Vote Getting, or Actual Policymaking in Iraq War Debate?

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 15, 2006 — -- From tough talk about what the enemy is willing to do to women and children to harsh accusations about Washington's "spend and bleed" policy in Iraq, lawmakers plowed through 10 hours of fiery debate today about the strategy for that conflict.

In this competitive election year in which control of the U.S. House of Representatives is up for grabs, both parties want to stake out a position on the war that they hope will resonate with voters.

As spelled out in a "Confidential Messaging Memo" obtained by ABC News and issued to Republican members by House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, the debate was intended to show voters that Republicans are "dedicated to victory," while the Democrats are "without a coherent national security policy" and "sheepishly dismiss … the challenges America faces in a post-9/11 world."

"This is about taking the fight to those who will strike America again and will ruin this nation and kill our innocent civilians," said Rep. Rick Renzi, R-Ariz. "America must endure -- endure and prevail."

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., warned that the Iraqi insurgents and al Qaeda must be stopped.

"They have well established themselves to murder Christians, Jews, Muslims, women, children; they'll behead you, they'll shoot you, they'll blow you up. They don't care," Rogers said. "And to have the talk of rhetoric -- because the electricity isn't where it is -- let's come home in defeat? That's no standard for victory!"

Democrats responded with equal force. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who last November called for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, dismissed as "rhetoric" the comments by his Republican colleagues and said that as a Vietnam veteran he knew of what he spoke.

"I know what rhetoric is and I know what fighting on the front lines are. I know the difference between them," said Murtha. "I know standing here does not solve the problem. It hasn't gotten better, it's gotten worse; that's the problem."

Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, said: "There's a better way to honor our troops than sending more of them off to be killed. It's not weakness or retreat to recognize the administration offers us only an endless spend and bleed policy."

Charade or Real Move for Policy Change?

Republicans made no bones about their goals to use the debate to appeal to voters.

"Many, not all, on the other side of the aisle lack the will to win the American people," said Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga. "The public can decide the course of this war in November by hopefully throwing the defeatists out of office."

And Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., said that people might not agree with the Republican position, but at least its caucus was unified.

"We've watched again and again and again as the Democratic Party has struggled to come to grips with this issue and find a united position," he said. "And so far no united position has emerged."

Democrats called the debate a "charade" because no alternative resolutions were permitted, and the resolution being debated requires no actual action, such as improving protection and equipment for troops, or providing any possible discussion as to how to better defeat the insurgency.

"So here we are treating the issue of war, and the safety of our troops, with a resolution that carries the same force of law as a resolution congratulating a sports team," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

As the debate continued through the night, Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., criticized a starkly political document circulated by the Office of the Secretary of Defense labeled "Iraq Floor Debate Prep Book."

The document, which the Pentagon later told ABC News was from the National Security Council, offered several "Rapid Response" rebuttal points to political arguments, including political quotes from Democratic officials who are war critics, in an apparent attempt to portray them as hypocrites.

A senior Republican Senate staffer called the document "highly unusual" for the Pentagon or NSC to have drafted or distributed, because it is so "forward-leaning."

"I could see this being sent out by the RNC, sure, but not the NSC," he said.

Amy Thomas, Jonathan Greenberger, Liz Marlantes and John Yang contributed to this report.