Marathon War Debate in Washington

WASHINGTON, D.C., Feb. 13, 2007 — -- Tuesday afternoon, the House of Representatives began debating an uncharacteristically simple 97-word resolution expressing support for the U.S. troops in Iraq and opposition to President Bush's proposed surge in their numbers.

Having learned a lesson from a Senate bill that last week got bogged down in parliamentary minutiae and numerous "Whereas" clauses, Democratic leaders made their bill concise, declaring that Congress supports and wants to protect the troops but does not support the president's proposed escalated numbers of troops in Iraq.

"It's clear, uncluttered, not confused," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said of the resolution during a morning briefing for reporters. "You can read it in about 60 seconds."

Trying to present a strong stance on military issues, Democrats lined up veterans of conflicts in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq as their first speakers in favor of the anti-surge resolution.

"Walking in my own combat boots, I saw firsthand this administration's failed policy in Iraq," said Rep. Patrick J. Murphy, D-Penn.

"The problem here is not the stomach of the troops. The problem is the competency of the civilian leadership that's gotten us into this mess," added Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn.

Democrats expect at least a dozen Republicans to vote with them on the resolution, including Maryland's Wayne Gilchrest, a Vietnam veteran and former Iraq War supporter, who says the troops who have been killed and wounded from his district have influenced his vote. He has attended 21 funerals of soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But isn't that just part of war?

"Oh, sure, dying and suffering is a part of the chaos of war," Gilchrest said.

But is it a reason to change policy?

"It's a reason to change policy when what you are doing militarily is not working," Gilchrest said.

'Toothless Words'

Republican leaders complained that they had not been permitted to introduce a rival resolution, as Hoyer's office last week said they could.

"As we discussed it, it became clear to us the only way we could give to the American people a very clear indication as to where Congress stood on this proposal was this process," Hoyer said, which is a "closed rule" process that does not allow the GOP to offer its own bill.

On the floor of the House, Republicans criticized Congress' nonbinding resolution as worthless, and a move that could potentially embolden the enemy.

"After all the tough talk we heard from the other side this is rather toothless words," said Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla.

"We know what al Qaeda thinks when America retreats from the battlefield. They think we can't stomach a fight," said Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio.

"If the troops in Baghdad watched what Congress was doing today, they would be outraged," said Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga. "Fortunately for us and the free world they don't sit around and watch C-Span and [see] what silly politicians do."

ABC News recently asked Army sergeants in Ramadi what they thought of the resolution, and they had strong words.

"Makes me sick," said First Sgt. Louis Barnum. "[I'm] born and raised a Democrat -- it makes me sad."

"I don't want to bad mouth the president at all. To me it that is treason," said Sgt. Brian Orzechowski.

This debate in Washington will continue through the week. A vote on the resolution, which is expected to pass, will likely come Friday.

Martha Raddatz and Ely brown provided reporting from Ramadi, Iraq. Z. Byron Wolf and Dean Norland also contributed to this report.