Posted by Aamer Madhani and Mark Silva at 10:30 am CDT
In the fight between President Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress, the president is accusing the Democrats of playing a "political theater'' with a bill demanding troop withdrawals which he is certain to veto. But Democratic leaders say Americans have "lost faith'' in the conduct of the war in Iraq.
The narrow vote by which the House passed its $124-billion war spending bill with a September 2008 deadline for the withdrawal of combat forces attached sets the stage for Senate debate over a similar bill that seeks even earlier withdrawals. Bush maintains that Congress lacks the votes to override his veto.
See the story in the Tribune:
House: End war in '08
Bush vows veto of spending bill,
accuses Democrats of politics
By Aamer Madhani and Mark Silva
Washington Bureau
March 24, 2007
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 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 November's elections, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was not blinking, saying 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 that 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 those items 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."
`435 commanders in chief'
Some conservatives say the legislation also 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 a senior attorney under Presidents Ronald 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 Bush's situation to an endgame in chess.
"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.
Rep. 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 who were killed in Iraq. Murphy said the vote offered members of the House a chance to show leadership where the administration had failed.
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), a former Air Force pilot who spent several years as a prisoner of war after being shot down over North Vietnam. Johnson said 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 Bubba Gump, Popeye the Sailor Man and Mr. Peanut have to do with winning the war?" Johnson said.
Pelosi works the ranks
In the days leading up to the vote, it seemed uncertain whether Pelosi and rest of the Democratic leadership would be able to round up the votes needed to pass 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 that they had "released" members to vote with the leadership.
In the end, 14 Democrats voted against the measure, 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 ground commanders and marks the first time that the U.S. is taking real action that will show American patience is running out.
Democratic leaders said Americans 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 House 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."
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The president who owes his second term to his decision to go to war and who landed an aircraft on a ship to toot his own horn is accusing the Democrats of engaging in "political theater"?
"Chutzpah" doesn't begin to describe it.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | March 24, 2007 11:22 AM
Bud McFarlin,
I seriously doubt that he actually flew that plane. His previous flying experience was in the late 60s, and I assume he never learned to land on an aircraft carrier back then in the Texas Air Guard. That's a only required by Navy pilots.
Theater indeed!
Posted by: Leo T | March 24, 2007 12:27 PM
In the fight between President Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress, the president is accusing the Democrats of playing a "political theater'' with a bill demanding troop withdrawals which he is certain to veto. But Democratic leaders say Americans have "lost faith'' in the conduct of the war in Iraq.
Mr Bush should know, he's the master of Theater of the absurd. The problem is the brave American soldiers he's getting killed with his insane foreign policy blunder.
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | March 24, 2007 12:29 PM
"The American public expects the Congress of the United States to do something," said House 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."
This says it all for me...PLEASE take us in a different direction...how about an abrupt about face from where we are going?
Posted by: lochnessmonster | March 24, 2007 2:03 PM
W. accuses the Democratic Congress of playing political "theater".......while at the same time he's making his claim he's standing in front of some current and former military members...again?
Why am I not surprised that only the hard core 29% of Republican watercarriers still think this moron is doing a good job of pretending to be the President.
It's called "Oversight", and it's also called "Checks and Balaces", something that this Texas idiot never had to worry about in his 6 previous years with the lockstep Republican Congress.
Posted by: John E. | March 24, 2007 2:04 PM
"It would be a tremendous mistake for the Congress of the United States to micromanage this war," said Jim McCrery (R-La.).
Stop calling it a war, and fess up to the fact that
the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into U.S instigated genocide between the Sunnis and Shia, thanks to poor planning and abysmal execution on the part of President Bush.
After that epiphany and lens wipe, we can calculate the next move without the fog of misattribution and obfuscation that has surrounded this mess since it's inception.
Posted by: johnf | March 24, 2007 2:43 PM
Comgress' House and Senate committees should bring a daily stream of Administration members before them . Investigations of the failures of Bush's war will produce a daily headline of horrors. Lack of body armor,lack of armored vehicles,lack of night vision glasses,no bid contracts, work not done but paid for, missing money, schools not built, electricity below prewar level, gay linguists removed, lack of linguists, Haliburton's billing, four years of failure,projected dead soldiers in two more years, can be brought from the shadows and pasted on Bush's forehead where they belong.
