U.S. House approves Iraq funding plan

The Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives voted Thursday night to pay for military operations in Iraq on an installment plan, despite President George W. Bush's threat of a second straight veto.

The 221-205 vote, largely along party lines, sends the measure to an expected cool reception in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid is seeking compromise with the White House and Republicans on a funding bill.

Bush has signalled some flexibility, offering to accept a spending bill that sets out standards for the Iraqi government to meet.

The vote Thursday was one of two that challenged Bush on the war. Both votes came despite Bush's proven ability to sustain his veto in Congress — the House upheld his rejection of a troop-withdrawal timetable last week.

The first vote Thursday was on a bill that would have required the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq within nine months. It fell 255-171, with 59 Democrats joining almost all Republicans in opposition.

"This war is a terrible tragedy and it is time to bring it to an end," said U.S. Representative James McGovern, a Democrat from Massachusetts and a leading advocate of the bill to establish a nine-month withdrawal timetable.

"For four long, deadly years, this administration and their allies in Congress have been flat wrong about Iraq."

Republicans argued a withdrawal would be disastrous.

"Now is not the time to signal retreat and surrender. How could this Congress walk away from our men and women in uniform?" said Representative Jerry Lewis of California.

'We reject the idea': Bush

A few hours later, the House passed legislation providing funds for the war grudgingly, in two installments. The first portion would cover costs until Aug. 1 — $42.8 billion US to buy equipment and train Iraqi and Afghan security forces.

Under the bill, it would take a summertime vote by Congress to free an additional $52.8 billion, the money needed to cover costs through the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year.

"We reject that idea. It won't work," Bush declared after a meeting with military leaders at the Pentagon.

Democrat officials, speaking privately, said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had agreed to allow the vote on the withdrawal measure in the hope her rank-and-file would then unite behind the funding bill.

But in an increasingly complex political environment, even that measure was deemed to be dead on arrival in the Senate, where Democrats hold a narrow advantage and the rules give Republicans leverage to block legislation.

Bush is A commander guy, not THE commander guy

What about a good command of English for a change?

Confusion stirred over US president’s linguistic mix up on his role in Iraq causes media satire.

WASHINGTON - The White House is trying to clarify something: President George W. Bush is "a commander guy" but not "the commander guy."

Or something like that.

On Wednesday, speaking to a friendly audience, Bush talked about his troop build-up in Iraq and rejected efforts by the Democratic majority in the US Congress to force him to accept a withdrawal timetable.

Bush, whose approval ratings have dropped as the Iraq war moves into its fifth year, contended that he had the authority to send the troops.

"The question is, who ought to make that decision? The Congress or the commanders? And as you know, my position is clear -- I'm a commander guy," Bush said.

The official stenographer of the event recorded Bush as having said he was "the commander guy" and some reporters did as well. It was not far off from his past description of himself as "the decider."

But the quote prompted chuckles around Washington that Bush had given a new nickname to his constitutional role as the commander in chief.

So the White House sprang into action to try to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino took to the podium on Friday to clarify, while acknowledging to reporters that "you might find it a little strange."

"It's been reported that the president said, 'I'm the commander guy.' He did not. What I recalled was that he said 'I'm a commander guy,' meaning that he's one of the people that listens to the commanders on the ground," Perino said.

"Does he consider himself over the other commanders?" a reporter asked.

"He is the commander in chief," Perino said. "But the context of what the president was saying is that when it comes to making decisions about Iraq or war policy, that the president listens to commanders on the ground, not politicians in Washington."

Bush vetoes Iraq withdrawal bill

Mr Bush said the US "surge" of troops needs time to work

US President George W Bush has vetoed a Congressional bill that would have linked war funding to a timetable for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

Speaking in Washington after signing the veto, Mr Bush said setting a deadline for withdrawal would be "setting a date for failure" in Iraq.

He said the funding was needed to give time for the new strategy of a surge of reinforcements in Baghdad to succeed.

Mr Bush said he would seek a compromise with Congressional leaders.

It is only the second time since taking office that Mr Bush has used the presidential veto.

Earlier on Tuesday, leaders of the Democrat-controlled US Congress signed the controversial bill agreeing to $100bn (£50bn) in further funding on condition US combat troops begin to withdraw this year.

The president wants a blank cheque; the Congress is not going to give it to him Nancy Pelosi Democratic House Speaker

Mr Bush criticised the bill, saying it "substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgement of our military commanders.

