President backs away as House debates ‘surge’

WASHINGTON – A month after President Bush announced plans to boost troop levels in Iraq, he largely will remain on the sidelines as the House of Representatives begins the first major debate on the war since Democrats assumed power after the November election.

While Democratic leaders work to build Republican support for a short, symbolic resolution opposing the troop increase, the White House thus far has eschewed a major public lobbying effort to rally Republican lawmakers behind the president.

And in his public statements, Bush has focused on other subjects, even as the resolution has consumed lawmakers on Capitol Hill over the past week.

The president said in an interview with C-SPAN on Monday that he doesn’t plan to watch the House debate. “I’ve got a full day tomorrow. I mean, it’s not as if the world stops when the Congress does their duty,” he said. Besides, he added, “I already know what the debate is.”

The presidential nonchalance is a notable departure from the active role the administration previously has played in guiding legislation – and a marked contrast to its recent efforts to block a similar resolution in the Senate.

With Democrats in firm control of the House, Bush has little chance to derail the resolution in that chamber. But the White House also appears increasingly unable to unite Republicans behind its Iraq strategy.

Several Republicans have said they will back the House resolution. And as the debate begins this week, even GOP lawmakers who oppose the resolution plan to say little about the president or his administration, focusing instead on the dangers of failure in Iraq.

Just weeks ago, the president was far less detached from congressional debate of the war.

As he prepared last month to announce his plan to boost troop levels in Iraq by 21,500 to control sectarian violence, Bush invited lawmakers from both parties to the White House to talk to him and his top advisers.

And earlier this month, the White House worked closely with Senate Republican leaders to head off a Senate resolution criticizing the Bush plan.

That resolution remains stalled amid partisan dispute over how it should be debated; Monday, a bipartisan group of senators urged that it be attached to a pending funding bill.

With a 31-vote majority in the House of Representatives, the president’s Democratic critics do not have to worry about the resolution stalling in their chamber.

The simple, two-sentence measure, formally introduced Monday, will come up for a vote Thursday or Friday after every member of the House has an opportunity to talk about it on the floor.

The resolution notes that Congress “will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces” and concludes that Congress “disapproves” of the president’s plans.

Democrats very pointedly have touted the nonbinding measure as a direct challenge to the president, a theme that is sure to run through Democratic comments in the debate this week.

But there likely will be little praise for the president from the Republican side of the aisle.

While acknowledging that “mistakes were made,” a set of talking points sent out Monday by Republican leaders to their members does not include a single clear endorsement of Bush’s strategy.

Rather, they focus on putting Iraq in the context of the global war against terrorism, criticizing Democrats for weakening troop morale and challenging Democrats to cut off funding if they oppose the president.

On Monday, a group of Republicans sent a letter to leading Democratic war critics, calling on those critics – if they “truly believe that the United States should withdraw our troops from Iraq” – to press Democratic leaders to debate alternatives to the resolution.

“They ran on this issue. They ought to do something about it,” said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., the new chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Several senior Democrats have said they eventually want to use funding restrictions to limit the deployment of additional troops and begin forcing a withdrawal.