Gen. Pace was pushed out -Democrats thought him incompetent

Defense Secretary Robert Gates went on an unannounced visit to Bagdhad today. Speaking to reporters on the flight to Baghdad, Gates said the military wasn't trying to paint an overly optimistic picture of how the war is going. "It's a very mixed picture," he said. (1)

When Gates arrived he would learn that five more soldiers had just died.

Gates last week made the decision not to seek the reappointment of Gen. Peter Pace as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Gates appears to have feared that Pace's long involvement in the Iraq War and his relatively subservient attitude to former SecDef Donald Rumsfeld would turn his reconfirmation hearing into a circus. (2)


Dermocratic Leaders Did Not Approve of Pace

This view of Pace as part of the problem was held by Democratic Leader Harry Reid:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confirmed Thursday that he told liberal bloggers last week that he thinks outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace is "incompetent." (1)

Reid Also Doesn't Think Petraeus is Competent

Reid also disparaged Army Gen. David Petraeus, head of Multinational Forces in Iraq."When I was in Iraq, he was responsible for training the Iraqi troops. He told us it was going great. As we've looked back, it didn't go so well," Reid said. "I was a little disappointed, to say the least, today reading USA Today newspaper, where he's saying things are going fine, kids are playing soccer. The truth is, you look at another newspaper and look at a different page of USA Today, the bloodiest three months of the war has been since the surge took place," Reid said.




Tony Snow Calls for an Apology from Reid

Tony Snow told reporters that he hoped what he had read about Reid is "not true, because in a time of war, for a leader of a party that says its supports the military, it seems outrageous to be issuing slanders toward the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and also the man that is responsible for the bulk of military operations in Iraq.

"Indeed, Senator Reid has at some point declared the war lost and also has declared the surge a failure, even though it has not yet been fully enacted," Snow said, adding that Reid should apologize.


Pace Comments on the Situation- He Was Forced Out- He Did Not And Would Not Resign or Retire



WASHINGTON — In his first public comments on the Bush administration's surprise decision to replace him as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace disclosed that he had turned down an offer to voluntarily retire rather than be forced out.

To quit in wartime, he said, would be letting down the troops.

Pace, responding to a question from the audience after he spoke at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Va., on Thursday evening, said he first heard that his expected nomination for a second two-year term was in jeopardy in mid-May. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on June 8 announced Pace was being replaced.

"One thing that was discussed was whether or not I should just voluntarily retire and take the issue off the table," Pace said, according to a transcript released Friday by his office at the Pentagon.

"I said I could not do that for one very fundamental reason," which is that no soldier or Marine in Iraq should "think _ ever _ that his chairman, whoever that person is, could have stayed in the battle and voluntarily walked off the battlefield.

"That is unacceptable as a leadership thing, in my mind," he added.



Pace, whose current term ends Oct. 1, said he intended to remain on the job until then. Navy Adm. Michael Mullen has been announced as President Bush's choice to succeed Pace, who is the first Marine ever to hold the military's top post.

The decision to drop Pace has fed the political debate in Washington over the Iraq war. On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid caused a stir when he said Pace had failed in his job of providing Congress a candid assessment on the war. Democrats typically have shied from stinging comments about military officers, instead focusing criticism on Bush and administration policies in Iraq.

Asked for comment on Reid's statement, a spokeswoman for Pace, Marine Col. Katie Haddock, said Pace "is focused on his duties as chairman and is not going to respond to press reports on who's saying what. He will let 40 years of service speak for itself."

A Vietnam veteran, Pace indicated in his Norfolk comments that his experience in that war colored his decision not to quit voluntarily.



"The other piece for me personally was that some 40 years ago I left some guys on the battlefield in Vietnam who lost their lives following 2nd Lt. Pace," he said. "And I promised myself then that I will serve this country until I was no longer needed _ that it's not my decision. I need to be told that I'm done.

"I've been told I'm done.

"I will run through the finish line on 1 October, and when I run through the finish line I will have met the mission I set for myself," he said.




Pace was vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the run-up to the Iraq war and during the early years of a conflict that has dragged on far longer than the administration foresaw. In October 2005 he succeeded Air Force Gen. Richard Myers as Joint Chiefs chairman, and until recently had largely been spared the war-related criticism that senior civilian officials attracted.

The decision to sideline Pace came as a surprise, since Gates had previously indicated privately that he intended to recommend that the president re-nominate him. In his remarks in Norfolk, Pace confirmed that Gates had told him he preferred to keep him as chairman but in mid-May began to see signs of opposition on Capitol Hill.

