Congress should have special debate on Iraq

Just before Congress broke Friday for its two-week Easter recess, three Republicans in the House of Representatives joined 80 Democrats in signing a petition to force an immediate 17-hour debate on the war in Iraq. While the 218 signatures needed to make it a reality may seem beyond reach, the power of the people should not be underestimated.
If voters let their representatives know that a robust, lengthy debate on Iraq is what this nation needs, given that three years have passed since U.S.-led forces ousted Saddam Hussein and occupied that country, the objections will dissipate. Why? Because this is an election year in which Democrats have a real chance of making gains in the House and Senate.
The Republican-led Congress would be loathe to prevent such a debate if that's what the voters want. Citizens have a chance to make their wishes known in the next week and a half. Given that 51 percent of Americans think the United States is losing the fight against the insurgents in Iraq, and that 70 percent believe President Bush does not have a clear plan for victory, the call for open, honest and meaningful discussion, the hallmark of democracy, will be heard.
This isn't about partisan politics, even though the initiative is being pushed by Democrats in the House and anti-war groups have mounted a national campaign to make it a reality. It is about the elected representatives of the people addressing the issues that now surround the United States' involvement in Iraq.
'Constitutional responsibility'
As Republican Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, one of the three who signed the petition, put it, "There are those of us in both parties who want to meet our constitutional responsibility, and that is to discuss and debate the present and future of our commitment in Iraq."
A story on the front page of Sunday's Vindicator shows why such deliberation in Congress is essential. Under the headline, "Both money and time are running out in the effort to rebuild Iraq," the story detailed what has been going on in Iraq over the past three years.
The following paragraph puts the situation in perspective:
"The ambitions of 2003, when President Bush spoke of making Iraq's infrastructure 'the best in the region' have given way to the shortfalls of 2006, in electricity and water supply, sanitation, health facilities and oil production."
Since 2003, the U.S. government has allocated more than $20 billion for Iraq reconstruction, but as the story pointed out, electricity generation has not regained the level that existed before the 2003 invasion; barely one-third of the water treatment projects the Americans planned will be completed -- only 32 percent of the Iraqi population has access to clean drinking water now, compared with 50 percent before the war; and, only 19 percent of Iraqis have working sewer connections. Of the more than 150 planned health clinics, only 15 have been completed.
But it's in oil production that the rebuilding failure is most evident. An average of 2.05 million barrels of oil are being produced a day, 450,000 barrels less than the U.S. goal, and more than 1 million barrels short of Iraq's production peak in the 1970s.
Against this backdrop, a debate in Congress is not only justified, it is demanded.