U.S. Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., believes while the ongoing
strife in Iraq is unacceptable, Congress should not be wasting its
time passing non-binding resolutions disagreeing with the U.S.
troop buildup.
Instead, the lawmaker said Wednesday, members should be focused
on finding concrete solutions to the problem.
“The state of affairs in Iraq right now is unacceptable – far
too many Americans have paid the ultimate price, and far too few
Iraqis have stepped up to seize the opportunity of a free
democratic future,” Peterson said. “To turn things around, we need
leadership and popular resolve, coupled with adequate
resources.
“We don’t need to spend 36 hours of floor time trading speeches
on a measure that imparts no new policy, suggests no new
alternatives and commands no real effect.”
This week, members of the House are debating President Bush’s
plan to send more than 21,000 additional troops to Iraq as part of
a plan to quell violence in Baghdad. The measure declares that
Congress disapproves of Bush’s decision, but also states it will
continue to support the troops.
Critics of the resolution – in front of a
Democratically-controlled House – have claimed it could eventually
lead to cutting off funds for the war. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,
D-Calif., has declared the vote a first step in a longer campaign
to end U.S. involvement in the conflict.
Democrats gained control of both chambers of Congress following
the elections last year, largely due to public rancor over the way
the war is being handled.
Republican leaders have also sought to offer alternative
measures, which have been denied thus far.
Officials said a straight up or down vote is expected in the
House on Friday.
“There is an appropriate and important role for Congress in this
ongoing debate over Iraq, but it isn’t to pass empty, non-binding
resolutions disagreeing with specific tactical decisions on the
ground,” Peterson said.
The lawmaker said if his colleagues are sincere in their belief
the war is a lost cause, and that sending more troops to Iraq is
the wrong strategy, “they shouldn’t hesitate to cut off funding for
the operation.
“That would be a statement of genuine intent, which contrasts
sharply with what we’ve seen on the floor this week.”
Following Bush’s State of the Union address, Peterson said the
president did a good job in reminding the American public about the
stakes in Iraq, both related to prospects of victory and the
consequences of defeat. At that time, Peterson said the decision to
send additional troops there represented the Iraqi people’s last
and best chance for freedom in the region – but it was not
open-ended.
Peterson currently sits on the powerful House Appropriations
Committee along with the Homeland Security subcommittee.
Not all members of the GOP are in agreement, however, with
Bush’s policy.
Rep. Phil English, R-Pa., whose district lies next to
Peterson’s, said Wednesday he plans to support the resolution
opposing the buildup.
English, who spoke on the House floor, dubbed the resolution
narrow and inadequate, adding he would have liked to see a document
that expresses a commitment to moving forward with the overall
fight against terrorism.
The lawmaker also supports adding elements of the Iraq Study
Group’s proposed recommendations, including diplomacy in the
Mideast.
“I believe it is time for Iraq’s government and security forces
to step forward and bear primary responsibility for internal
security,” English said.
(The Associated Press contributed to this report.)
