Democrats push powerless war bill

On Mar. 27, the Senate backed a Democratic proposal calling for partial withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, hours after the Bush administration warned it would spur a veto. By a vote of 50-48, the Senate defeated an amendment that would have stricken the withdrawal language from a $121.6 billion bill that would mostly fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A final vote on the bill is expected later this week. Under the Senate bill, which is still being debated, the United States would begin a partial phased withdrawal of troops this year with the goal, not the requirement, that it be completed by Mar. 31, 2008. The proposal calls for US troop withdrawals from Iraq to begin 120 days after final passage of the measure. Some troops would remain to conduct counterterrorism, training, security operations and protect US diplomatic sites. The deadline is nonbinding, so the spending bill emerging from the Senate differs markedly from the version narrowly passed by the House last week that demanded a partial withdrawal by Sept. 1, 2008. For weeks, Republican leaders have used procedural maneuvers to delay a debate over Iraq. But Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican minority leader, said he did not want to hold up financing for the war by spending more time than necessary on a measure that will never become law. Republicans signaled that they would not use procedural measures to block the bill, but would instead let the White House kill it and then urge Democrats to pass a bill that provides funding for the war without setting any dates for troop withdrawals. "We need to get the bill on down to the president and get the veto out of the way," McConnell said. Despite the fact that the party's recent advances in Congress on Iraq have been dubbed "historic" in the mainstream press, the Democrats have conceded that they cannot meet their proposed targets even for partial withdrawal. Since a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress would be required to override the presidential veto that President Bush has threatened, the legislation does not have even the remotest chance of becoming law. The White House reiterated its threat to veto the legislation following the Senate vote. "This bill assumes and forces the failure of the new strategy even before American commanders in the field are able to fully implement their plans," the administration said in a statement. Bush said last week that legislation passed in the House of Representatives containing a timetable for partial withdrawal had no chance of becoming law and described Democratic efforts as "political theater." The House voted on Mar. 23 to approve a $124 billion spending measure that would require most of the 141,000 US troops in Iraq to pull out by September 2008. The withdrawal timetable provision, part of a bill to provide about $100 billion to finance the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, added an additional $24 billion largely aimed at domestic programs unrelated to military expenses to make the bill more acceptable to lawmakers. Several lawmakers derided the total of nearly $24 billion in domestic spending–benefiting spinach growers, shrimp fishermen and peanut farmers, among others–that Democrats put into the bill to make it more palatable to its party members. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi adopted tough approaches to dissenting Democrats as the scheduled vote grew closer, reportedly threatening Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) that if she voted against the bill, Pelosi would remove her from her House Appropriations Committee seat. Proponents of the bill made it clear that there would be consequences for any Democrats who opposed the legislation. The House vote, which passed by a narrow vote of 218 to 214, called for most US troops to be out of Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008. The measure called for withdrawal of all "combat troops," not a full and complete withdrawal of US forces from the war-torn country. Fourteen Democrats voted against the plan, with eight saying it did not end the war fast enough and six saying it was too restrictive and could usurp the authority of the commander in chief. In an unusual alliance, the liberal anti-war wing of the House Democratic caucus joined Republicans in opposing the bill. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who was against the war long before most Democrats turned against it, said the vote proves that the war now has a "momentum of its own." "You cannot say you are for peace and vote to keep this war going," Kucinich said. "If you want peace, stop funding the war." As the voting began on the House measure, two antiwar protesters stood in the gallery and implored lawmakers not to approve more money for the war. "Don't buy the war! Don't buy the war!" one woman shouted again and again before being led away by police as the presiding officer of the House banged his gavel to order. "We feel betrayed by Nancy Pelosi," said Medea Benjamin of the anti-war group CodePink, which organized a protest in Pelosi's office. "Today marks the day that Democrats bought George Bush's war," she said as tears streamed down her face. "The Democrats are now as responsible as the Republicans for this war."