House Democrats say they have the votes to push through troop withdrawal bill
By ANNE FLAHERTY - Associated Press
Friday, March 23, 2007 12:11 PM PDT
WASHINGTON — House Democrats voiced confidence Friday that they had enough support to approve Congress’ boldest challenge yet to President Bush’s Iraq policy, a bill ordering combat troops to leave the country before the fall of 2008.
After days of lobbying by party leaders, chances of passage increased after many liberal opponents of the bill — who had said that it did not go far enough to end the war immediately — announced they would not stand in its way. The $124 billion bill would finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but require combat troops to return home before September 2008, possibly sooner, if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements.
‘‘Today, we are demanding accountability,’’ said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md. Confident they had the votes to win, Democrats celebrated in a closed-door meeting in advance of the debate. Some described it as resembling a pep rally.
‘‘I would call it the coming together of conscience, conviction and caucus,’’ said Rep. John Larson, D-Conn.
The Iraq deadline created an unusual dynamic in the sharply partisan Congress. Bush loyalists teamed up with some anti-war liberals in opposing the measure. Conservatives said a firm deadline for the war would tie the hands of military commanders and embolden insurgents after the U.S. left Iraq, whereas many liberals said the bill would continue to bankroll an immoral war for more than a year.
‘‘If you want peace, stop funding this war,’’ said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.
‘‘Approval of it means we vote to abandon Iraq at an arbitrary time no matter the situation, said Republican Rep. Ted Poe. It’s also ‘‘loaded with squealing pork that has nothing to do with our troops or the war,’’ added Poe, R-Texas, referring to the billions of dollars added to the bill to fund domestic programs and attract votes.
The measure is unlikely to sail unchanged through the Senate, where many Democrats oppose a firm timetable on the war. And Bush has promised to veto the bill if it ever makes its way to his desk.
Still, Democratic supporters say passage would mark a major step toward ending the war. The bill would be Congress’ first binding challenge to the war since it started four years ago and cost the lives of more than 3,200 U.S. troops.
‘‘This is a good compromise bill that has the virtue of setting a date certain,’’ said Rep. Albert Wynn, D-Md.
Across the Capitol, the Senate planned to debate legislation next week that would take a slightly different tack. Its $122 billion bill would require that Bush begin bringing home an unspecified number of troops within four months with the goal of getting all combat troops out by March 31, 2008. Unlike the House bill’s 2008 date, the Senate deadline is not a firm requirement.
Senate Republicans said they would attempt to strip out the withdrawal provisions when the issue comes before that chamber.
In the House, Wynn and other party liberals were concerned the bill was insufficient to end the war immediately, while more conservative Democrats were uncomfortable with setting deadlines on military operations.
With Democrats holding 233 seats and Republicans with 201, Democrats can afford only 15 ‘‘no’’ votes within their own ranks. The narrow margin prompted an aggressive whip operation aimed at getting enough Democrats in support of the bill before putting it up for a vote.
Four of the bill’s most consistent critics said Thursday they had told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi they would help round up support despite their intention to vote against it.
‘‘Despite my steadfast opposition, I have told the speaker that I will work with her to obtain the needed votes to pass the supplemental, but that in the end I must vote my conscience,’’ said Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif.
More conservative Democrats said they remained opposed.
Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., who represents a district with strong ties to the military, said he wants to give Bush’s new strategy in Iraq a chance to work and shrugged off the pressure by his party’s leaders.
‘‘Remember, I’m here to represent southern Mississippi,’’ he told reporters.
Republicans tried unsuccessfully to force a vote on a measure that would protect funding for troops and resorted to rhetoric to try to bring down the spending bill. At least two Republicans — Reps. Walter Jones of North Carolina and Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland — have indicated they will break ranks and support the bill because of their frustration with the war.
‘‘Is there a strategic rationale for this date?’’ asked Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a presidential hopeful. ‘‘Nothing that I have seen on the ground in Iraq — and I was there just 10 days ago — suggests that Congress should force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and tie the hands of American military commanders.’’