When he announced the decision last Friday, Gates said that after consulting with members of the Senate he concluded that sticking with Pace would risk a Senate confirmation struggle focusing on the Iraq War.

"It would be a backward-looking and very contentious process," Gates said. At the same time, he made clear he had made his decision with reluctance, saying he wished it had not been necessary.

"I am no stranger to contentious confirmations, and I do not shrink from them," Gates said. "However, I have decided that at this moment in our history, the nation, our men and women in uniform and General Pace himself would not be well served by a divisive ordeal. ..."



In his remarks in Norfolk, Pace said Gates had accurately portrayed what transpired.

"He brought me in the office and sat me down and said `Pete, this is what's happening. I want to re-nominate you. I want you to know that this is what I'm beginning to hear, this is what I'm going to go do, this is how I'm going to go do it.'"

"He went out and did exactly what he said on television, and exactly what he's been saying in his interviews, which is he went out and pulsed various members of Congress and he heard back from them the things that he said that he heard," Pace said.

At that point, Pace said, he assured Gates that he was willing to go through even a contentious confirmation process.

"I also told him that what he needed to do, in my opinion, was what was best for the institution, and whatever he and the president decided was going to be best for the institution was what Pete Pace was going to do," he said. "Oh and by the way, I can read the Constitution, which says the president gets to nominate and the Senate gets to confirm, or not, and neither one of those two things is going to happen, therefore I'm not staying." (5)

posted by Paul Grant (follower of Basho)

1. Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070615/iraq/

3. Informed Comment http://www.juancole.com/2007/06/more-than-80-killed-mcclatchy-reviews.html

4. Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,282632,00.html

5. Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070615/us-iraq/
------------------------------------------

US Troops being sent to Iraq without Training

The Republicans called the threat of the Democratic lead Congress to withhold funds for troops- "slow bleed".

But what the Democrats in Congress were really trying to do, is to make sure that the Presidents new "surge" of troops would be adequately trained and have sufficient equitment.

Somehow the Democrats didn't trust the administration to care that much about the troops.

Rushed by President Bush's decision to reinforce Baghdad with thousands more U.S. troops, two Army combat brigades are skipping their usual session at the Army's premier training range in California and instead are making final preparations at their home bases.

Some in Congress and others outside the Army are beginning to question the switch, which is not widely known. They wonder whether it means the Army is cutting corners in preparing soldiers for combat, since they are forgoing training in a desert setting that was designed specially to prepare them for the challenges of Iraq.

But as the Democrats were slow to provide politically exceptable wording for their plan- the Administration went ahead sending in the troops. Press Secretary Tony Snow took some questions about this:


Q There was also a report this morning that two Army combat brigades are being sent to Iraq without desert training -- the Associated Press has a story out today -- and that it's because they're being rushed to Iraq to help get the surge in place.

MR. SNOW: Again, let me stress, what happens is, a lot of times you will also do training in theaters, as well as equipping in theater. The generals have made it very clear, and military commanders have made it clear, nobody is going to go into combat activity without proper equipment and training. Period. So if things --

Q But the story flatly says that two brigades are going in without desert training in California. So that doesn't sound like --

MR. SNOW: All right, I understand.

Q -- they're getting the training.

MR. SNOW: Well, but they can get desert training elsewhere, like in Iraq.

President has not Issued any Special Orders to fix Problems at Walter Reed Hospital

White House Press Secretary tries to dodge a continual brutal attack by the press, questioning him about the The Walter Reed problem. It goes on for ten minutes.

Text after video.

Update of:

The mistreatment of our wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital



Q The administration's mantra for a long time has been "support the troops." What is the reaction, then, when you read this series of stories in The Washington Post about troops coming home from Iraq, Afghanistan and being treated so poorly, apparently, based on this long investigation? What's the President's reaction?

MR. SNOW: There are a couple of things. First, it's not a mantra. I would really choose words carefully. It's a commitment to support the troops. And the President, as you know, has visited the wounded many times at Walter Reed and we are concerned about it. And the people who --

Q Were you aware?

MR. SNOW: We are aware now, yes. And I would refer you to the Department of Defense, which I know is taking a very close look at it, too.

Look, the men and women who have gone and fought for our country over there, they deserve the best care.

Q So why has that not been guaranteed, then?

MR. SNOW: I'm not sure that -- you know, when you find a problem, you deal with it.

