Nevada’s lawmakers reassess war stance

Sunday, June 18, 2006 | 7:40 a.m.

In the run-up to the Iraq War, Nevada's congressional delegation offered a virtually united front behind President Bush's insistence that Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, a Democrat, expressed concern about weapons aimed at Israel. Republican Rep. Jim Gibbons understood the threat from his own experience fighting in the first Gulf War. Republican Sen. John Ensign signed on. And Jon Porter, then the Republican nominee on the campaign trail, backed Bush.

Only Democratic Sen. Harry Reid wavered briefly, entertaining an alternative that would have slowed the march to war, before eventually voting for the use of force.

Last week, as Congress debated the war anew, some Nevada lawmakers picked up right where they left off nearly four years ago. Others shifted positions to reflect the realities in Iraq and perceptions among U.S. voters.

The House passed a resolution of opposition to any timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops. Gibbons said in an interview that setting a deadline for the U.S. military amounted to "cut-and-run" tactics. He said that he voted in 2002 not just to oust Hussein or bring democracy to the Middle East but "to defeat the terrorists wherever they may be."

He said he envisions Iraq morphing into a 30-year war on terror and he compared it with the battle Israel has waged for half a century.

"Are we still in Korea after 1950? Germany after World War II? Still in Kosovo after we deposed Slobodan Milosevic?" said Gibbons, who is leaving the House and running for Nevada governor. "The global war on terror is a generational war."

The state's lone House Democrat joined others in her party who changed their positions on the war. In an interview, Berkley said she was convinced of the need to use force in 2002. But soon afterward, she said, she started to feel misled by the administration about Iraq's military and weapons capabilities and she began criticizing U.S. actions in Iraq.

Today, Berkley wants "to change course" starting with ousting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Berkley faces an easier re-election battle this fall, and she is emboldened by opinion polls showing that a small majority of Americans now say they trust the Democrats more on national security.

Nevada's third House member, Porter, is in a tougher political spot. His district is almost evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats.

Porter declined to be interviewed Friday, but written comments submitted to the House show that he agrees with Republican efforts to "stay the course," noting gains made in establishing an Iraqi government.

On the Senate side, Democrats worked all week to draft legislation setting a timetable for bringing U.S. troops home.

"A lot of lives have been lost in this war," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid.

Reid will not say that his 2002 decision to authorize force was a mistake. But he has been slowly changing course.

Last year, as Senate minority leader, he helped forge a resolution to make 2006 a "year of transition" that would reduce the U.S. presence in Iraq.

Last week, he noted that a 39th Nevadan had died in Iraq, and he worked with a group of Democrats on an amendment they plan to offer this week calling for redeploying some U.S. troops to bases outside Iraq and changing the mission for those who remain to focus on training and logistical support for Iraqi forces and on counter-terrorism.

Ensign said he opposes any timetable for withdrawing troops. He said he stands firmly behind his 2002 vote and has faith that the war will be a success.

But just what any victory would look like and when it would occur is difficult to define, his spokesman said.

"It's a different kind of war," said Ensign spokesman Jack Finn. "It's not going to look like other wars we've fought with a declaration of surrender."

Political scientist John Sides of George Washington University said that if public support for the war continued to decline, Americans might be more willing to accept a shift of position by Congress than they were two years ago.