Democrats abandon push for Iraq deadline

WASHINGTON -- Democrats on Tuesday gave up their demand for troop-withdrawal deadlines in an Iraq war-spending package, abandoning their top goal of bringing U.S. troops home and handing President Bush a victory in a debate that has roiled Congress for months.

Bush, who has already vetoed one spending bill with a troop timeline, had threatened to do the same with the next version if it came with such a condition. Democratic leaders had pressed ahead anyway, under heavy pressure from liberals who believe that the party won control of Congress in November on the strength of antiwar sentiment. But in the end, as expected, Democrats said they did not have enough votes to override a presidential veto and could not delay troop funding.

The spending package, expected to total $120 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as some domestic programs, would require Bush to surrender virtually none of his war authority. Democrats were working to secure two other priorities that the president had previously resisted: an increase in the minimum wage and funding for domestic programs, including veterans' benefits, Katrina relief and agricultural aid.

Instead of sticking with troop-withdrawal dates, Democrats accepted a GOP plan to establish 18 political and legislative benchmarks for the Iraqi government, with periodic reports from Bush on its progress, starting in late July.

The benchmarks include passing an oil bill that would divide revenues among all Iraqi ethnic groups and revising laws to provide for greater political participation by minority Sunni Muslim Iraqis.

If the Iraqis fall short, they may forfeit U.S. reconstruction aid.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was so disappointed with the outcome that she said she might vote against the Iraq portion of the package, which will be split into two parts when it comes before the House. "I'm not likely to vote for something that doesn't have a timetable," Pelosi said.

Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., worked to hammer out a final agreement through Tuesday evening, consulting regularly with GOP leaders and the White House.

The package is expected to come before the House and the Senate on Thursday, and to be sent to Bush no later than Friday, before members of Congress leave for a weeklong Memorial Day recess.

Reid called the benchmark language "extremely weak," but he noted that Bush had initially demanded a bill with no strings attached on Iraq. "For heaven's sake, look where we've come," Reid said. "It's a lot more than the president ever expected he'd have to agree to."

Republicans remained united throughout the debate, despite strong public opposition to the war and growing internal doubts that a military victory in Iraq is achievable. GOP reaction was somewhat muted when details of the deal circulated Tuesday afternoon.

This phase of the war debate began in January, when Bush announced plans to increase troop levels in Iraq. It has raged without pause ever since, pushing aside the Democrats' ambitious 2006 election agenda while testing loyalties in both parties. After initially resisting all Democratic efforts to challenge Bush, many GOP lawmakers are now prepared to reassess the entire war effort once the new funding measure expires on Sept. 30.

"As our leadership from the president on down to the leaders of Congress have said repeatedly, we're not there forever," said Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who crafted the benchmark proposal with a group of moderate Republicans and Democrats. "We're there to help you so long as you, as a sovereign nation, pull your own weight and do your responsible job."

From the outset of the battle on spending, Democratic leaders knew that their options would be limited by the party's slim governing majorities in both chambers. In the 51-to-49 Senate, Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., was absent after a brain hemorrhage, while independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, a member of the Democratic caucus, backed Bush on the war. Passage of the first spending bill was secured by a narrow 51-46 vote, with support from two Republicans, Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon.

Bush vetoed that bill on May 1, singling out provisions that would have required troop withdrawals to begin later this year and that set a goal of removing most U.S. combat forces by March 31, 2008.

"Both sides are in a position where neither can do something without the other. That's the reality," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

When House Democratic leaders presented the plan at their weekly caucus meeting, freshmen and members of the Out of Iraq Caucus complained about the lack of a timeline, according to party aides who were not authorized to discuss the meeting.

Antiwar groups that had stood behind the Democrats as they pressed for a withdrawal also expressed disappointment. "It is remarkable that they can't stand up to President Bush and his war," said Win Without War national co-chairman Susan Shaer, who called the bill "another step toward endless war."

Even before the ink was dry on the spending deal, antiwar lawmakers expressed strong opposition.

"There has been a lot of tough talk from members of Congress about wanting to end this war, but it looks like the desire for political comfort won out over real action," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis.

But Democrats vowed to continue their quest on other legislative vehicles. The big showdown will come in several months, when funding from the new bill expires and results from the U.S. troop buildup and the Iraqi benchmarks begin to materialize.

"This is another stage in the sequencing of ending this war," said Pelosi, who added that September would be "the moment of truth."

Additional information from Los Angeles Times and McClatchy Newspapers