Go to Original
Senate Passes Iraq War Bill Requiring Pullout
By Carl Hulse and Jeff Zeleny
The New York Times
Thursday 26 April 2007
Washington - The Senate narrowly passed a $124 billion war spending bill early
this afternoon after an emotional debate about the best way forward in Iraq.
The vote will send the measure to President Bush, who has vowed to veto it because
it would require American troops to begin withdrawing by Oct. 1.
The 51-46 vote, far short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to
override Mr. Bush's veto, came after a morning-long debate in which supporters
of the bill called it a way to make the Iraqis take responsibility for their
own security, while opponents called it a blueprint for defeat.
But the outcome was regarded as certain all along, with the White House saying
the president might not even comment on it today, given the absence of suspense.
Still, there was plenty of feeling in evidence in the Senate as it debated
the bill, which the House of Representatives narrowly approved on Wednesday.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, called the bill
one that "we can and will proudly send to the president," and one
that charts a new course in Iraq while honoring America's fighting forces.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the measure is "the
only way to make Iraqis take responsibility" for their own destiny. Mr.
Kennedy said the president has been wrong all along on Iraq. "Now, he
is wrong to threaten to veto this bill," the senator said. "We cannot
repeat the mistake of Vietnam."
Another Democratic supporter, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, said the conflict
is "a war that never should have started, and on this president's
watch may never end" without a timetable for American withdrawal.
But Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who lost the
Democratic nomination last year at least partly because of his support for the
war, called the bill "a deadline for defeat" and said it would have
"exactly the opposite effect that its supporters expect" because
it would discourage the Iraqis.
And Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, said it was high time
to "look beyond the politics of this thing, and do the right thing"
by letting Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, a chance
to finish the job.
General Petraeus himself acknowledged this morning that the situation in Iraq
is "exceedingly complex and very tough."
"Success will take continued commitment, perseverance and sacrifice,
all to make possible an opportunity for the all-important Iraqi political actions
that are the key to long-term solutions to Iraq's many problems,"
the general said at a Pentagon briefing.
At the White House, meanwhile, a spokeswoman for the president, Dana Perino,
said that Mr. Bush would veto the measure "very soon," so that "we
can take the next step." The next step, presumably, would be more back-and-forth
between the White House and the Capitol, since backers of the bill have nowhere
near the two-thirds majority required in each chamber to override a veto.
Asked if Mr. Bush planned to comment, Ms. Perino said, "Look, this is
a little bit of a foregone conclusion, a little bit anti-climactic," she
said.
The veto will be the second of Mr. Bush's presidency, and the first since
Democrats gained control of Congress. Last year, Mr. Bush vetoed a stem-cell
research bill.
On Wednesday, only hours after General Petraeus told lawmakers he needed more
time to gauge the effectiveness of the recent troop buildup there, the House
approved the measure by 218 to 208."Last fall, the American people voted
for a new direction in Iraq," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California.
"They made it clear that our troops must be given all they need to do
their jobs, but that our troops must be brought home responsibly, safely, and
soon."
Republicans accused Democrats of establishing a "date certain"
for America's defeat in Iraq and capitulating to terrorism.
"This bill is nothing short of a cut and run in the fight against Al
Qaeda," said Representative Harold Rogers, Republican of Kentucky.
On the final vote, 216 Democrats and 2 Republicans supported the bill; 195
Republicans and 13 Democrats opposed it. The legislation provides more than
$95 billion for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30,
with the money conditioned on the administration's willingness to accept
a timetable for withdrawal and new benchmarks to assess the progress of the
Iraqi government.
Democratic leaders plan to send the bill to the White House early next week
- coinciding with the fourth anniversary of Mr. Bush's May 1, 2003,
speech aboard an aircraft carrier, when he declared the end of major combat
operations in Iraq, under a banner that said "Mission Accomplished."
With the outcome essentially preordained, advocacy groups on both sides of
the issue were readying campaigns to try to shape public opinion as the showdown
unfolds.
Groups aligned with the Democrats plan to capitalize on the connection between
the veto and the "mission accomplished" anniversary. Americans United
for Change has produced a television commercial that replays scenes of Mr. Bush
on the carrier and says: "He was wrong then. And he's wrong now.
It's the will of one nation versus the stubbornness of one man."
Allies of the president are mobilizing as well. The conservative Web site Townhall.com
was organizing an online "no surrender" petition, and urging visitors
to the site to tell the Democratic Party's "rogues' gallery
that we will not stand for their defeatism," adding, "While they
may lack courage, our troops do not and they deserve the resources needed to
win this war."
With the vote barely behind them, House Democrats were already considering
how to respond legislatively to Mr. Bush's veto. Though there are differing
ideas, Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Democrat who oversees
defense appropriations, said his preference would be to "robustly fund
the troops for two months," and include benchmarks but no timetable for
withdrawal.
In addition to General Petraeus, lawmakers in the House and Senate heard on
Wednesday from Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, Deputy Secretary
of State John D. Negroponte and Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr., vice chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
As they walked into the House briefing, the officials were greeted by about
a dozen war protesters, some of whom shouted: "War criminal! War criminal!"
One woman walked alongside the general, urging him in a softer tone to consider
her point of view.
After the briefing, whose substance was classified, Representative Steny H.
Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, disputed criticisms that Democrats were
trying to end the war before giving the administration's plan a chance
to succeed.
"Nobody is saying, 'Get out tomorrow,' " Mr. Hoyer
said, noting that the legislation would allow American troops to remain in Iraq
to battle terrorist groups.
He and Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, differed
on what emerged from the briefing as the most significant cause of violence
in Iraq. Mr. Hoyer attributed it to sectarian strife, while Mr. Boehner cited
Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, calling the group "the major foe that we face
in Iraq today."
Democrats sought to portray their approach as reasonable and called for Mr.
Bush to reconsider before sending the bill back to Congress.
"I believe that this legislation, if people were to just take their time
and read it, is the exit strategy that the president ought to be pleased to
receive," said Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the
Democratic whip.
But Republicans called it a dubious attempt at micromanaging the war and said
Democrats were also seizing the opportunity to stuff the bill with home-state
spending.
The president's allies, aware of public dissatisfaction with the war,
acknowledged the difficulties on the ground in Iraq while portraying the Democratic
approach as a prescription for defeat.
"It's been ugly, it's been difficult, it has been very painful,"
said Representative David Dreier, Republican of California. "We all feel
the toll that has been taken and are fully aware of the price we are paying,
especially in a human sense. But we do not honor those who have sacrificed by
abandoning the mission."
The House vote on Wednesday and the preceding debate closely resembled those
of one month ago, when the House passed its initial version 218 to 212.
-----------
David Stout and Brian Knowlton contributed reporting from Washington.
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Print This Story
E-mail This Story