Posted by: c. perry | March 24, 2007 3:10 PM
Love the headline to this article: "House: End war in '08". Another evidence the headline writer, or the House, is detached from reality.
Does anyone with a double digit IQ believe that the "war"--either the fighting in Iraq, or the broader war of the terrorists against western civilization--will "end" if US troops are withdrawn from Iraq? The terrorists have been attacking the US and the west for at least the last 20 years, under both Democrat and Republican administrations. This bill in fact doesn't nothing to "end" that war. The bill merely ensures that, whatever and whenever the "war" ends, that the US won't be on the winning side.
Posted by: bruce | March 24, 2007 3:30 PM
I think john E. should be OUR president, after all he seams to know everything and have all the answers and he is really good at name calling
Posted by: harry | March 24, 2007 5:43 PM
"The narrow vote by which the House passed its $124-billion war spending bill" is misleading; Speaker Pelosi had more votes in her pocket, but once the D's got to 218, the most liberal of the anti-war members cast "protest" votes against the package, though they would have supported it for the deadline (and supporting protecting the overburdened military service members) if it had been necessary.
Posted by: sunny | March 24, 2007 8:34 PM
Meanwhile, the so-called "surge" is becoming a bit of a damp squib.
Bombings continue, and any temporary relief that Baghdad might have enjoyed is more than made up for by bombings in other parts of the country.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/world/middleeast/25iraq.html?hp
See, that's the problem with trying to fight insurgents by conventional means. They come, they go, they come back again.
You'd think Bush would eventually stop getting outsmarted but, alas, he's a dunce.
Give him a pointy hat and put him in the corner.
Posted by: Ron | March 24, 2007 9:35 PM
Give our troops all the pork they want doesnt bush nowe that this will keep our troops safer muslums hate pork and will stay away. started tile work on bilding 18 and miltary stoped us becauus tile had to come from halliburtin not menards.i hafe to go now and e-male brother johnE. in iraq he say alot more 1 hump camles ther than 2 humper-hey that rym with ground thumper like me in Nam,heee,heee,heee
Dale Peters
Posted by: Dale Peters | March 24, 2007 10:29 PM
republicans and democrats alike are focasing on the little picture. "the war in Iraq" the big picture is the war on "terror". Rigt now the war on terror is being contained in Iraq. what happens to that war when the terrorist dont have any one left there to keep their focus there. Once we pullout of Iraq they will be bringing the fight to us here at home. there has been alot of mistakes made so far but compounding them with a new mistake of pulling out of Iraq without a solid plan for winning the war on terror, is just one more mistake. where is the plan to win that war? where is the debate over that war? where are our leaders and what is their plan?
Posted by: phil | March 24, 2007 11:21 PM
Posted by: Dale Peters | Mar 24, 2007
Your contempt for the troops is in direct proportion to your adoration of Cheney and Bush. When are you going to channel all of your mindless sycophancy into some real fighting with the "surge."
Posted by: Catherine | March 25, 2007 8:53 AM
Catherine,
Your post makes absolutely no sense. It rivals Leo T for stupidity."I seriously doubt that he actually flew that plane." He does not have the brains to fly a plane or govern a country. This good old boy bought the presidency and sold the country. Haliburton reaps the rewards and our Military pays with their lives. I have a suggestion...anyone who really believes the US should be fighting "terror" in Irag should go fight. Make the duty voluntary for civilians and our Military. Let us see how many of you are willing to die for Bush and global elite. Get real! Bush's backers are the terrorists. He does not have the intellectual capacity to be the "Decider".
Posted by: Kathleen | March 25, 2007 12:07 PM
Hey phil you should take that ring out of your nose, that’s not water your being led to. Also try getting your news from someone other than Rush Limpwhatever.
