this administration."
In the end, Lantos joined six other Democrats who voted "present," saying they supported the troops but opposed the wording of the resolution.
Citing last week's railroad bombings in Spain and Wednesday's hotel blast in Baghdad, some Democrats said the invasion of Iraq hadn't done anything to make the world safer or advance the war against terrorism. They also criticized the measure for not mentioning the 565 U.S. military personnel killed or the more than 3,200 Americans wounded, or Iraqi civilian casualties, or the need to do more to help U.S. veterans.
"This resolution is a part of a pattern of deception we have seen from Day One,'' said Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland. "Once again, true debate is being suppressed. What a disgrace.''
Lee was blocked from offering an amendment that attacked Bush's doctrine of undertaking pre-emptive attacks in the name of protecting U.S. national security.
The Democratic House caucus, led by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, sought to invoke party loyalty on the bill's first vote, the one to approve or reject the rule not allowing any amendments. Republicans prevailed, 228-195, with only two Democrats voting against their caucus.
On the final vote, Democrats were freed by party leaders to vote their consciences. Since the caucus has been divided over the war, Republicans knew they could again count on the minority party to send a divided message.
Pelosi wanted to offer a substitute for the language saying the war had made the world safer. "A final judgment on the value of activities in Iraq cannot be made until Iraq is stable and secure," the suggested amendment said.
She said she would introduce her proposal as a separate resolution, one that is unlikely to ever reach the House floor for a vote.
"With their resolution, the Republicans are in denial as to why we went into Iraq, in denial as to the current state of stability and security in Iraq and are denying our men and women the benefits, the equipment and the quality intelligence that they deserve as they serve our country," Pelosi said.
Republicans said the Democrats were harping on problems for partisan purposes and overlooking significant progress in much of Iraq. They also said Democrats had voted to cut intelligence and military spending, yet now were criticizing shortcomings in those areas.
"The Iraqi people are living in freedom for the first time," said Rep. Jim Saxton, R-N.J. "They know it, and they love it.''
"The fact of the matter is there are many success stories ..." he added. "I am proud to stand here today to commend the Iraqi people and to say again to our troops: Thanks for a job well done.''
"All too often, the whining from the critics tends to drown out the great success of our troops,'' said Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va.
While Pelosi voted against the resolution, her deputy, Minority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., voted for it. "I'll support it as an expression of gratitude'' to U.S. forces, he said. But then he attacked Republicans. "On a matter of highest national importance, the majority has undermined the democratic process.''
So did I,scary thought.
Yet this kind of stuff happens weekly in Israel in spite of carter's Nobel peace prize and these poops don't have any problem with it.
I guess what's happening in Kosovo is OK too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.