House funds war but sets pullout date

In their strongest challenge yet to President Bush over the war in Iraq, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed a war spending bill Friday that requires the withdrawal of most U.S. forces by late summer 2008.

The measure passed, 218 to 212, on a largely party-line vote, drawing support from just two Republicans after an emotional debate. House members who fought in Vietnam and Iraq delivered some of the most impassioned speeches -- both for and against the measure.

Hours after the vote, Bush appeared before television cameras at the White House to denounce the legislation, which he has repeatedly threatened to veto. He accused Democrats of performing “an act of political theater” by passing a bill that has “no chance of becoming law and brings us no closer to getting our troops the resources they need to do their job.”

In what is emerging as a political game of chicken with the White House, the Senate begins debate Monday on its version of the bill, which would require troops to start pulling out of Iraq within 120 days of passage and would set March 31, 2008, as a “goal” for completing the withdrawal.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said the bills reflected “what the American people asked for in November -- redeploying our troops out of Iraq and refocusing our resources to more effectively fight the war on terror.”

But the bid to force the redeployment of U.S. troops faces uncertain prospects in the narrowly divided Senate, where Republicans have stymied Democratic efforts to influence military strategy.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Reid, said the leader was “hopeful that he’ll have the votes.” But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), joined at a news conference by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), promised: “We will defeat this on the floor of the Senate.”

The $124.3-billion House war spending bill provides much of the money that Bush has sought for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Democrats attached a requirement that U.S. troops leave Iraq by the end of August 2008 -- or sooner if the Iraqi government fails to meet a series of goals.

During Friday’s debate, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), a burly, gray-haired Vietnam veteran who has become one of his party’s leading antiwar voices, recalled advice he said his great-grandmother gave him when he was a child.

“You’re on this Earth to make a difference,” Murtha said she told him. His voice quavering, he continued, “We’re going to make a difference with this bill. We’re going to bring those troops home.”

Following Murtha, Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-Pa.), a former Army captain and the only Iraq combat veteran in Congress, turned to Republicans and said: “I want to ask you the same questions that my gunner asked me when I was leading a convoy up and down ‘Ambush Alley’ one day. He said, ‘Sir, what are we doing over here? What’s our mission? When are these Iraqis going to come off the sidelines and fight for their own country?’

“To my colleagues across the aisle,” he continued, “your taunts about supporting our troops ring hollow if you are still unable to answer those questions now, four years later.”

Republicans countered that a withdrawal would force a defeat in Iraq and undermine the reputation of the United States around the world.

“Think for a moment what signal this sends to our enemies,” House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said. “You can take on the United States, you can push them to the edge, and at the end of the day, they’ll just go home.”

Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), a former Air Force pilot and Vietnam prisoner of war, closed the debate for the Republican side. “How many of you have ever asked your constituents, ‘Do you want to lose in Iraq?’ I think if you asked that question ... Americans will wholeheartedly say no. We have smart, strong men and women serving in Iraq, and they need our help. They need the full support of their country and their Congress.”

With Murtha, a 74-year-old former Marine, nearby, the 76-year-old Johnson said, “John, you know this: The Marines never quit. Neither should we.”

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has warned that failure to pass the emergency spending measure in the next three weeks could jeopardize the military’s ability to deploy enough troops to Iraq.

Democratic lawmakers have argued that the timelines are necessary to force Iraqi leaders to begin taking responsibility for their own security.

The bill also contains readiness conditions that require the president to ensure troops have adequate training, equipment and rest before being sent to Iraq, or to explain publicly why he is disregarding those requirements.

In addition to money to run the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bill contains billions of dollars in other spending, including money for military and veterans healthcare, mine-resistant combat vehicles, Gulf Coast reconstruction, wildfire suppression and disaster aid to farmers, including California’s spinach growers.

The vote was a victory for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), who brought down the gavel with a smile to close the roll call. In the toughest test of her leadership, Pelosi and her lieutenants spent days working to bring the party together to support the measure.

Pelosi declined to reveal her strategy for advancing the bill, saying only, “The American people will weigh in.”

After the Senate passes its bill, representatives of both chambers will meet to craft a single measure. Bush has promised to veto any bill that contains timelines, and Democrats lack the two-thirds vote to override.

“This is the highest-stakes game of poker the capital has seen in a very long time,” said Don Kettl, a University of Pennsylvania political scientist. “The Democrats are boxed in. They’ve successfully made Iraq into a wedge issue to separate Bush from the public. But having identified the war as the driving issue, they face the challenge of getting action or facing a charge that they’re just posturing.”

The debate largely hewed to a script the two parties have honed through three months of war debates since Democrats gained the majority. But Friday did produce an unusual scene. One of the most liberal members of Congress, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), spoke against the measure -- on time allotted to the Republicans.

“If you want peace, stop funding the war,” Kucinich said, contending the measure did not go far enough to win his support.