Q So you're saying the President learned about this from The Washington Post?

MR. SNOW: I don't know exactly where he learned it, but I can tell you that we believe that they deserve better. And, again, Ed, this is something where I'd suggest you give DoD a call, because I know they've taken a good, hard look at it.

Q Tony, can I follow on that? As Bob Dole might ask, where's the outrage?

MR. SNOW: There's plenty of outrage.

Q Is there?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q So the President responded how when he learned about this? What, specifically -- did he order something to be done?

MR. SNOW: What I'm suggesting -- there's a reason I'm suggesting -- DoD is the proper place in which we'll be taking care of these issues. And I would refer you to them for comment. But this is something that's going to have to be an action item.

Q But is there any evidence that it was even looked at before the paper printed its two stories?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q Then tell us about that evidence.

MR. SNOW: That's why -- again, I would refer you, Bill, to the Department of the Army, which runs the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. This is the place where if you want to get --

Q That's just an easy way for you not to have to talk about it.

MR. SNOW: Well, it's also a way of pointing to the proper authorities, which is what you would want.

Q The White House doesn't want to be on record with a more emphatic expression of amazement and upset about this?

MR. SNOW: No. David asked where the outrage -- of course there's outrage that men and women who have been fighting have not received the outpatient care -- if you read the stories, there are many who are happy with it, some who are unhappy, and it's important that we show our commitment to the people who have served. I don't know what more you want me to do.

Q In December NPR ran a series looking at the quality of mental health care for Iraq veterans who have returned, showing that it's shocking how little care is provided to them. And several congresspeople -- Obama, Boxer and Bond -- sent a letter to the Pentagon, which you're referring us to, asking for an investigation, which they have not agreed to conduct. So you're referring us to the DoD, but they're not acting quickly on this. So does the President want them to act quickly?

MR. SNOW: Well, again, you've asked me about two separate stories.

Q It seems there's a problem that's endemic to the system.

MR. SNOW: Well, rather than leaping to a conclusion, as I said, I would suggest you call them, and then we can talk about it later.

Q Off camera this morning you said that you would have something at noon; you said, I'll talk about it then. And now you're not really --

MR. SNOW: Well, that's because -- again, I think that you may see some activity on it. And at this point I would refer you to the Department of Defense.

Q Is the system working?

MR. SNOW: Well, I'll tell you what -- is the system working? Yes. Is it working perfectly? No.

Q It's good enough?

MR. SNOW: No, I said, it's not good enough. I just told you it's not working perfectly. But there are also thousands of people who have been through the system who have been cared for. But it is important that we maintain a commitment to following up or providing the treatment that these men and women deserve.

Q Do you think the President is going to say something about this later?

MR. SNOW: No.

Q You responded to me a moment ago that the administration was aware of this before the articles appeared in the paper.

MR. SNOW: That is my understanding. But, again, this is something that's an action item over at the Department of Defense and, in particular, the Department of the Army. I am not fully briefed on the activities or who knew what, when. And I suggest --

Q Was the President aware of it? Was the White House aware of it?

MR. SNOW: I am not certain --

Q May I follow on --

Q What is the President's --

MR. SNOW: -- when we first became aware of it.* Now the President certainly has been aware of the conditions in the wards where he has visited, and visited regularly, and we also have people from Walter Reed regularly over to the White House as guests, sometimes in fairly large numbers. So as I said, the President is committed -- committed to these people, committed to men and women who have served. We need to make sure that whatever problems there are get fixed. I couldn't be any stronger or plainer about it.

Q Has he given any new orders?

MR. SNOW: No. At this point, Helen, I think the most important thing -- the way this would work is the Department of Army has its own investigation about what's going on at Walter Reed. They will be taking action. The President certainly wants to make sure that, as I said before, whatever problems there are get fixed.

Q On Walter Reed, a lot of the veterans, the medical community, the doctors, the neighbors who have worked at Walter Reed are very upset about this move, pending move to Bethesda. In light of everything that's happening, does the administration still support uprooting --

MR. SNOW: The Department of Defense has made the decision to consolidate the treatment facilities at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center.

Q Is there any chance of a second look? Some of the facilities at Walter Reed are brand new.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, I'm just going to refer you to that. This is -- all of a sudden people are trying to open up different avenues of inquiry. The fact is that those changes have, in fact, been decided upon by the Department of Defense. I am not aware of any decisions to change.

Q To clarify, were these -- any actions that the Pentagon has taken, these action items, were they done on its own, or did they do this in response to some order from here?

