Security - What's New - Archive

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Security Archives page.

Four Years Later: Congress Debates Iraq

What is your opinion of the war in Iraq? How should our president and legislators be talking about it? And more importantly, what should they be doing about it?

On June 15th and 16th, Congress held its first debate on the Iraq war in four years -- since they authorized President Bush to invade in 2002. Ultimately, the House voted 256 to 153 to "complete the mission" in Iraq instead of withdrawing American troops.

The phrase "complete the mission" is undefined --- does it mean staying in Iraq for another ten years? Does it mean overcoming all insurgencies? Or simply waiting until the president says it’s time? The House resolution is vague and nonbinding, and many say simply it’s simply a Republican strategy to reveal the Democratic Party’s internal disagreements about the war.

In fact, at least four House members refused to participate in the debate and, during a press conference, tied yellow rope around their hands to protest it. The demonstrators included Representatives Ron Paul (R-TX), Walter Jones (R-NC), Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Martin Meehan (D-MA). They pointed out that the resolution was not a policy initiative, but a hollow plan to reiterate partisan differences.

The vote

Forty-two Democrats voted in favor of the resolution for fear of political repercussions. With the midterm elections coming up in five months, Democrats running for reelection have to be careful about their votes. These Democrats feared that their Republican rivals would turn a "no" vote into mudslinging. They didn’t want to be accused of not supporting the troops or being soft on terrorism.

The majority of Democrats voted against the resolution to show their disapproval of the administration’s handling of Iraq.

Three Republicans voted against the resolution as well, including John J. Duncan, Jr. (Tennessee), Ron Paul (Maryland), and Jim Leach (Iowa), who are all against the war; they voted against the authorization of force in Iraq in 2002.

The debate

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois opened the debate saying "we must endure" and that the alternative is to "cut and run." This language creates a black and white dispute, with little room for alternatives.

During sethe debate, Republicans tended to make connections between Iraq and terrorism, while Democrats questioned these connections, pointing out that the war in Afghanistan was a response to terrorism, while the Iraq war was an answer to the alleged weapons of mass destruction.

On the issue of supporting the troops, all Representatives reiterated their backing, with John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania saying that the issue was not about support; the issue was whether the mission in Iraq was realistic.

The strategy

Political analysts say that Republicans situated the debate to take advantage of the death of al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, to highlight President Bush’s trip to Iraq, and to put Democrats on the defensive.

Democrats were faced with the choice of supporting President Bush’s efforts in Iraq or voting against the commitment to achieving victory in Iraq. A lose-lose proposition for Democrats.

The Senate

The House fight was mirrored in the Senate, which voted to table a controversial amendment. That amendment, brought to the floor by Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was designed to offset a proposal by Sen. John Kerry (D- Massachusetts). It called for Bush to agree with the Iraqi government on a schedule for withdrawal of combat troops by Dec. 31, 2006.

Again, Republicans labeled withdrawal "cutting and running," so Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada decided to curtail the floor debate. The Senate voted to table the proposal.

Kerry called the vote "fictitious" and promised further debate on the issue next week. But Senate Republicans claimed victory, saying the Senate opposes a cut-and-run strategy.

What do you think?

Would it be "cutting and running" to withdraw troops from Iraq? To reposition them in the region surrounding Iraq? How important is the Iraq war to your next vote? What’s missing from the Iraq debate?

Your input matters

Your representatives DO care what you think. Especially now -- 2006 is an election year and many representatives will be looking to reconnect with their constituents. Let your congressmen and women know what you think! Give your senators a piece of your mind! To find your reps, click here.

About WomenMatter

WomenMatter is a place to discuss life issues with other women. We don’t want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue. To participate in our blog, click here.

WomenMatter is the place where we can take one issue at a time, match what we do about it every day of our lives to the facts of the bigger system that we all live in and recognize that every idea for making it better has tradeoffs.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We launch after school GirlsMatter Clubs in middle and high schools to grow the next generation of politically aware women through a full curriculum and startup kit on girlsmatter.com.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.

We offer all our services free of charge without memberships or subscriptions. To help us maintain this work - not just in election years but as a continuing part of women’s lives - please make a tax deductible donation, click here.

Update Posted on: 6/23/2006