Top anti-war Democrats say they now support Iraq funding bill

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer

House Democrats defiantly pushed ahead Wednesday with a $50 billion war spending bill that calls for troops to leave Iraq, despite concerns raised by some members of the party and a veto threat issued by the White House.

The bill would require that the U.S. initiate troop withdrawals within 30 days of its passage and agree to the goal of bringing home most soldiers and Marines by Dec. 15, 2008.

It is largely a symbolic jab at President Bush, who already has begun withdrawing some troops but rejects the notion that Congress set a timetable on the war.

Democratic leaders initially said Wednesday they expected the bill to pass. But by mid-afternoon, the prospects were less clear. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., convened a meeting of the bill's supporters and asked them to help her round up votes.

A Pelosi spokesman said a vote still would take place Wednesday.

The White House said Bush would reject the bill.

"In addition to infringing upon the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief, the bill would mandate a precipitous withdrawal of troops that could increase the probability that American troops would have to one day return to Iraq to confront an even more dangerous enemy," an administration statement said.

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said it was "troubling that Democrats continue their efforts to force a retreat even though our troops are winning."

The outcome of the House vote has been in doubt in recent days with liberal Democrats saying they thought the bill was too soft because the 2008 date was nonbinding. Conservative Democrats said they thought it went too far and could tie the hands of military commanders.

The bill's prospects brightened somewhat early Wednesday after three leading anti-war Democrats announced they would support it.

California Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters said they would vote for the measure because a provision added to the bill states that the $50 billion "should be to transition the mission" and redeploy troops in Iraq, "not to extend or prolong the war."

"While this bill is not perfect, it is the strongest Iraq bill to date," the Democratic trio wrote in a joint statement. "This is the first time that this Congress has put forth a bill that ties funding to the responsible redeployment of our troops, and it also includes language mandating a start date for the president to begin the redeployment of our brave men and women."

Similar legislation has passed repeatedly along party lines in the House only to sink in the Senate, where Democrats hold a razor-thin majority and 60 votes are needed to overcome procedural hurdles.

It is expected that if the measure fails in the Senate, Democrats will not consider Bush's war spending request until next year.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that if it does pass and Bush rejects the bill, "then the president won't get his $50 billion."

The money included in the bill represents about a quarter of Bush's $196 billion war spending request for the 2008 budget year, which began Oct. 1.

Democrats say the military won't need the money until early next year. Until then, the Pentagon can transfer money from less urgent accounts or fourth quarter spending to cover costs, they say.

The Pentagon says moving money around is a bureaucratic nightmare that costs more in the long run. And if taken to the extreme, the military would eventually have to freeze contracts or lay off civilian workers to ensure troops in combat have what they need.

In another provision that drew White House opposition, the House bill would require that all government interrogators rely on the Army's field manual. The manual is based on Geneva Convention standards and was updated in 2006 to specifically prohibit the military from using aggressive interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding.

The White House said in its statement that the Geneva Conventions shouldn't apply to "captured terrorists who openly flout that law."

The bill also requires that the president certify to Congress 15 days in advance that a unit being sent into combat is "fully mission capable," although Bush could waive that requirement if necessary.

___

On the Net:

Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

[no name 1]

Any chance Bush can stamp that big ole VETO, he will.

[Peikko 1,575]

I declare I don't really understand the Democratic position on the Iraq war at least the position as it appears to be outlined here.

[Kevin and 10]

If they wanted to throw a symbolic jab and know the GWB will veto the bill. Don't set a timetable, just authorize $1.00 for Iraq spending.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If they wanted to throw a symbolic jab and know the GWB will veto the bill. Don't set a timetable, just authorize $1.00 for Iraq spending.

Can't do that. They'd be portrayed as denying the troops the funding they need.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If they wanted to throw a symbolic jab and know the GWB will veto the bill. Don't set a timetable, just authorize $1.00 for Iraq spending.

Can't do that. They'd be portrayed as denying the troops the funding they need.

Catch 22 really.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If they wanted to throw a symbolic jab and know the GWB will veto the bill. Don't set a timetable, just authorize $1.00 for Iraq spending.

Can't do that. They'd be portrayed as denying the troops the funding they need.

Catch 22 really.

Yep. They've allowed themselves to be played into that corner that they now can't get out of.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If they wanted to throw a symbolic jab and know the GWB will veto the bill. Don't set a timetable, just authorize $1.00 for Iraq spending.

Can't do that. They'd be portrayed as denying the troops the funding they need.

Catch 22 really.

Yep. They've allowed themselves to be played into that corner that they now can't get out of.

Unfortunately they seem as fixated with "looking right" as opposed to "doing right" as the other lot are.