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not aware that anybody has -- look, when you have a problem like this, the imperative is to fix it. I'm not sure that you have to issue orders; there are people there who know if they've got a problem they need to fix it. So I don't think that -- I will try to find out for you, but I'm not aware that the President has cut any special orders. But I will try to get for you additional information.

Q I think what we're --

MR. SNOW: I know what you're trying to do, you're trying to get a tick-tock on what did he learn and how did he respond and who did he call.

Q Yes, we're trying to determine if someone here built a fire under someone over there to do something.

MR. SNOW: You know, that's assuming that people there are callous about the fate of the people who are serving.

Q It isn't --

MR. SNOW: No, I think it is. When you say "light a fire," it's as if, you know, you find out that there's a problem and you don't move quickly to try to correct it. My sense is that there's plenty of fire for trying to get it right. But this is why I'm telling you if you want a more direct answer about this, you do need to talk to the people at the Department of the Army --

Q But, Tony, when you read --

MR. SNOW: -- who are at the ground level involvement here.

Q -- an account that says a commanding general, quotes a commanding general as saying, well, gee, we ordered repairs done, but they weren't done -- you'd think they would have known this hadn't been accomplished.

MR. SNOW: Well, again, that's why -- you've just made my point, which is you need to get back to them, and I will also get back for you with a tick-tock about what's going on at this end.

Q It's not just -- you're describing kind of a cold, detached bureaucratic process. We all know how this works. Something like this, this kind of story gets people's attention. You are now --

MR. SNOW: Well --

Q Wait a minute. You're now in the PR business, you know if something like this happens it's at odds with the commitments you make; the Commander-in-Chief might well stand up at a meeting and say, darn it, let's get to the bottom of this now and let's get answers. And this happened over the weekend, and you're saying you think the White House knew, but you're not sure; you're not sure when the President knew or if he said something to somebody. It just seems like you should have those answers.

MR. SNOW: Okay, but you also -- fine, I'll try to get them for you. But when you talk about cold detachment, I don't think saying that if it needs --

Q You're calling it an "action item"?

MR. SNOW: Well, yes, because what I'm telling you is that it is something that falls under the providence of the Department of the Army. Therefore, if you want the detailed answers about who knew what, when and how it's been handled, you do need to ask them, because they're going to have the information, David.

I can tell you that the President feels passionately about them, and you should have no doubt about it -- you've been at enough events where when he looks these people in the eye there is a commitment, a strong, profound emotional commitment to the people who serve this country. And it is one where the President is committed to doing right by the men and women who serve. There should be no doubt about that.

Q But, Tony --

MR. SNOW: Wait, wait. In that case, what I'm telling you is let's sort through the facts. I know that what you want is for me to tell you more than I know right now. So you keep at it --

Q But it would not be unreasonable for you or the President, through you, to express some kind of outrage over what has happened up there.

MR. SNOW: Well, it's also a matter of trying to figure out precisely what has happened. You have news stories, it is important to investigate. As you know, the most important thing is to fix a problem, correct? And there is absolute determination to fix the problem. The President is somebody, again, whose passion for these forces should never, ever be a topic of doubt on the part of the forces or the American people.

Q Right, but Tony, when you say he looks in the eyes of the families -- but what if the bureaucrats on the ground are not actually following through on the commitment you say he has? Doesn't he have a duty to follow through and say, what --

MR. SNOW: That's why I'm asking you to direct your questions to the people who are in direct line of responsibility for this, who are going to have more information on this than I do right now.

Q What is your reaction of Major General Weightman, who is the Commander at Walter Reed, also says in the bottom of the article on Sunday in The Washington Post, said that he's concerned and that they're bracing for, "potentially a lot more casualties," people coming to Walter Reed because of the surge. Does that cause the White House to think at all about that policy, because you have the Commander of Walter Reed --

MR. SNOW: There are a whole series of things, and, again, this is why you need to talk to people who are in the chain, because --

Q But this he said on the record.

MR. SNOW: I understand, Ed. But there are a series of things. First, for Walter Reed, what you end up having is treatment of people who are wounded -- and also this is Bethesda, as you know, different sorts of injuries are treated at the two facilities. And many of those people are there for months. And this story deals with outpatient care after that treatment, right? So it's important, I think, to understand that you've got to be prepared for all things that are going to come your way, including getting the piece right when it comes to outpatient care, and continuing also to do well by inpatients.

