Speaker Nancy Pelosi
	John P. Murtha
	Harry Reid
	Joseph R. Biden Jr.

WASHINGTON (By Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post) February 16, 2007 — Capping four days of passionate, often angry debate, the House delivered President Bush its first rebuke since the Iraq war was launched nearly four years ago, voting 246 to 182 to oppose the administration's planned deployment of 21,500 additional combat troops to Iraq.

Seventeen Republicans joined 229 Democrats to approve a resolution that expresses support for U.S. combat forces but opposes the additional deployments. Two Democrats opposed the measure.

Although nonbinding, both proponents and opponents predicted the consequences of the vote would be enormous as the debate came to a close yesterday with a crescendo. Democrats claimed it would begin to turn the political tide so decisively that the president will have to begin bringing U.S. forces home, while Republicans warned darkly that Islamic terrorists will be emboldened at the expense of not only American lives but also America's way of life.

"The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home safely and soon," proclaimed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "Our troops are working together to secure our nation, and we in this House must work together to secure our nation as well."

"Our enemies will be the only ones satisfied by this debate," warned Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), the Republicans' chief deputy whip. "They will have received all the political rhetoric they require to convince their followers that complete victory is at hand. Just imagine, how many Islamic radicals will be inspired to continue the fight by a Congress that says we support the troops but not the mission we ask them to perform?"

The action will now move to the Senate where Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) announced yesterday a rare Saturday vote to begin debate on the House resolution.

Within minutes of the House vote, the White House issued a response, pointing out that Bush's plan to send reinforcements to Iraq is supported by the Iraqi government and U.S. military leaders.

"The President ordered a new way forward in Iraq because he, like most Americans, believed the existing situation in Iraq was unacceptable," said the statement from spokesman Tony Snow. "The President concluded that this new strategy was necessary in order to help the Iraqi government gain control over Baghdad, assume more responsibility for security, and pursue reconciliation of all of Iraq's communities."

But the message was also a blunt warning to Congress not to move beyond the nonbinding resolution to cut off funding for U.S. troops.

"Soon, Congress will have the opportunity to show its support for the troops in Iraq by funding the supplemental appropriations request the President has submitted, and which our men and women in combat are counting on," Snow said. "The President believes that the Congress should provide the full funding and flexibility our Armed Forces need to succeed in their mission to protect our country."

Earlier in the day, Snow told reporters that Bush was not watching the debate because "he knows what the views are."

Congressional Democrats have signaled a willingness to directly challenge and curtail Bush's war making powers, a move that will almost certainly spark a legal or constitutional confrontation. Yesterday, Pelosi linked her support for President Bush's war-funding request to strict standards of resting, training and equipping combat forces, a move that could curtail troop deployments and alter the course of U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a Pelosi ally, is rewriting the president's spending request to limit Bush's options in prosecuting the war, and Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said yesterday he will seek to repeal the 2002 congressional authorization for Bush to wage war in Iraq and substitute legislation that would narrow the mission of troops there and begin to bring some home.

"If we are going to support our troops, we should respect what is considered reasonable for them: their training, their equipment and their time at home," Pelosi said in an interview yesterday with a small group of reporters. "What we're trying to say to the president is, you can't send people in who are not trained for urban warfare . . . who are not prepared to contend with an insurgency."

The Democrats' move is likely to test the party's unity in the coming weeks, as anxious moderates clash with liberals pushing for an even more dramatic confrontation.

Pelosi was careful yesterday to say no final decisions have been made on binding legislation. But she backed key provisions already floated by Murtha, including requirements that troops be given at least a year's rest between combat deployments, special training in urban warfare and counterinsurgency, and safety equipment that the military has struggled to provide.

The speaker backed Murtha's plan to eliminate funding for the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, where a prisoner-abuse scandal badly tarnished the U.S. image in the region and the world. She also strongly endorsed binding legislation requiring Bush to seek congressional authorization before any military strike on Iran.

"Congress should assert itself . . . and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, any president to go into Iran," she said.