Endless chatter but no resolution to war debate

Re “Congress Wages Partisan Battle Over Iraq War,” June 16

After watching the debate in the House of Representatives over the nonbinding resolution on Iraq, I found myself asking some disturbing questions.

For example, why did Republicans bring a bill to the floor that they knew the Democrats would not support? In speech after speech, Republicans insisted that it was important that America demonstrate its resolve in the war on terror. Why not fashion a bill that both parties could support? Why send a message to the terrorists that America is divided? Are the Republicans willing to embolden the enemy for political gain?

Why do Republicans continue to charge that Democrats do not support the troops? I heard Republicans say that it brings down troop morale when they feel unsupported at home. Democrats insist that they support the troops, regardless of their feelings about President Bush or the war. Why, then, do Republicans continue to tell the troops that they are not supported at home? Are they willing to bring down morale for political gain?

PHIL GUSSIN

Chatsworth

*

Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.) said: “Let’s give victory a chance” in Iraq. I ask him to define the victory he seeks.

JOHN DE SIMIO

Los Angeles

*

Re “Debate Pits Uncertainty vs. Anxiety,” news analysis, June 16

In considering the plea of Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) for redeployment, it’s easy to forget the close ties he has to the men and women in the military. As an American, I choose to believe that under no circumstances would Murtha ever misrepresent them, nor would he take any action on their behalf that was not in the military’s, and therefore our nation’s, best interests. That the debate in Congress is little more than a political football match is an insult to Murtha and to the very troops defending our freedom. We need an open, meaningful debate about our present national defense strategy. Time is of the essence.

JASON J. POSTON

Los Angeles