But, again, I know you want me to -- I'm simply not going to go beyond what I know. And in this particular case, the people who do know the facts and do know what's going on, and do know how the investigations are proceeding are the guys over at DoD.

Q I think that's part of the question. It doesn't seem like -- beyond what you know, it doesn't seem like you're asking that many questions to find out. I mean, you have a limited knowledge about the situation.

MR. SNOW: It's because they're working the issue, and I'm telling you, those are the people to talk to, the DoD.

Q -- I mean, you keep putting me off on other people --

MR. SNOW: I know.

Q This is a commitment the President has made, you said, to the families, right?

MR. SNOW: Yes.

Q So why isn't the President, why isn't his staff saying, let's get to the bottom of it now?

MR. SNOW: We are trying to get to the bottom of it, and the people who are responsible for getting to the bottom of it work on the other side of the river.

House votes against troop surge in Iraq & Tim Ryans speach

In this post we have the Washington post on the House of Representatives Historic nonbinding but symbolic vote of NON CONFIDENCE in the President's plan forward in Iraq.

And, my favorite speech from the debate from Tim Ryans (D). Who points out that sending in these troops would mean sending in men and woman who would not have the equipment necessary to do their job. He points out that the administration has a poor record for carrying for our troops.



House votes against troop surge in Iraq
By Jon Ward
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published February 17, 2007


The Democratic-led House yesterday voted against President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq, a nonbinding but symbolic action that Republicans said is defeatist and a step backward in the war on terrorism.

"Today we have had an historic victory for the American people," said House Speaker , who voted against the war in 2002.

The 97-word resolution, which opposes sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq, passed 246-182. The vote was preceded by 44 hours and 55 minutes of debate over four days. Seventeen Republicans voted for the measure, and two Democrats voted against it.

The president's spokesman said the resolution won't change Mr. Bush's plan, adding that early signs of its success would leave those who voted for the resolution having to explain themselves later.

"Members of Congress have taken their own gamble here. They're gambling on failure -- some members, at least," White House press secretary Tony Snow said.

The White House is downplaying yesterday's House vote -- and one planned for today in the Senate on another Iraq war resolution -- arguing that the more important votes were last month's Senate confirmation of Army Gen. David H. Petraeus to command U.S. forces in Iraq and an upcoming vote on an emergency spending bill to fund the war on terrorism.
Meanwhile, House Republican leaders are vowing to defeat Democratic plans to begin slowly choking off funding for the war. Democrats intend to introduce legislation next month that they hope will limit the president's use of money in the supplemental war-funding request.

House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican, said the resolution "is clearly the first step toward defunding the troops and the war against Islamic totalitarianism."

Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, said Thursday that he hopes to require certification for adequate training and equipment for any deployed troops, and to place caps on how long those troops can serve and be enlisted.

"They won't be able to do the deployment," said Mr. Murtha, who voted in favor of authorizing the war.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, denounced the plan "to eliminate funding for our troops that are in harm's way."

Democrats insist the best way to "support the troops" is to take them out of what they say is a civil war in Iraq.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, who voted for the war, said it "has weakened our fight against al Qaeda. In fact the war has enhanced the group's recruitment."

Republicans insist that Iraq is a hard but necessary fight against terrorists and insurgents backed by Iran and Syria, and that the conflict is part of the country's broader fight against terrorism.

The four-day debate, in which 392 of 434 House lawmakers participated, came to a dramatic conclusion yesterday afternoon.

Republicans sent Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas, a prisoner of war in Vietnam for almost seven years, to the House floor as their last speaker.

"Let my body serve as a brutal reminder that we must not repeat the mistakes of the past," said Mr. Johnson, 76. "We must not cut off funding for the troops."

Republicans gave Mr. Johnson a two-minute standing ovation and were joined by the smattering of Democrats in the chamber.

Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri closed the debate for the Democrats. Mr. Skelton, who voted to authorize the war, said that sending more troops "will embroil [them] more deeply in a sectarian conflict [that] cannot be won militarily."

Immediately after the resolution passed, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, sent out a release that said the Senate "must join the House and vote on the escalation."

Mr. Reid has taken the unusual step of bringing senators in for a weekend vote today on closing off amendments to an anti-surge resolution identical to the House bill.

Democrats say Republicans are avoiding an up-or-down vote on the surge, but Republicans say they want to vote on alternative resolutions, one of which would guarantee no funding cuts for the military.

"Senate Republicans want a vote in support of funding for the troops," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, who said he expects to defeat Mr. Reid's attempt to stifle debate on other resolutions.

