12 Republicans Break Ranks on Iraq Resolution

By JEFF ZELENY
Published: February 15, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/washington/15cong.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 — A dozen Republicans arrived in the House chamber on Wednesday to set aside their party allegiances and lend their names to a resolution intended to rebuke President Bush for his Iraq policy.

Representative Howard Coble of North Carolina said that Iraqis had their chance at freedom, but chose civil war. Representative Steven C. LaTourette of Ohio argued that troop buildup was a tactic that had already failed. And Representative John J. Duncan Jr. of Tennessee suggested that military contractors had profited mightily at the expense of the American treasury.

As they spoke in the capital on the second day of an extensive debate over the Iraq war, Mr. Bush called a White House news conference to defend his plan to send more troops to Baghdad. He said that there would be more violence, but that the plan would provide breathing space to the Iraqi government as it worked to stabilize the country.

“They have every right to express their opinion,” Mr. Bush said of the debate in Congress. Yet he warned lawmakers against taking additional steps to limit war financing when they considered his military budget request next month, saying, “They need to fund our troops.”

Democratic leaders, even as they condemn the president’s Iraq strategy, have vowed not to cut financing for the troops already in Iraq. But pressure is increasing inside the party for more scrutiny on war spending when the administration’s military budget request is considered by Congress next month.

The proceedings on Capitol Hill foreshadowed challenges to come in both parties as Republicans seek to persuade fiscal conservatives to invest more money in the war and as Democrats determine whether they intend to take a stand to limit financing of the war.

“I insist that we do not maintain an eternal presence in Iraq,” Mr. Coble said, “if for no other reason than the cost to taxpayers, which has been astronomically unbelievable.”

Congressional debate this week is largely revolving around a resolution intended to express support for troops and oppose the president’s plan to expand the military operation in Iraq. Even though most Republicans oppose the proposal, the testimony from a handful of Republicans on Wednesday suggested that the deliberations were no longer unfolding along partisan lines.

Representative Walter B. Jones of North Carolina opened the debate on Wednesday by reading a newspaper clipping from before Mr. Bush was elected. It was 1999, and the topic was a Congressional debate over military escalation in Bosnia, which Republicans sought to quash by sending a nonbinding resolution to President Clinton.

Holding a sheet of paper, Mr. Jones quoted Karen Hughes, a chief adviser to Mr. Bush, who declared, “If we’re going to commit more troops, we want to be sure they have a clear exit strategy.” The message, Mr. Jones argued, could apply to the current Iraq debate.

For a time on Wednesday, an unusual scene played out on the House floor, with some Republicans coming forward one by one to speak against the Iraq policy while fellow party members argued against them.

“We need to tell all these defense contractors that the time for this Iraqi gravy train, with their obscene profits, is over,” said Mr. Duncan, the congressman from Tennessee. “It is certainly no criticism of our troops to say that this was a very unnecessary war. This war went against every conservative position I have ever known.”

Representative Ric Keller, a Florida Republican who said he was simply passing along common-sense advice from his constituents, compared the Iraqi government to an ungrateful next-door neighbor.

“Imagine your next-door neighbor refuses to mow his lawn and the weeds are all the way up to his waist, so you decide you’re going to mow his lawn for him every single week,” Mr. Keller said. “The neighbor never says thank you, he hates you and sometimes he takes out a gun and shoots you. Under these circumstances, do you keep mowing his lawn for ever?

“Do you send even more of your family members over to mow his lawn?” he added. “Or do you say to that neighbor, you better step it up and mow your own lawn or there’s going to be serious consequences for you.”

A majority of House Republicans have assertively defended the administration during the Iraq debate, accusing their Democratic rivals of being a weak link in the fight against terrorism. Those accusations seemed to soften a bit on Wednesday, when suddenly the person on the other side of the argument was another Republican.

Representative Heather Wilson, a New Mexico Republican, said she opposed the troop increase in Iraq but declined to support the resolution. She infuriated Democrats when she hinted that their party was considering plans to limit war financing.

“What about the five brigades of young Americans who are now preparing their families and packing their gear to deploy?” Ms. Wilson said. “What about them? What are you saying to them? Will we buy body armor for them? Will we have armored Humvees for them?”

Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic majority leader, rushed to the House chamber and delivered a sharp rebuttal to Ms. Wilson. “If the commander in chief has sent them there, we will support them,” he said.

The House is scheduled to conclude the debate Friday. The Senate intends to consider a similar resolution when it returns from next week’s Congressional recess. Republican Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine urged Senate leaders late Wednesday to cancel the recess so the Iraq debate could proceed.

Earlier this month, when the Senate had intended to take up an Iraq resolution, a procedural and political stalemate stymied debate. As deliberations stretched on into the night, the themes of the debate carried a familiar ring as each member of Congress was given at least five minutes to speak. Nearly every Democratic speaker rose to assail Mr. Bush, while Republicans came to his aid. Even Mr. Coble, who delivered one of the day’s most stinging assessments of the administration’s Iraq policy, said he liked Mr. Bush.

“Some Americans — and some in this body — oppose the Iraqi operation because they dislike President Bush,” Mr. Coble said. “I, however, do not march to that drum. I am personally very high on President Bush, but on the matter of troop escalation, I am not in agreement.”