US House rejects Bush Iraq plan

Yes, it's non binding. Yes, it's largely symbolic. But make no mistake, it is significant.

For the first time since 9-11, the House of Representatives has gone on the record as opposing the actions of the Bush Presidency. When the history of this presidency is written, this moment will be written large.

Of course, he will ignore it. Of course, he will plunder on. But, for the first time, he is officially on his own.

The US House of Representatives has voted in favour of a resolution criticising President George W Bush's decision to send extra troops to Iraq.

Seventeen of his Republican Party joined the Democrats in passing the non-binding motion 246 to 182.

The vote follows days of fierce debate, during which the Democrats have made it clear that more decisive steps to limit Mr Bush's war policy could follow.

The Senate is due to vote on Saturday on whether to debate the troop plan.

The Republicans have previously proven able to prevent any attempt to debate this issue in the Senate, but if this does go ahead then Bush faces the possibility of having both houses repudiate his Iraq policy within two days.

The White House immediately issued a misleading statement:

"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."

The vote was not about whether or not Congress should withdraw funding for the war, it was about whether or not the House of Representatives agreed with Bush's "Surge and Accelerate" policy. Bush's White House's only reply is to insinuate that failing to back Bush's plan is to, in some way, fail to back the troops.

I love this notion that sending the troops into harm's way is somehow "backing" them.

In contrast to this claim the resolution actually states that the House "will continue to support and protect" US soldiers in Iraq but that it "disapproves" of the 21,500-strong troop increase. Bush has somehow turned sending 21,500 youngsters into harm's way into an act of the deepest patriotism, confusing his legacy with what is best for the country.

For that is what lies beneath this argument.

The Iraq war is lost. That is obvious to all apart from Bill Kristol and the ideologues who currently occupy the White House. The only sensible course now is to plan for a withdrawal that does not result in civil war (if that's even remotely possible), as laid out in the Baker report.

Bush, refusing to accept the reality that is in front of his face, has decided - by displaying more of the Frat boy arrogant petulance that has come to define his presidency - that this is a reality that can be ignored. So, like any bad gambler, he has decided to double down.

And he has decided to do this, not for any of the noble reasons he has claimed, but because he realises - correctly - that his legacy is tied up with the success or failure of the Iraq war.

The importance of this venture to his own legacy has rendered him incapable of viewing it rationally. That is why he rejected the Baker Report. He realised that, for all it's rationalisations, for all it's talk of negotiated settlements, at it's heart it was - without ever getting specific - acknowledging the sheer scale of his defeat. That, to Bush, was what rendered it unacceptable.

Yesterday the House of Representatives took a very important step. Whilst it didn't say that the war was lost, it did acknowledge that it disagreed with Bush's attempt to ignore Baker's findings.

That's what makes it significant.

Tags: Bush, Iraq war, surge and accelerate