"I believe setting a deadline for a withdrawal would demoralise the Iraqi people, would encourage killers across the broader Middle East, and send a signal that America will not keep its commitments," he said in a televised speech.

Compromise talks

The veto is the latest stage in Mr Bush's clash with Congress over the conduct of the Iraq war.

Reacting to the veto, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the bill reflected the wishes of Americans to have benchmarks for what is happening in Iraq.

"We had hoped that the president would have treated it with the respect that bipartisan legislation supported overwhelmingly by the American people deserved.

"The president wants a blank cheque; the Congress is not going to give it to him," she said.

President Bush has poured extra US troops into Baghdad

The Senate last week voted 51 to 46 in favour of the legislation, which said the pull-out must start by 1 October and sets a target of completion by 31 March 2008.

Mr Bush will now meet congressional leaders on Wednesday to try to reach a compromise on a revised funding bill for US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Democrats acknowledge they will eventually have to soften their bill as they cannot risk being accused of undercutting the troops during wartime, says the BBC's James Westhead in Washington.

Revised legislation would have to be agreed by both the House and the Senate before being presented to him again.

'Publicity stunt'

Tuesday was the fourth anniversary of a speech in which Mr Bush declared major combat operations in Iraq over, standing beneath a banner proclaiming "mission accomplished".

Speaking before the signing of the bill, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino accused the Democrats of cynically delaying the move so it would coincide with the anniversary for political gain.

"It's very disturbing to think that they possibly held up this money for the troops and the troops' families and the resources they need to try some PR stunt on this day," Ms Perino said.

Mr Bush is committed to his "surge" strategy, under which thousands of extra US troops are being poured into Baghdad.

The top US general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has said reducing forces could lead to increased violence.

Iraqis welcome U.S. Congress vote but fear vacuum

By Mussab Al-Khairalla Fri Apr 27,

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqis are glad U.S. soldiers could soon depart but fearful of what they might leave behind, after the U.S. Congress approved a bill linking troop withdrawals to war funding.


"U.S. forces have to leave Iraq but not now," said Abu Ali, a 47-year-old trader from the southern city of Basra, on Friday.

"The Iraqi government and its security forces are unable to control security, especially in Baghdad and its neighborhoods."

Like many, he said tying funding to a timetable to withdraw U.S. troops over the next 11 months would force Iraq's police and army units to shape up quicker.

"We demand a withdrawal but not in one go, so that there is no vacuum," said Tarek Qader, a 55-year-old retiree from the northern city of Kirkuk.

Added Baghdad student Ali Adel: "The exit of the occupation has to be preceded by the building of Iraqi forces and national reconciliation."

In a rebuke to President George W. Bush, the Democrat- controlled Congress on Thursday approved legislation linking withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq to paying for the war.

Bush has promised to veto the bill. He is sending an additional 30,000 soldiers to Iraq, mainly to back a security crackdown in Baghdad that is regarded as a last-ditch attempt to drag Iraq back from the brink of all-out civil war.

The Senate joined the House of Representatives in backing the bill that would provide about $100 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year while setting a deadline to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq over the next 11 months.

"I'm glad some Americans have finally realized they are no longer welcome here," said Hakim, a 25-year-old army officer in Baghdad who declined to give his last name.

SPEED UP RECONCILIATION

U.S. officials regard the Baghdad security plan as a chance to buy time for Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to speed up reconciliation with minority Sunni Arabs, who feel marginalized.

Maliki insists no timetable will be set for withdrawing the 150,000 American troops until his own security forces are ready.

"There has to be an agreement on the shape of the political map for Iraq after the U.S. forces' withdrawal since there are many pending issues ... it will result in the division of Iraq," said Abdullah Khaled from Kirkuk.

Some Iraqis said a quick withdrawal would be dangerous. "I would expect a power struggle and the increase of violence," said Mohammed Younis, a 43-year-old engineer.

Fellow Baghdadi Bassim Abdulla agreed. "Differences in Washington will encourage militants to increase their attacks after they realize Bush has lost domestic support for the war."

"The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq without ensuring Iraqi troops can provide and maintain security will result in massacres and a humanitarian disaster," said Omar al-Dulaimi, from Ramadi, in the volatile western Anbar province.

Others felt the presence of U.S. troops was fuelling the insurgency and their departure could only help.

"If the occupation leaves, all acts of violence in Iraq will end due to less suicide bombers, and the interference of neighboring countries will be unjustified," said Qassim Uthman, a 51-year-old teacher.

