Senators send Bush message, seek strategy for exit from Iraq

WASHINGTON — Expressing growing unease over the war in Iraq, the Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to compel the Bush administration to explain its strategy for completing the U.S. mission in Iraq and bringing American troops home.

Congress had shown great reluctance since the outset of the Iraq war to directly challenge the administration on its management of the conflict, in part for fear of being seen as insufficiently patriotic or supportive of the troops.

Tuesday's action seemed to signal this period of quiescence is over, driven by the war's falling popularity, and it follows by just days the president's forceful counterattack on congressional war critics.

The resolution, which passed with broad bipartisan support, 79-19, calls for 2006 to be "a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty," which would create conditions for "the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq." There are nearly 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

It also would require the administration to report to Congress every three months on the status of the conflict in Iraq.

The measure passed after the Senate rejected, 58-40, a Democrat-sponsored amendment to require President Bush to prepare an estimated timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, a proposal strongly opposed by the administration. The vote on this amendment largely followed party lines. Both of Washington's senators voted for the timetable measure.

The provision that passed is part of the annual defense-spending bill, which this year has spurred the Senate's first significant debate of the administration's conduct of the war since Congress voted more than three years ago to authorize the invasion.

The Senate version of the defense legislation, traditionally a "must-pass" bill, includes two other provisions aimed at changing administration practices related to the war.

One is an amendment sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., approved earlier this month that bans all agencies of the U.S. government from engaging in "cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment," including torture. Another, passed Tuesday, would grant foreign detainees held by the U.S. in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, limited rights to appeal their incarceration or convictions to a federal court.

The White House has complained that McCain's language dealing with prisoners is too broad and has threatened to veto any bill containing it.

Backing the resolution on Iraq were 41 Republicans, 37 Democrats and the Senate's lone independent. Opposing it were 13 Republicans and six Democrats. Both of Washington's senators voted for the measure.

"Historians will look back on this day and say this was a turning point," Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., told the Council on Foreign Relations. Calling the debate long overdue, Hagel said, "This is a significant step toward the Congress exercising its constitutional responsibilities over matters of war."

Whether the Senate's language on Iraq policy survives House-Senate negotiations to reconcile the two versions of a defense-spending bill remains to be seen. But whatever the outcome, the symbolism of the Senate action seems clear.

With the cost of the war exceeding $250 billion and 2,000 U.S. lives, polls show support for the U.S. military presence plummeting along with support for Bush. Democrats, once fearful of speaking out against the war, have become newly energized.

"The minor good news is that Democrats are finding their voice and they've broken the taboo against talking about the war," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., the lone Democrat to begin pushing for the withdrawal timetable five months ago.

Presidential counselor Dan Bartlett, traveling with Bush on his trip to Asia, said passage of the Republican measure was "an affirmation" of White House policy. "This was a strong repudiation of Democratic efforts to pass legislation calling for immediate, premature withdrawal from Iraq before the mission was complete," Bartlett said.

It was a Democratic push to attach language on the Iraq war to the defense-spending bill that forced Republicans to largely accede to their wishes. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., and Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., agreed to sponsor the Democrats' amendment, minus the paragraph calling for a withdrawal timetable.

"The point is to send the strongest possible message to Iraqis," Warner said.

Frist blasted Democratic colleagues for advocating a "cut-and-run strategy" by pushing a timetable, which he called dangerous and irresponsible. He insisted the amendment overall "is not a change in policy, not a change in tone. Our body [the Senate] remains where it's always been: supportive of the president and supportive of troops."

But even some conservative Republicans said the vote clearly conveyed Congress' anxiety about Iraq.

"For everyone to think Republicans are just on autopilot is not true," said Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho.

Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, who faces a tough re-election bid, said he is pleased to see the Senate engaging the White House on war policy and predicted the trend would grow more pronounced. "This is the way it should be," DeWine said. "We should be involved."

A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll released Tuesday found that 60 percent of respondents disapproved of Bush's performance as president, while 37 percent approved, the president's poorest showing in the survey, which has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

The poll also found that 63 percent disapproved of the situation in Iraq, while 37 percent approved.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asked about the Senate action Tuesday, said the Pentagon already supplies a raft of reports and briefings to Capitol Hill each month.

"I'm told that the Department of Defense and the Department of State send literally dozens of Iraqi-related reports to Congress each year already," he said.

The Senate approved the Iraq policy language as part of the larger $491.6 billion defense-spending bill, which passed, 98-0. The White House has threatened to veto the overall measure because it includes the prohibition against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees and would standardize interrogation procedures employed by U.S. troops.

Reflecting senators' anger over recent leaks of classified information, the bill also contains provisions that would require details of purportedly secret CIA prisons overseas and strip security clearances of federal government officials who knowingly disclose national-security secrets.

Chicago Tribune correspondent Mark Silva contributed

to this report.

Material from the Los Angeles Times, Knight Ridder Newspapers, The Associated Press and Reuters is included in this report.