By Josh Rogin, CQ Staff

The fifth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq brought anti-war protests Wednesday and efforts by lawmakers and presidential candidates to frame the issue on their own terms.

President Bush visited the Pentagon to defend his decision to invade, while congressional Democrats discussed new approaches to force the administration to change course, which they have failed to do thus far.

“Five years into this battle, there is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting, whether the fight is worth winning and whether we can win it,” Bush said. “The answers are clear to me: Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision – and this is a fight America can and must win.”

He insisted that the United States remains committed to “victory” in Iraq.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois tried to draw distinctions between how the war has been conducted in the past and how they would act in the future.

McCain said that gains from the troop “surge” that Bush ordered last year proved that his longstanding call for a more robust application of U.S. military force was the right one.

Obama said the decision to go to war was wrong from the outset and vowed to bring the conflict to a quick end. Clinton, who voted to authorize the war, reiterated her determination to start withdrawing U.S. troops swiftly if elected.

Framing the Hill Debate

Democrats on Capitol Hill sought to portray the administration as lacking a coherent strategy for longterm stability in Iraq and a withdrawal of U.S. forces.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., in a statement, said that “the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has not been matched with a strategy for success by the Bush administration, which has made egregious misjudgments throughout this war.”

But House Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio, emphasized the gains made in Iraq under Gen. David H. Petraeus, who has led U.S. forces there in the surge of the past year.

“While more work is left ahead of us, the progress made under General Petraeus’ plan gives our troops and their Iraqi security forces counterparts the momentum they need to overcome not only the terrorist enemy they face in Iraq – but also the naysayers at home who claimed victory was never possible,” Boehner said.”

Petraeus is due to report to Congress on the situation in Iraq early next month, just before lawmakers will be called upon to provide more funding for the war.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee plans hearings on the overall war strategy soon after Congress returns to work March 31. “Treading water in Iraq does not equal progress, and we can’t keep doing it without exhausting ourselves,” said Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. , D-Del.

A Focus on Costs

Knowing they lack the votes to force a change of course, will try to chip away at the edges of Bush’s war policy when they return from their spring break by focusing on the rising costs and the government’s treatment of soldiers and veterans.

The cost argument has gained new prominence as the economy has faltered. So far, Congress has appropriated $651 billion directly for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the total bill between $1 trillion and $2 trillion depending on troop levels and duration, according to the Congressional Budget Office

Other costs have mounted as well — 3,990 American soldiers have died in operations related to Iraq since 2003, and more than 29,000 have been wounded in hostile action.

In December, Congress provided $70 billion in war funding for fiscal 2008, which congressional leaders said would be enough to cover war costs until April, as part of the omnibus spending bill for the federal government (PL 110-61). That amount was less than half the $196.4 billion Bush had sought for fiscal 2008 programs under the rubric of “the global war on terrorism.”

On top of the remaining fiscal 2008 request, the president submitted to Congress earlier this month a $70 billion request to cover war costs in first part of fiscal 2009, which begins Oct. 1.

Many lawmakers criticized the president for not including the full estimate of 2009 war costs. But the administration’s primary response has been that it cannot estimate the fiscal 2009 expenses until it knows when the fiscal 2008 money will be appropriated, as well as its amount and other details.

And despite their criticism of Bush, congressional Democrats in both chambers included only $70 billion for the war in their fiscal 2009 budget resolutions (H Con Res 312, S Con Res 70).

Presidential Politics

The presidential candidates were all quick to reiterate their own views of the war in the wake of Bush’s speech.

McCain, traveling in Israel, touted his role in changing U.S. strategy toward Iraq.

“Today in Iraq, America and our allies stand on the precipice of winning a major victory against radical Islamic extremism. The security gains over the past year have been dramatic and undeniable,” he said in a statement. “Far more must be done in coming months to cement the gains made in huge cost in American blood and treasure.”

Obama, in Fayetteville, N.C., site of the massive Ft. Bragg Army post, promised “a clean break from the failed policies and politics of the past” and echoed his colleagues’ claim that Republicans lacked a strategy.

“When you have no overarching strategy, there is no definition of success,” Obama said. “I will end this war, not because politics demands it, not because our troops can’t bear the burden, but because it’s the right thing to do.”

On a visit to Detroit, Clinton said she would start pulling back U.S. troops within 60 days of taking office if she is elected president. Iraqis, she said, must take responsibility for their own nation.

“We cannot win their civil war. There is no military solution,” she said.

On Tuesday, many senior members of the liberal Out of Iraq caucus endorsed Clinton, arguing that she is most capable of ending the war if elected.

The endorsement letter was signed by caucus leaders Reps. Lynne Woolsey, D-Calif, Maxine Waters , D-Calif., Jim McGovern , D-Mass., and Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas.

“We support Hillary Clinton because she is the candidate with the stature, strength, and experience needed to end this war as quickly and responsibly as possible. Hillary has put forward the most comprehensive plan for bringing our troops home,” they wrote.

Clinton also received the endorsement Tuesday of Rep. John P. Murtha , D-Pa., chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and an influential voice in vote-rich Pennsylvania, where the last of the big Democratic primary elections will be held next month.

First posted March 19, 2008 10:44 a.m.