Posted by: Rory M | March 25, 2007 1:09 PM
I hope you all realize that Bush and his Generals have had four years to get their act together and have failed. They seem to blame Lady Luck rather than the incompetence of the U.S. General Officers and terrible D.O.D. strategy. How much longer will they go on? We have 3200 dead now. Is 5000 acceptable? Is 10000 acceptable? Direct costs are half a trillion now.Legacy costs for veterans are probably a trillion now. Bush wants no time limit. Does he have a death limit?
Posted by: c. perry | March 25, 2007 1:12 PM
Posted by: Dale Peters | Mar 24, 2007
Your contempt for the troops is in direct proportion to your adoration of Cheney and Bush. When are you going to channel all of your mindless sycophancy into some real fighting with the "surge."
Posted by: Catherine | Mar 25, 2007 8:53:00 AM
Paulo:
Because of a deleted expletive I called you, the first sentence of this post was editrd out. Be assured that I am talking to you in your new alias Dale Peters.
Posted by: Catherine | March 25, 2007 3:12 PM
Kathleen, my post didn't make sense because the moderator censored the first sentence of it because of a name I was calling Paulo. He is a person who posts here and always reveals his great longing for GWB. He loves Bush and the surge so much but he does not enlist in the military. Hhmmm...
Every so often, he posts under a false name.
Otherwise, I agree with you totally except for one thing. Bush did become a pilot on the National Guards hook. Eventually, he went AWOL but that problem was taken care of by his Dad's handlers who squared all of Shrubs screw-ups before the 2000 campaign. Watch the flaming I take for that statement.
Posted by: Catherine | March 25, 2007 4:34 PM
This forum always deteriorates to name calling and quoting of some conclusory rhetoric. I will never get back the couple minutes of my life I wasted reading the last several posts. If you are confident in your point and ability to present it, there is no need for personal insults and name calling.
The issue here is the showdown between Rep controlled Whitehouse and Dem Controlled Congress. Instead of trying to find some common ground, both sides dig their heels in further, and blame the other for not being cooperative. Neither side can muscle anything past the other. Even if by some miracle the House bill gets through the Senate, it will be vetoed, and the Dems lack the votes to override it. Thus, it is a dog and pony show that only appeases those who do not understand government. The only meaningful legislation will be the result of compromise. Instead of facing this fact and working on a bi-partisan solution to the situation in Iraq, our leaders in Washington on both sides of the aisle are content to insult and ignore each other. Sorry to take such a moderate stance, I know it doesn't play well in the Swamp. Maybe if I insulted someone. . .
Posted by: Herbie H. | March 26, 2007 10:36 AM
This forum always deteriorates to name calling and quoting of some conclusory rhetoric. I will never get back the couple minutes of my life I wasted reading the last several posts. If you are confident in your point and ability to present it, there is no need for personal insults and name calling.
Posted by: Herbie H. | Mar 26, 2007 10:36:20 AM
Point well taken, Herbie H. There are several posters here who must have a bulging file of comments made by others that they have kept. It's pretty bizarre. I can barely keep track of who said what anymore.
Posted by: Catherine | March 26, 2007 11:45 AM
Catherine,
I apologize for misunderstanding. I happened upon this article and I am amazed by supporters of this administration's crimes against humanity, as well as, crimes against the planet. In my job, I regularly speak to members of our Military. I am not hearing any support for this military occupation. I am hearing that people are willing to do their jobs and I thank them for their service. I support our troops and want them home protecting their families from real threats. I am having a bit of trouble reconciling the idea of sending pallets of American currency to a foreign country and not accounting for it. It really smacks of a payoff to Bin Laden for taking the fall for 9/11. Does Swiss bank account sound reasonable? We, the people, would feel much safer with the Bush/Cheney team holed up with Bin Laden and our borders protected. After all there is a strong family affiliation there along with oil interests. Compromise is not the best option at this point. The people have spoken and we want out of Iraq's civil war. I also find it odd that we always back the wrong horse, the corrupt regime. Will we ever learn from our mistakes? Will we welcome Bin Laden as we did the Shah?
Posted by: Kathleen | March 27, 2007 5:15 AM