Plan to pull troops out of Iraq fails in Senate

WASHINGTON — A Democratic plan to pull most American combat forces out of Iraq by next March — the first vote in either full chamber that would have forced an end to the unpopular war — failed to pass the Senate on Thursday.

The resolution got 48 votes in favor and 50 against, with 60 needed for passage. It called for beginning to move some American forces out of Iraq in four months and set a target of getting all combat forces out by March 31, 2008, except for an unspecified residual force that would fight terrorists, protect other Americans and train Iraqis.

One Republican, Sen. Gordon Smith of Oregon, voted with Democrats in favor of the Senate resolution. Two Democrats voted against it — Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn. (but considered part of the Democratic majority), also voted against the resolution. Washington senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, both Democrats, voted for the resolution.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., offered the resolution and promised to return to the issue when the Senate debates funding measures later in the year.

"I don't think we should spill another drop of American blood in Iraq," he said at the end of a four-hour Senate debate.

Senate Republicans argued against the Democrats' resolution, saying that supporting the Iraqi government was part of the fight against terrorism and that setting a date for withdrawal would help the insurgents who are fighting American forces.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said terrorists would see a U.S. redeployment as a sign of weakness and that extremists would overwhelm moderates in Iraq.

"Iraq is a test of us and our will versus their will," he said.

House and Senate Democrats are largely unified behind the argument that the United States shouldn't be trying to separate warring factions and support a government dominated by Shiite Muslims. Democrats said they'll keep pressuring President Bush — and vulnerable Republican lawmakers up for re-election in 2008 — to force a change in policy in Iraq.

House plan advances

In the House, a measure that is similar to the Senate's — except that it is tied to war funding — cleared a budget committee. It will go to the full House of Representatives for what is likely to be a close vote next week.

The House plan would remove most combat troops from Iraq by September 2008, or sooner if Iraq fails to reduce sectarian violence. That measure is part of a $124 billion spending bill that would provide funds Bush is seeking for Iraq.

The House Appropriations Committee voted 36-28 for the plan. The only Democrat voting against it was Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., who wants all American forces out of Iraq by the end of this year.

Included in the legislation is a lot of money to help win support: $1.7 billion for military health care, $1.7 billion for veterans health care and $2.5 billion to improve the readiness of military forces still in the United States. It also includes money for the war in Afghanistan, aviation, border and port security, Gulf Coast assistance and levee repairs, agricultural assistance and fire suppression. And Republicans noted it contains $25 million to bail out spinach farmers hurt by E. coli and $74 million for peanut storage.

The House bill would require that the Pentagon abide by its standards of sending into combat only troops who are rested, trained and equipped. It also would allow Bush to waive those standards as long as he explains why.

The Iraqi government would have to meet strict benchmarks spelled out by Bush in January, including quelling sectarian violence, disarming sectarian militias, approving a law on sharing oil revenue and setting in motion new local elections. If by July 1 the president could not certify any progress, U.S. troops would begin leaving Iraq, to be out before the end of this year. If Bush did certify progress, the Iraqi government would have until Oct. 1 to meet the benchmarks, or troops would begin withdrawing then. In any case, withdrawals would have to begin by March 1, 2008, and conclude by that summer's end.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., lacks the 218 votes she needs to pass the bill next week, aides conceded, but they insist she has the momentum. Major events over the weekend and Monday to mark the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq could add pressure on lawmakers.

Another Senate bill

In the Senate, Democratic leaders said the fight over their Iraq resolution was a prelude to their own efforts to shape Iraq policy through an upcoming war-spending bill. That language is expected to be finalized as early as Monday, and senior Senate Democratic aides said it may include the text of Thursday's defeated Iraq resolution.

Congressional Democrats "seem bent on a course of a veto showdown," one senior administration official said.

If Bush vetoes a bill that contains war funding, the White House could cover the mission's cost by borrowing from future appropriations and other military accounts, but such stopgaps will get more and more difficult if a stalemate drags on.

Compiled from McClatchy Newspapers, The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times