Kucinich was among 14 Democrats who joined 198 Republicans voting against the measure. Reps. Barbara Lee of Oakland, Maxine Waters and Diane Watson, both of Los Angeles, and Lynn Woolsey of Petaluma, broke from the rest of the California Democrats and voted against the measure on grounds that it didn’t go far enough to end U.S. involvement in Iraq.

Rep. Pete Stark (D-Fremont) voted present.

Lee, who said she had voted “against every single penny” for the war, said in a statement, “While as a matter of conscience I cast my vote against the funding, I hope that this passage of this bill marks the beginning of the end of the Iraq war, but the real fight still lies ahead.” She said she would push for “timelines for withdrawal that are backed up by the appropriations power that the Constitution grants to Congress.”

Republicans Wayne T. Gilchrest of Maryland and Walter B. Jones of North Carolina joined 216 Democrats in voting for it. Three lawmakers did not vote.

Rep. Linda T. Sanchez (D-Lakewood) called it the most difficult vote she has had to cast. “I truly believe that this war is immoral,” she said, calling the House bill “the strongest, most realistic option for changing the failed strategy in Iraq.”

In one of the most consistent themes of the debate, Republicans accused Democrats of usurping the role of military commanders and micromanaging the war. Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) said, “If George Washington had a Congress with the attitude of this Congress, we might very well have lost the Revolutionary War.”

But Murtha shot back that the Revolutionary War was “our own war. What we’re trying to do in this legislation is force the Iraqis to fight their own war.”

richard.simon@latimes.com

noam.levey@latimes.com

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Troop pullout plan

The House on Friday approved the following troop removal timetable:

July 1

The president must certify Iraq is making progress toward

specific goals, such as disarming sectarian militias. If he does not, the troop pullout would begin immediately and would have to be completed within 180 days, or by Dec. 28.

Oct. 1

The president must certify Iraq has met all the goals. If he does not, combat troops would be withdrawn within 180 days, or by March 30, 2008.

March 1, 2008

Whether Iraq meets the goals or not, the pullout of U.S. combat troops must begin. It would be completed by Aug. 31, 2008.

Source: Los Angeles Times

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

How the California delegation voted

The House’s war-funding bill would require President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008. A “yes” vote is a vote to pass the bill. “Present” denotes those who voted only that they were there.

Democrats: Baca, Y; Becerra, Y; Berman, Y; Capps, Y; Cardoza, Y; Costa, Y; Davis, Y; Eshoo, Y; Farr, Y; Filner, Y; Harman, Y; Honda, Y; Lantos, Y; Lee, N; Lofgren, Y; Matsui, Y; McNerney, Y; Millender-McDonald, Y; Miller, George, Y; Napolitano, Y; Pelosi, Y; Roybal-Allard, Y; Sanchez, Linda T., Y; Sanchez, Loretta, Y; Schiff, Y; Sherman, Y; Solis, Y; Stark, Present; Tauscher, Y; Thompson, Y; Waters, N; Watson, N; Waxman, Y; Woolsey, N.

Republicans: Bilbray, N; Bono, N; Calvert, N; Campbell, N; Doolittle, N; Dreier, N; Gallegly, N; Herger, N; Hunter, N; Issa, N; Lewis, N; Lungren, N; McCarthy, N; McKeon, N; Miller, Gary, N; Nunes, N; Radanovich, N; Rohrabacher, N; Royce, N.

Source: Los Angeles Times

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Voices

‘It is long past time that this Congress assert itself and insist on accountability and a new direction in Iraq. More blank checks ... would constitute an abdication of our responsibility and our duty. Four years of abdication is enough.’

- HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER STENY H. HOYER

(D-Md.)

---

‘[The bill is] a poorly assembled wish list of nonemergency spending requests wrapped in a date-certain declaration of defeat.... Does anyone think that demoting our best generals to administrative assistants represents our best chance of achieving our goals in the region?’

- REP. ROY BLUNT

(R-Mo.)

---

‘Putting billions of dollars more into this war without any parameters, and risking the lives of more of our brave men and women is not only foolish, it is immoral.’

-REP. NITA M. LOWEY

(D-N.Y.)

---

‘If you look at all of the handcuffs, all of the hoops and the hurdles that are in here, I believe there is only one outcome if we support [it] ... and that outcome is failure. I don’t believe that failure is an option.’

-REP. JOHN A. BOEHNER

(R-Ohio)

---

‘[Timelines] are the instrument by which we communicate to the Iraqi politicians that they must begin to resolve their differences. They must step up because we are not going to run our babysitting service forever.’

-REP. DAVID R. OBEY

(D-Wis.)

---

‘Liberals completely misunderstand the enemy that we face and because of this kind of relativist neutrality, jihadists now believe they have a crucial advantage over the free world and its people.’

-REP. TRENT FRANKS

(R-Ariz.)