Meet the Move-On Republicans
Day Two of the House Iraq debate.
by Matthew Continetti
The Weekly Standard
02/14/2007
ANYONE WHO flipped on C-SPAN around noon on Valentine's Day was entering a political twilight zone. The House was well into its second day of debate on Concurrent Resolution 63, a statement of support for the American troops in Iraq but disagreement with President Bush's new strategy there, when the typical partisan alignment--Republicans arguing with Democrats--suddenly collapsed. On one side of the aisle were the Republicans, managed by Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee. And on the other side of the aisle were . . . more Republicans, managed by North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones, the Republican coauthor, with Democrats Ike Skelton of Missouri and Tom Lantos of California, of Resolution 63.
In a canny move, the Democrats had given a portion of their allotted time to the Republicans who oppose Bush's introduction of more than 20,000 additional combat troops to the Iraqi theater of war. During this portion of the debate on Wednesday, ten Republican congressmen came to the floor to join Rep. Jones in support of Resolution 63. And if you had closed your eyes while listening to them speak, you would have found their rhetoric to be indistinguishable from that of the antiwar Democrats.
"Vote for this resolution," said GOP Rep. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, "and we can move on to end the violence, the sectarian chaos, the foolish, bitter electronic exchanges between countries." "Let's pass this resolution," said Rep. Jones. "Let's work with this president to find an endpoint to this strategy." Rep. Jim Ramstad of Minnesota said that when he cast his vote to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein in 2002, he never meant it to authorize an escalation of the war in 2007. Rep. Phil English of Pennsylvania said he'll vote for Resolution 63 because it may force the administration to adopt the recommended strategy of the Iraq Study Group.
And Rep. Howard Coble of North Carolina said the conflict in Iraq was an Iraqi, not an American, problem. "The Iraqi people were given a choice between freedom and civil war," Coble said. "Unfortunately, the chose the latter. They rejected freedom and chose civil war. And the longer we maintain a presence there, the more they will rely on us. The time has come, in my opinion, for the baton to be handed to the Iraqis."
At the moment, of course, the Move-On Republicans remain a minority in their caucus. But their support for Resolution 63 is not the only divide within the House GOP. Those opposing the resolution are divided as well. Before the Iraq debate began on Tuesday, the Republican House leadership recommended that Republicans focus their speeches on the global war on terror, not the new Bush war policy. "Democrats want to force us to focus on defending the surge, making the case that it will work and explaining why the President's new Iraq policy is different from prior efforts and therefore justified," Reps. John Shadegg and Pete Hoekstra wrote in a "Dear Colleague" letter leaked to the media. "We urge you to instead broaden the debate to the threat posed to Americans, the world, and all 'unbelievers' by radical Islamists."
It was minority leader Rep. John Boehner of Ohio's speech Tuesday that signaled the triumph of the Shadegg-Hoekstra approach. Boehner placed Iraq in the context of a 27-year-long war against radical Islam, beginning with the 1979 Iranian Revolution and continuing through the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. "America slept through the first 22 years of this war," Boehner said. Absent from this speech was any detailed argument for (or against) the new approach to the war in Iraq that General David Petraeus and his advisers have formulated and are now beginning to execute.
But not all House Republicans have followed their leadership. Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, who lost his bid to become minority leader, took on directly the critics of Bush's "escalation." "Listening to this debate today and to the opposition to the 'surge' being espoused by the Democratic majority," Pence said Tuesday, "I have begun to wonder . . . What if? I have made it clear that I support the 'surge' and the president's new strategy. My Democratic friends have made it clear that they oppose the 'surge' and the president's new strategy, and that is their right. At this moment, a majority of Americans appear to be with the Democrats. But what if? What if they're wrong? What if you're wrong? What if the 'surge' and General Petraeus and our brave men and women in Iraq succeed?"
Democratic unity and Republican division have characterized the early months of the Democratic House majority. The debate on Resolution 63 makes clear that this will continue to be the case for some time to come.
Matthew Continetti is associate editor at THE WEEKLY STANDARD and author of The K Street Gang: The Rise and Fall of the Republican Machine (Doubleday).
weeklystandard.com |
