Senate approves war bill with timetable for troop withdrawal (latimes.com)

Senate approves war bill with timetable for troop withdrawal

By Noam N. Levey and Joel Havemann, Times Staff Writers
9:04 AM PDT, March 29, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Within an hour of President Bush's most direct veto threat yet, the Senate gave final approval today to a timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq as part of a bill to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars through Sept. 30.

The Senate today endorsed a goal of withdrawing U.S. forces by March 31, 2008. On Friday, the House passed a bill that mandates a withdrawal no later than August 2008, and sooner if the Iraqi government does not meet a series of benchmarks.

Leaders of the two chambers will meet immediately to reconcile the differences between the two plans, a process fraught with its own potential pitfalls because the bills were carefully crafted to draw enough support to pass.

The Senate vote for the $123-billion spending bill was 51 to 47, with 48 Democrats and one Independent joined by the same two Republicans -- Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon -- who voted Wednesday against an effort by the Republican leadership to strip the withdrawal provision from the bill.

Sen. David Pryor of Arkansas, who voted Wednesday to remove the timetable, voted for the bill. He was the lone senator, who voted one way on the timetable on Wednesday and the other way today.

One Independent, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, joined 46 Republicans in opposition to the bill.

Bush met with House Republican leaders at the White House and said afterward that he made it clear that he would veto any spending bill that contained a timetable for troop withdrawal.

"I'll veto a bill that restricts our commanders on the ground in Iraq, a bill that doesn't fund our troops, a bill that's got too much spending on it..., Bush said.

"We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we've got our troops in harm's way, we expect that troop to be fully funded; when we got commanders making tough decisions on the ground, we expect there to be no strings on our commanders; and that we expect the Congress to be wise about how they spend the people's money."

His reference to spending the people's money was meant as criticism of the domestic spending provisions that Congress added to Bush's request mostly for war funding. Republicans have charged that Democrats added the domestic spending to attract enough Democratic votes to pass the bill.

Bush originally asked for $103 billion, mostly for the war, but $3 billion was included for aid to Gulf Coast hurricane victims and others, who have suffered from natural disasters.

The House-passed bill added $21 billion to the president's request and the Senate approved an additional $20 billion, mostly for such domestic interests as farmers.

Democrats told the president to drop what they called his confrontational way of dealing with Congress and recognize that the country has turned decisively against the war.

"Take a deep breath, Mr. President," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said as she urged President Bush to back away from threats to veto any war funding bill that sets dates for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.

"Calm down with the threats," Pelosi said. "There's a new Congress in town. We respect your constitutional role. We want you to respect ours."

Democrats trained their sights on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, where the president continues to declare he'll veto any legislation that limits what U.S. forces can do in Iraq.

In a pugnacious speech Wednesday morning to cattle ranchers, the president again threatened a veto and warned Democrats they would be blamed for holding up essential funding for the troops.

"Members of Congress need to stop making political statements, and start providing vital funds for our troops," the president said to enthusiastic applause.

"Now, some of them believe that by delaying funding for our troops, they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely," Bush continued. "That's not going to happen. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible."

Previous presidents have won showdowns with Congress over foreign policy. A decade ago, President Clinton successfully turned aside a bid by congressional Republicans to force an end to U.S. military involvement in a peacekeeping mission in the Balkans.
But as this Congress prepares to send a bill to the president's desk next month, Democratic leaders appear to have settled on a strategy to try to isolate the White House by portraying Bush as the obstacle to a compromise that would bring the war to an end.

Over the past several days, Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and other Democratic leaders have stressed their eagerness to work with the White House.

"Our phones are open any time of the day or night," Reid said at a news conference Wednesday afternoon with Pelosi. "The ball is in his court We hope that he will do what presidents have done for generations: Deal with a separate and independent branch of government. Sometimes they don't like to do it, but they recognize it's their obligation."

Reid and Pelosi also sent a confrontational letter to the president challenging him to work with them. "Rather than work with the Congress to develop a bill you could sign, you apparently intend to follow a political strategy that would needlessly delay funding for our troops," they wrote.

Pelosi and Reid face their own challenges as well.

As senior Democratic lawmakers work to craft a single war funding bill from the House and Senate versions, they must find a formula that can hold together the fragile coalitions they assembled to pass the timelines.

The timelines were approved in both chambers by thin margins.

That may be particularly challenging because the timelines in the House bill are considerably more aggressive than those in the Senate bill, which sets an earlier, but nonbinding, date for withdrawing U.S. forces.

Many antiwar lawmakers in the House only agreed to back the bill last week when they were assured by Pelosi and others that the timelines would remain firm. And Wednesday several said they would have a hard time supporting any legislation that weakens the timelines.

But Wednesday, Sen. Ben Nelson, a moderate Nebraska Democrat who provided key support in Tuesday's 50-48 vote endorsing the Senate's plan, said he couldn't support firm timelines.

"That's a problem," Nelson said. "A hard and fast date sends the wrong message, and it is just unworkable."

noam.levey@latimes.com

joel.havemann@latimes.com

Times staff writer Richard Simon contributed to this report.