Congress pushed to debate Iraq policy

Lawmakers appealed to colleagues on Apr. 5 to "stop rubberstamping" the war in Iraq and instead debate policy toward that country–37 months after the US-led invasion that led to the current, bloody imbroglio. Additionally, advocacy groups assembled under the umbrella of the Win Without War coalition launched a nationwide campaign asking voters to call or email their members of Congress and urge them to sign a measure that would trigger immediate debate on President George W. Bush's Iraq policy. At issue is a discharge petition that also would provide up to 17 hours' deliberation on the floor of the House of Representatives. The congressional maneuver, aimed at overcoming House leaders' unwillingness to allow debate on resolutions that would require Bush to develop and implement an Iraq withdrawal plan, requires 218 signatures in order to pass. As of Apr. 5, 76 Representatives from both major parties had signed on. Win Without War said it planned to release on Apr. 6 a roll call of legislators for and against open debate. "Stop rubberstamping Bush's failed war," said House Republicans led by Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina goading their colleagues in a statement. Jones is typical of many Republicans who once backed but now berate Bush over Iraq. The self-described conservative often uses religious language, opposes abortion and any move toward giving illegal immigrants a chance to obtain legal residency, and favors cutting government spending. On Iraq, Jones has lashed out at "the neo-conservatives and political appointees [who] wanted to go to war." He has said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should resign for having tricked him and other legislators into authorizing the deployment of US troops to Iraq. Like Jones, dozens of Republicans have voiced regret over Iraq, saying the conflict has cost the nation more than they had bargained for. The Bush administration has asked Congress for $496 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Win Without War affiliate the Council for a Livable World told its members in an action alert. Yet "during these three years of war, there has never been an open and honest debate in the House of Representatives on Iraq," the group said. Administration assertions about weapons of mass destruction and Iraqi links to al-Qaida "have been thoroughly discredited," it said, adding that "the reputation and credibility of the US has plummeted." Bush–hemmed in on one side by his "stay the course" policy of remaining in Iraq at least until 2008 and on the other by mounting pressure to withdraw–said it was time Iraq's newly elected leaders "stand up and do their job" of forming a government of national unity. Bush referred to the fighting in Iraq as "sectarian violence," according to a White House transcript, but numerous politicians and commentators have begun referring to it as "civil war." The congressional backlash comes amid growing popular demand for US withdrawal. Differences remain over how many and how long US troops should remain in Iraq–and to what purpose–but at least among soldiers in harm's way, the consensus seems to be that they should not stay beyond another year. Three out of four US soldiers in Iraq reject their commander in chief's strategy to keep them there, a Zogby International poll revealed in late February. Some 29 percent of the troops serving in Iraq favored immediate withdrawal, about half said the US should pull out within six months, and 72 percent said they should leave the country within a year, the poll found. By contrast, 23 percent said they should remain in Iraq "as long as they are needed," the survey said. The poll's findings appeared to strip the Bush administration of one of the biggest arrows in its Iraq public relations quiver: previously, the White House had assailed its critics as being out of touch with the troops, who it said wanted to stay in Iraq until they accomplished their long-term mission. The poll further revealed that soldiers in the war zone looked askance at official definitions of their mission: 93 percent rejected the rationale that they were sent in to root out weapons of mass destruction while 68 percent said they had been sent to topple Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein; 24 percent said establishing democracy was a major reason for the war but 11 percent said the cause was to secure oil supplies. Among US citizens in general, only 30 percent approve of the job Bush has done on Iraq, according to polling by CBS News. The 40 members of Win Without War, the coalition campaigning for legislative debate, include Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, Citizens for Global Solutions, Global Exchange, MoveOn, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Council of Churches, National Organization of Women, The Tikkun Community, True Majority, Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, and Veterans for Peace. Tom Andrews, the former Democratic Congressman from Maine, heads the coalition.