Political Skullduggery

Tomorrow, the House of Representatives will be conducting a debate about the Iraq war that is being seen by some as a trap to portray Democrats as hostile to the U.S. military.

At time of writing, the text of the resolution to be debated had not been released, but congressional sources indicated that it would frame the Iraq war as part of the broader war on terror, a point of controversy. Many war critics argue that the US role in Iraq has deflected attention from the larger war on terror, and thus antiwar members may feel compelled to vote against the resolution. But that may prove politically risky, as the resolution will also express support for American troops, and no member wants to be seen opposing the men and women in harm's way.

At a highly politicized time, with the fall midterm elections approaching and future control of Congress in question, some political analysts see risks for both parties in an Iraq debate. Public support for the war has been on a long, downward slide, and Bush's own job approval rating and policy agenda have been damaged by Iraq more than anything else.

"I don't think the floor is the place to have a debate on Iraq - ours is not a parliamentary system," says GOP strategist Ed Rollins, who argues that such discussion is better handled by members in their districts. "If you get into a big all-out debate, it becomes a referendum on whether the president is right or whether those who voted for it are right. It's not a pretty thing for the public to watch, especially for our troops in the field."

Other Republicans say that with public opinion on the war so low, Bush and his supporters have nowhere to go but up.

The debate could also serve to highlight divisions among Democrats over the war. Until now, Republicans have suffered most of the political pain over Iraq, and Democrats have managed to keep their differences away from broad public scrutiny.