• Stephen Dinan contributed to this article.


Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH) delivers his speech on the Iraq War Resolution during Thursday's debate on the floor of the house.

House members joust over Iraq war policy

By ANNE FLAHERTY,

House members fiercely debated Iraq war policy Tuesday in an emotional and historic floor faceoff over a conflict that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) lambasted as a U.S. commitment with "no end in sight."

The confluence of arguments came as the war nears the four-year point with over 3,100 American deaths, billions spent and lawmakers grappling what position to take on President Bush's decision to send an additional 21,500 troops into battle.

"The American people have lost faith in President Bush's course of action in Iraq and they are demanding a new direction," said Pelosi, a California Democrat who became the first female House speaker after her party took control of both the House and Senate in the fall elections.

A resolution putting the House on record as against Bush's expansion of troop strength was expected to be approved by week's end. It was nonbinding, but nevertheless unmistakable in its message. "No more blank checks for President Bush on Iraq," Pelosi declared.

Countered White House press secretary Tony Snow: "Members of the House and members of the Senate have the freedom to go ahead and write their resolutions, and do what they want with them. The one thing we do expect is, we do expect those who say they're going to support the troops, to support them."

Republicans, now the minority party on the Hill for the time in 12 years, issued impassioned warnings of the consequences of undermining the president's policies in Iraq. "We will embolden terrorists in every corner in the world. We will give Iran free access to the Middle East," said Republican leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio. "And who doesn't believe the terrorists will just follow our troops home?"

Boehner teared up before reporters as he listened to Rep. Sam Johnson (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, describe being a prisoner of war in Vietnam and learning of U.S. protests back home.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record), D-Md., insisted that they had no intention of impeding the mission of those in Iraq. "There will be no defunding of troops in the field. There will be no defunding which will cause any risk to the troops," he told a news conference.

The House rejected, on a 227-197 vote, a Republican procedural attempt to force a vote on a proposal that would have barred Congress from cutting off funding for American troops in harm's way.

Democrats expressed confidence the measure would prevail and said they would attempt to use it as the opening move in a campaign to pressure Bush to change course and end U.S. military involvement in the war. More than 3,100 U.S. troops have died in nearly four years of fighting.

Democrats called on several freshmen who served in the military to make their argument against further commitments in Iraq.

Rep. Patrick Murphy (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., a captain in the Army 82nd Airborne, said that "three years after I left Iraq, Americans are still running convoys up and down Ambush Alley and securing Iraqi street corners."

But Rep. David Dreier (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., stressed that "we go to war to win, we go to war with a mission." He said "we dishonor the lives of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice if we in fact abandon that mission. .... We have a duty to pursue nothing less than victory."

Republicans conceded that the measure was headed for approval and said a few dozen members of the GOP were likely to break ranks and vote for it.

It was the first debate about the war in either house of Congress since November's midterm elections, when public opposition to the conflict helped power Democrats to control of the House and Senate.

Bush's decision last month to deploy an additional 21,500 troops to help stop sectarian violence has quickly become a flashpoint for critics of the war in Congress. There are currently about 141,000 American troops in Iraq and 27,000 in Afghanistan.

The nonbinding measure states simply that the House "will continue to support and protect" troops serving in Iraq but that it "disapproves" of the troop buildup.

While such legislation can neither force Bush's hand nor bring the war to a close, the vote could be a politically embarrassing rejection of his Iraq policy and help Democrats reassert congressional oversight of the war.

Each of the House's 435 members and five delegates were being allotted five minutes to speak on the issue. Democratic leaders said Monday they planned to restrict members to a single vote by week's end, barring any amendments or a GOP alternative — a tack Republican leaders decried as unfair.

"After promising to make this Congress the most open and honest in history, (House Speaker) Nancy Pelosi has effectively shut out both Republicans and Democrats from substantively debating the most important issue of our time," said Rep. John Shadegg (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz.

Pelosi and other Democrats said restricting debate to one measure will force members to go on record on the war without hiding behind political ploys.

This week's debate will be in sharp contrast to the one in 2002, which authorized Bush to use force if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did not comply with U.N. weapons inspectors. That debate resulted in solid margins of support from Republicans and Democrats.

In October 2002, just over half of the public — 52 percent — approved of Bush's handling of Iraq in Gallup polling. But Bush now faces a new political landscape. More than 3,100 U.S. troops have died and the justification for the invasion has been discredited with a majority of the public.

Copyright © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2007 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.