The polarizing debate over the Iraq war played out with passion at the Colorado legislature Wednesday, but what it accomplished appears open to interpretation.

To critics, the Democratic- backed resolution critical of the war and President Bush's troop surge undercut U.S. soldiers and poisoned what had been a relatively cooperative atmosphere between political parties at the state Capitol.

To backers, the hearing - and the approval of the resolution by a Democratic majority in a Senate committee - added to the many voices nationally opposed to deepening the country's commitment in Iraq and exemplified America's tradition of public-spirited debate.

"This is what it's all about," said Sen. Ron Tupa, D-Boulder, a sponsor of the statement, in his opening remarks. "This is why we talk about democracy in Iraq . . . the debate we're having right here on this resolution is actually what we're hoping will occur in Iraq."

But others saw all the high- minded talk - as well as predictions that a bitter debate would ruin the rest of the legislative session - as overwrought.

"Everybody will get mad for about two days, then they'll get over it because they have other business to do," said former State Sen. Norma Anderson, a Republican moderate known for her pragmatism in a nearly 20-year legislative career. "A resolution affects no one . . . It means nothing."

The resolution in Colorado echoes similar ones introduced in at least 20 other states, as of a March 7 tally by the Denver-based National Conference of State Legislatures. The push in Colorado and other legislatures is linked to an organized effort by the New York-based Progressive States Network to pressure President Bush and Congress to change course.

In Iowa, where legislative Democrats passed a similar resolution, Senate president Jack Kibbie recently said the war is the talk in "every coffee shop" in the country, calling the resolution one of the Iowa legislatures's "most serious and important issues."

Sen. Ken Gordon, a Denver Democrat, argued that the General Assembly has a "long history" debating national issues. He noted that Republican sponsors introduced four resolutions in 2003 "supporting President Bush and the war."

Seth Masket, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Denver, believes the matter is fair game for Colorado lawmakers, noting - among other things - the impact on the Colorado National Guard, which has deployed personnel to Iraq.

"You have, all over the place, a lot of individuals and organizations that were initially pretty supportive of the war, now saying either that they made a mistake or wish they'd given it further thought, or put more conditions on the president's authority," Masket said.

"This is just part of the same trend of people rethinking it. . . . People want to be heard on this."

But Sean Tonner, a Republican consultant who served with the Army in the first Gulf War, believes the hearing was nothing more than political gamesmanship.

"Right now, among the (Democratic) base constituency, there's a solid anti-war sentiment. From a purely political level, they're taking care of their base," Tonner said. "For the general public . . . I think it looks silly and foolish."

As to whether such resolutions cut into troop morale - as many critics argued Wednesday - Tonner was nuanced. Though such matters can, over time, wear on the soldiers, he said they're far more focused on daily patrols and taking care of their buddies.

"A lot of this is hot air from politicians back in the states," he said. When he was deployed, "I was more concerned with who the Broncos were trading than what politicians were saying."

hartmant@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5048