(Additional reporting by Mustafa Mahmoud in Kirkuk and Aref Mohammed in Basra)

Senate Passes Bill Seeking Iraq Exit, Veto Is Expected

By CARL HULSE
Published: April 27, 2007

WASHINGTON, April 26 — The Senate on Thursday sent President Bush a $124 billion war spending measure that he has promised to veto, forcing Democrats to begin confronting the difficult question of what to do after the president acts.


Lawmakers and senior Democratic aides in the House and Senate acknowledge that there is no consensus among the party’s leadership on how to respond legislatively to the veto, with members of the House and Senate advocating competing options and some outside antiwar groups urging the Democrats to hold firm.

“It gives new meaning to the notion of a fluid process,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, after the Senate voted 51 to 46 over serious Republican objections to approve the emergency war measure. Two Republicans joined 48 Democrats and one independent in supporting the bill that would order troops to begin leaving Iraq by Oct. 1 at the latest; 45 Republicans and one independent opposed it.

The White House reaction was swift and harsh. “Eighty days after President Bush submitted his troop funding bill, the Senate has now joined the House in passing defeatist legislation that insists on a date for surrender, micromanages our commanders and generals in combat zones from 6,000 miles away, and adds billions of dollars in unrelated spending to the fighting on the ground,” said Dana Perino, the administration spokeswoman.

With the veto coming, some Democrats argue that the bill should simply be stripped of the timelines that have drawn Mr. Bush’s ire and sent back with the benchmarks and troop readiness rules intact. Others say Congress has made its antiwar statement and should now give the president the money without conditions.

Another wing, including House Democrats who are influential on military policy, prefers providing money for the troops for a few months while keeping pressure on the White House through other Pentagon-related legislation. Still others want to turn the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group into law.

Each alternative carries its own risk because Democratic leaders might not be able to muster the votes for passage of an alternate bill because a substantial bloc of Democrats opposes providing more money without some demand for a withdrawal.

One senior House aide summarized the problem succinctly: The president does not want the bill Democrats have passed, and Democrats might not be able to pass the bill the president wants.

But the Democratic leadership was not ready Thursday to contemplate the tough course ahead in public. With the Senate joining the House in approving the spending bill, Democrats delivered their most significant challenge to Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy since they took power in January after an election that many Democrats saw as a referendum on the president and his handling of the war.

“We have carried forth the wishes of the American people,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate Democratic leader.

Recent public opinion polls show the Democrats, with a push for a timeline for leaving Iraq, have struck a chord. A New York Times-CBS News poll found that those surveyed favored a timeline for withdrawal in 2008 by a wide margin, 64 percent to 32 percent. The poll of 1,052 people conducted April 20-24 also found public support for Congress to have the final say on troop levels in Iraq, 57 percent to 35 percent.

The poll also showed that those surveyed said 56 percent to 36 percent that they believed Congress should allow the war money to go forward without timelines once Mr. Bush vetoes the bill.

Senate Republicans called the measure a wasted exercise. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, joined the White House in declaring the bill “dead before arrival.”

Others pointed to statements by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq who met privately with lawmakers on Wednesday, that Al Qaeda is a primary source of violence in Iraq.

“They are attacking Americans,” said Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas. “They are attacking Iraqis. They are trying to take over Iraq so they will have the capability to spread their terrorism throughout the world.”

Democrats said that Republicans were once again trying to tie the terrorism threat to what is predominantly a civil war in Iraq and that a withdrawal there would in fact allow American forces to concentrate better on terrorism.

“Redeploying our troops who are bogged down in the middle of an Iraqi civil war will enable us to refocus on our top national security: the global fight against Al Qaeda and its affiliates,” said Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin.

“It is time to come home,” said Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey.

As they begin to fashion their post-veto strategy, Democrats say they will listen carefully to what Mr. Bush says in rejecting the bill, studying the nuances for negotiating room beyond his call for a spending measure with no restrictions.

Republican leaders in the House and Senate have recently indicated an openness to legislation that contains some form of benchmark to better chart the progress of the Iraqi government.

“There are a number of members of my conference who do think that benchmarks could be helpful, depending upon how they’re crafted,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. “And that’ll be among the many items we discuss in moving forward and getting the money to the troops as quickly as possible.”

Mr. McConnell said he and Mr. Reid had already had preliminary talks about how to proceed after the veto.

Democrats said Mr. Bush was going to have to engage them as well.