Shortly before the United States invaded Iraq, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) noticed something troubling about the congressional debate on this critical, world-changing issue: there wasn’t one. In a stirring speech from the Senate floor, Byrd asked, “Why is this chamber empty? Why are these halls silent?”
What’s worse, the halls haven’t grown much noisier since. Congress may be all about debate and deliberation, but when it comes to the war in Iraq, the serious discussions about the future simply haven’t happened. The Republican majority prefers to a) sidestep the political nightmare associated with an unpopular war; and b) embrace the war only to accuse Dems of being soft on terror.
Roll Call reports today, however, that there’s growing bi-partisan sentiment in the House for a real debate.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers began a new effort last week to attract support for the idea of holding a lengthy House floor debate on Iraq policy.
On Wednesday, Republican Reps. Walter Jones Jr. (N.C.), Ron Paul (Texas) and Wayne Gilchrest (Md.) joined Democratic Reps. Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii), Ike Skelton (Mo.) and Marty Meehan (Mass.) in co-signing a “Dear Colleague” letter calling for “an open and honest debate on the future of U.S. policy in Iraq.”
The six signatories encouraged their colleagues to sign a discharge petition for H.Res. 543, a rule that would allow floor consideration of a resolution introduced by Abercrombie in 2005 requiring President Bush “to develop and implement a plan for the withdrawal” of American troops from Iraq.
Supporters of the discharge petition argue that the House has not had an adequate recent debate on Iraq, even as casualties there have escalated and President Bush has declined to specify when U.S. troops will pull out.
The House Republicans who now welcome a debate on the future of the war are some of the same GOP lawmakers who no longer want anything to do with Bush’s policy. This isn’t a coincidence — these guys see it as a way to put some distance between themselves and the administration on the war.
It also sets up an interesting challenge for the Republican leadership — are they afraid of a national security debate with Dems in an election year? So far, the answer is yes.
Asked about the bi-partisan support for the debate resolution, Speaker Hastert’s office said the House has already debated the issue — once in 2003 and again last year, when Hastert and DeLay quickly organized a vote on a trumped-up resolution on immediate withdrawal, which was a poorly-laid trap for John Murtha.
To his enormous credit, Walter Jones showed little patience for the nonsense from his Speaker’s office.
…Jones, one of the House’s few outspoken GOP critics of the war, strongly disagreed with the idea that the chamber has given the Iraq issue enough debate time and argued that November’s debate was designed solely to humiliate Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.).
“It was not an honest debate on the issue,” Jones said, calling the short consideration of the bill an effort to “embarrass a patriot.”
“I’m frustrated with my own party, I’ll be honest with you,” Jones added, saying that he respects Hastert but that he believes his own leadership is out of touch on the Iraq issue.
“I don’t know what polls the Republican leadership’s looking at, but the ones I’ve seen aren’t very encouraging,” he said.
It’s an interesting, and revealing, perspective. Jones is acknowledging that the war is a disaster, that his GOP leadership is afraid of a public debate that would highlight the disaster, and that he’s one of many Republicans who knows that their careers are on the line over this.
The date to watch in April 5, when Republicans Jones, Paul, and Gilchrest will go to the floor with three House Dems to call for a vote on the debate resolution. If it passes, H. Res. 543 would allow up to 17 hours of debate on whether the House believes Bush should “develop and implement a plan for the withdrawal” of the troops. Stay tuned.