Republicans who oppose the president’s Iraq policy have started taking to the House floor to publicly denounce sending more than 20,000 additional combat troops to that country, underscoring divisions within the GOP.

Although defectors from the GOP so far are more numerous, on Wednesday majority Democrats experienced a breach in their party line as well. Jim Marshall, a third-term member from Georgia, said on the House floor, “the anti-surge resolution is like sitting on the sidelines and booing our own team’s play because we don’t like the coach’s call.”

The GOP’s defectors were led by Walter B. Jones of North Carolina.

Granted an hour of time by Democratic floor managers, more than a half-dozen Republicans lined up Wednesday to speak in favor of the Democrats’ measure (H Con Res 63) criticizing President Bush’s plan to boost troop levels in Iraq. House Republicans say 20 to 60 members of their party will support the Democrats’ resolution.

Jones, who turned against the war in 2005, sat on the Democratic side of the House chamber as he waited to speak, just across the aisle from fellow surge critics Howard Coble, R-N.C.; Jim Ramstad, R-Minn.; Michael N. Castle, R-Del.; and Wayne T. Gilchrest, R-Md.

Republicans John J. “Jimmy” Duncan Jr. of Tennessee, Phil English of Pennsylvania, Ron Paul of Texas, Thomas M. Davis III of Virginia, Ric Keller of Florida, James T. Walsh of New York, Fred Upton of Michigan and Steven C. LaTourette of Ohio have said they, too, will vote with the majority of Democrats. Roscoe G. Bartlett, R-Md., said he will “probably” vote for the resolution.

The GOP defectors largely come from the party’s most centrist and most conservative factions, representing moderate swing-district voters and conservative isolationists.

But most of the Republicans who have spoken on the issue since debate began Tuesday have railed against the resolution.

“I think the question we have to ask is: Whose side are you on? Whose side are you on?” Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., fumed. “Are you on the side of winning? Are you on the side of freedom? Are you on the side of allowing the terrorists to get an upper hand?”

A string of Republican speakers argued that American troops are demoralized and American enemies emboldened just by the debate. “Our enemies love the dissent and the division,” Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., said.

Efforts to hold a similar debate in the Senate deadlocked earlier this month, but Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., took steps Wednesday morning to fast-track another attempt.

Reid placed on the Senate’s calendar a bill (S 574) with wording identical to the House measure, allowing it to be taken up without going through a committee. He previously said he will file cloture Thursday to ensure that a vote to cut off debate on the measure can take place soon after the Presidents Day break.

Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., vowed to continue pressing his anti-surge resolution, which is much longer than the House version and expresses the sense of Congress that lawmakers should not take action that would result in the “elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such an action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.”

Warner stopped short of saying he would vote against the House language.

Democratic leaders are counting on Warner and other Republicans who have expressed skepticism about Bush’s plan for the war in Iraq to help overcome procedural obstacles to having a vote on a war-related piece of legislation.

At the White House, President Bush accused opponents of his buildup of forces in Iraq of “prejudging” the outcome.

Bush, however, chose to focus on urging Congress not to cut off funding for troops fighting there, which some Democrats want to do.

“Our troops are counting on their elected leaders in Washington, D.C., to provide them with the support they need to do their mission,” Bush said.

“My hope . . . is that this non-binding resolution does not turn into a binding policy that prevents our troops from doing that which I have asked them to do,” he said.

Keller said he would vote to fund the troops “100 percent” but will vote for the anti-surge resolution.

“I approached this decision with a great deal of angst and humility. I’m not trying to micromanage this war,” Keller said. “I’m just a member of Congress, not a four-star general. But I have listened to what our country’s most well-respected four-star generals have to say about this matter, and generals [John] Abizaid, [Barry] McCaffrey and Colin Powell have all said that sending more troops into Baghdad now is not the answer.”

Michael Teitelbaum, Daphne Retter and Charles Hoskinson contributed to this story.

First posted Feb. 14, 2007 12:33 p.m.