WASHINGTON -- A full, open debate on Iraq erupted here last week for the first time since President George W. Bush took the country to war.

It was not pretty.

Democrats, constrained by a lack of good policy options and a fear of being portrayed as soft on national security, concentrated on attacking the Bush administration for allegedly manipulating intelligence about weapons of mass destruction.

The White House, faced with a crisis of rising U.S. casualties, dropping polls and the federal indictment of one of its key war advocates, responded by impugning the integrity of its critics.

Two extraordinary events during the week stoked the fires even further.

John Murtha, a hawkish Democrat from the Pennsylvania rust belt highly respected by both parties, a former Marine twice wounded in Vietnam and an early supporter of the Iraq war, dropped a bombshell. He said it was time to start a pullout that should be finished in six months.

And U.S. troops raided the Interior Ministry of the very government it so proudly nurtured to power in January, finding a torture chamber much like those of Saddam Hussein.

When the United States was forced to abandon weapons of mass destruction as its reason for the war, it substituted repression and torture by the government under Hussein. Now U.S. voters had reason to wonder about the new rationale as well.

Murtha introduced a resolution saying troops should be withdrawn "at the earliest practicable date." House Republican leaders countered with an alternative that, in calling for an immediate withdrawal, was designed to be soundly defeated. An overwhelming vote of 403-3 did just that late Friday night in an acrimonious session.

The White House, in a measure of its concern, responded to Murtha by attacking him in much the same way it treated more liberal, more controversial Democrats such as Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Murtha was "endorsing the policy positions" of liberal filmmaker Michael Moore and proposing a "surrender to terrorists," it said.

But Murtha, 73, who unlike most men of his time went out of his way to fight in Vietnam by going back on active duty in the Marines, gave as good as he got, attacking the leading hawks of the Bush administration for having avoided service in that war.

Referring to Vice President Dick Cheney, Murtha used the "chicken hawk" attack so far uttered in public only by out-of-office liberals.

"I like guys who got five deferments and have never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what ought to be done," Murtha said.

But nervous Democrats did not rush to embrace Murtha's position either. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, asked if she agreed with Murtha's call for withdrawal, said only, "As I said, that was Mr. Murtha's statement." Other House Democrats followed suit.

By the end of the week, the debate seemed to pit the chickens against the chicken hawks.

The problem is that most experts on Iraq, including critics of the administration's handling of the war, say an early pullout could turn a bad situation into an immediate disaster.

Rep. Steve Israel (D-Huntington) said he disagrees with Murtha. "I think we may very well be near a tipping point" on Iraq, said Israel, a member of the Armed Services Committee. "The problem is there is no one easy answer. There is no sound-bite solution."

But, he said, "it's absolutely clear we need a change."

He said people he talks to on Long Island want "a change of course" but also "know there are no easy answers" and "want to make sure whatever we do is thoughtful." National polls indicate support for the war dropping seriously but also indicate a reluctance to cut and run.

"The bottom line is very simple. There is no good solution," said a congressional Democrat who asked not to be named.

For their part, Republicans feel that the Democrats are questioning the president's integrity by accusing him of lying about the intelligence without putting their own necks on the line by offering solutions.

"I think they are being cowardly about it," said Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford). "They are trying to get the best of both worlds. They are trying to hurt the president politically. They bring down support for the war, they weaken the war effort, but don't have the political guts to say what the next step should be."

White House aides declared themselves pleased with the harsh counterattack. Presidential adviser Dan Bartlett dismissed criticism that by raising Iraq so often and so prominently, Bush risked keeping an unpopular war in the headlines.

Bartlett said the White House believes Iraq is going to be a big story no matter what, so aides wanted to make sure Bush's side of the story got out.

And he defended the harsh attack on Murtha, lumping the generally conservative Democratic war supporter with Moore.

Bartlett noted the sharp charges leveled by Murtha, particularly the attack on Cheney.

Bartlett drew a distinction between criticizing someone's position on Iraq and attacking their very patriotism -- with Bush himself insisting it was "patriotic as heck" to challenge his handling of the war but inappropriate to say he lied.

"There is a bright line there, and it's one that the Democrats have crossed," Bartlett said.

As to the ferocity of Bush's counterattack, Bartlett said, "I think that's just the necessity of responding to the ferocity in which they have leveled the attack."

Should Bush have counterattacked at all? Bartlett said, "The political axiom a charge going unanswered can be a charge that becomes conventional wisdom."

Washington correspondent Craig Gordon in South Korea contributed to this story.

Commentary:
One could argue that leaving Vietnam would have resulted in chaos etc. True, but we still left. It takes leadership to get up out of this mess and it's not coming from the GOP so dems have to take control of the agenda. I have no idea what they're waiting for.

If the GOP faithful think this little ploy is leadership they've been watching way too much Fox. When was the last time the GOP put forward their plan to get out of Iraq? Of course the media asks why dems don't have a plan, but they don't attack the GOP for not having one. I wish the media would grow up.