Reidblog [The Reid Report blog]

Nearly four years after it authorized the use of force in Iraq, the House today will embark on its first extended debate on the war, with Republican leaders daring Democrats to vote against a nonbinding resolution to hold firm on Iraq and the war on terrorism.

In the wake of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death and President Bush's surprise trip to Baghdad, Republican leaders are moving quickly to capitalize on good news and trying to force Democrats on the defensive. Bush continued his own campaign with a morning news conference and a White House meeting with congressional leaders from both parties, while House leaders strategized on today's 10-hour debate.

A memo from House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) urged House Republican members Tuesday to make the debate "a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and Democrats." After Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was booed this week by liberal activists for her failure to resolutely oppose the war, Republicans hope to present a united front that highlights the fractures in the Democratic Party.

"As a result of our efforts during this debate, Americans will recognize that on the issue of national security, they have a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democratic Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post-9/11 world," Boehner wrote.

But the day-long debate will also give voice to some GOP lawmakers' misgivings about Bush administration policy -- and years of congressional support for it -- in an election year in which Iraq will be a central issue. The news of recent days has buoyed Republican spirits, but the party is still saddled with a war that remains deeply unpopular and is imperiling its continued control of Congress. Some House Republicans have complained that their party has taken flight from its responsibility to debate and oversee administration policy.

"I can't help but feel through eyes of a combat-wounded Marine in Vietnam, if someone was shot, you tried to save his life. . . . While you were in combat, you had a sense of urgency to end the slaughter, and around here we don't have that sense of urgency," said Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest (Md.), a usually soft-spoken Republican who has urged his leaders to challenge the White House on Iraq. "To me, the administration does not act like there's a war going on. The Congress certainly doesn't act like there's a war going on. If you're raising money to keep the majority, if you're thinking about gay marriage, if you're doing all this other peripheral stuff, what does that say to the guy who's about ready to drive over a land mine?"

1. Exploit 9/11. The two page memo mentions 9/11 seven times. It describes debating Iraq in the context of 9/11 as "imperative."

2. Attack opponents ad hominem. The memo describes those who opposes President Bush’s policies in Iraq as "sheepish," "weak," and "prone to waver endlessly."

3. Create a false choice. The memo says the decision is between supporting President Bush’s policies and hoping terrorist threats will "fade away on their own."

The current debate on Iraq offers progressives an opportunity to keep the Bush administration honest. It is also an opportunity to ensure that the United States has a strategy for completing the military mission at a time of our choosing and getting the Iraq policy on the right track. Progressives need to offer responsible criticisms, outline alternatives, and ready themselves for an onslaught of unfair attacks and half-truths.

The conservative message will focus on simplistic slogans like “cut and run” and “retreat and defeat.” A memorandum sent by House majority leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) (PDF) earlier this week encourages Republican members to exploit September 11th and attack opponents of the current Iraq policy as weak on national security. Conservatives will attempt to shift the frame from discussing Iraq to talking about the broader fight against global terrorism. Progressives should welcome this challenge — the Bush administration is vulnerable in its efforts to fight global terrorism, as well as Iraq.

Progressives must respond with clarity, confidence, and fact-based rebuttals. With facts on their side, progressives can make a strong case that the Bush administration and its allies in Congress have cut and run on Iraq for the past three years, and that Iraq is hurting the broader effort to defeat global terror networks.

Though a handful of conservatives may try to distance themselves from the Bush administration’s policies in Iraq, it is vital for progressives to remind Americans that the current Congress has done little more than serve as a rubber stamp for policies that have not made Americans safer. All members of Congress should ask the tough questions and hold the Bush administration accountable for its mistakes in Iraq and the consequences these mistakes have had for U.S. national security.