Resolution on War Funding Barely Passes House
WASHINGTON _ By a narrow margin reflecting deep divisions over the Iraq war, the House voted Friday to set a September 2008 deadline for withdrawing all U.S. combat troops from Iraq, confronting President Bush with his most serious challenge over the conflict and setting the president and Democratic leadership on a collision course over war powers.
Soon after the bill passed 218-212, Bush reiterated his threat to veto the legislation, which is tied to a $124 billion spending bill that includes funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush accused the Democrats of jeopardizing American troops in the field in an attempt “to score political points” against the administration.
If a new spending bill, without conditions, is not approved and signed into law before April 15, the president warned, it would put troops and their families in danger as current funding of the war is set to dry up in a matter of weeks. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Thursday that a holdup in funding would force the Army to delay training of units and halt repair of vital equipment.
But on Friday, claiming her most significant political victory since voters handed control of Congress to the Democrats in the midterm elections, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was not blinking, saying that Democrats would fight to make their proposal law.
“The American people have lost faith in the president’s conduct of this war,” said Pelosi, D-Calif.. “The American people see the reality of the war. The president does not.”
It seems unlikely the measure will become law, at least in its current form. The Senate already has rejected one Iraq withdrawal measure and is preparing to debate another one next week.
Bush countered the Democrats by saying their plan to set a certain end date for the war was ill-advised, and he criticized them for attaching extraneous “pork-barrel” spending to the bill _ pet projects with no direct connection to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars but meant to win over on-the-fence Democrats. Among the projects attached to the legislation are funding for spinach subsidies and money to rebuild levees that were destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
“This bill has too much pork, too many conditions and an artificial timetable for withdrawal,” Bush said. “As I have made clear for weeks, I will veto it if it comes to my desk.”
Some conservatives are also saying that the legislation could create a constitutional quandary, with the legislative branch attempting to usurp the president’s role as commander-in-chief.
“The House’s attempt to direct Iraq war strategy by conditioning further funding on compliance with an arbitrary troop withdrawal timeline is blatantly unconstitutional,” said David Rivkin, a former White House counsel under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. “We do not, and cannot, have 435 commanders in chief.”
The withdrawal provision calls for U.S. troops to be out of Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008. The bill also calls for the Iraqi government to achieve a series of performance benchmarks and for Bush to certify the readiness of American troops being deployed.
Democrats portrayed Friday’s vote as marking a key juncture in the war debate. They argued that Bush now has to negotiate with the Democrats on how to move forward and wind down a war that has become increasingly unpopular with the public.
Rep. James Moran, D-Va., likened President Bush to a queen piece on the run in a chess game.
“The queen may have one more move, but checkmate is around the corner,” Moran said.
Emotions ran high during the four hours of debate that stretched over two days. Several members brought their children to witness the speeches from the House floor, and both parties called on old soldiers to make some of the last pitches in front of a packed House chamber before the start of the vote.
Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., a freshman legislator and former 82nd Airborne Division officer who served in Iraq, spoke of the 19 fellow paratroopers in his unit that were killed in Iraq. Murphy said that the vote offered members of the House a chance to show leadership where the administration had failed.
As he spoke, his voice wavered as he recalled a soldier in his command asking when the Iraqis would step up and deal with their own security problems.
“He said, `Sir, what are we still doing over here?’” Murphy said.
Republicans called on Rep. Sam Johnson, R-Texas, an Air Force pilot who spent several years as a prisoner of war after being shot down over North Vietnam. Johnson said that troops in the field “need the full support of their country and their Congress.”
He also bemoaned the extraneous home-state sweeteners in the bill to pay for shrimping and spinach subsidies as well as an earmark for a peanut storage facility in Georgia.
“What does throwing money at Bumba Gump, Popeye the Sailor Man and Mr. Peanut have to do with winning the war?” Johnson said.
In the days leading up to the vote, it seemed uncertain whether Pelosi and the Democratic leadership would be able to round up the votes needed to win approval of their proposal. Members of the more liberal wing of the party chafed at the idea of spending more on a war they believe is no longer viable.
On Friday morning, Pelosi held a party caucus in which she reiterated the importance of the vote. The night before the vote, members of the Out of Iraq Caucus announced they had “released” members to vote with the leadership.
In the end, 14 Democrats voted against its passage, including several conservative Democrats who worried that the bill went too far. Two Republicans _ Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and Walter Jones of North Carolina _ joined the 216 Democrats who voted in favor of the bill.
Many Republicans accused the Democratic leadership of imposing artificial constraints by setting deadlines for withdrawal and argued that the legislation would handcuff commanders on the ground.
“It would be a tremendous mistake for the Congress of the United States to micromanage this war,” said Jim McCrery, R-La..
But many Democrats argued that the legislation does not interfere with the discretion of commanders on the ground and marks the first time that the U.S. is taking real action that will show American patience is running out.
Democratic leaders said that American voters demanded a change in the course of the war when they voted the Democrats into the majority in November.
“The American public expects the Congress of the United States to do something,” said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.. “Not simply to say `yes’ to failed policies, but to, on their behalf, speak out and try to take us in a new direction.”
___
(c) 2007, Chicago Tribune.
Visit the Chicago Tribune on the Internet at http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
_____
PHOTOS (from MCT Photo Service, 202-383-6099): USIRAQ CONGRESS
For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA. 1042121