House Passes Bill on Iraq Pullout

Pentagon Would Have to Present Iraq Plan to Hill
by Jonathan Weisman 

Left, Reps. John Murtha (Pa.), left, and Jim McGovern (Mass.), right, vowed, along with Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (Wis.), that they will not entertain President Bush's war funding request until he changes his Iraq policy. By Win Mcnamee — Getty Images

The House, with overwhelming, bipartisan support, voted yesterday to give the Bush administration two months to present to Congress its planning for the withdrawal of combat forces in Iraq.

The 377 to 46 vote was the first salvo of a new legislative strategy adopted by House Democratic leaders, away from partisan confrontation and toward a more incremental approach to war policy that can bring Republicans to their side. The withdrawal-planning bill had met fierce opposition this summer from ardent Iraq war foes, who scuttled an earlier vote by saying it would do nothing but give Republicans political cover for their support of President Bush's policies…

This time, amid the stirrings of a bipartisan centrist coalition on Iraq, Democratic leaders stared down the antiwar left and went forward with the vote. With Senate leaders stymied in their efforts to force a change of course in Iraq, House Democratic leaders faced a choice of whether to continue pushing firm timelines for troop withdrawals, as many liberal Democrats want, or to search for bipartisan comity, even after the Senate had failed to find it…

"Our objective is to change direction in Iraq," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). "Those who want to support us in that are welcome to join us."

"Very clearly, there are people in the Democratic caucus who would like to work across party lines and have Congress play a constructive role in Iraq policy," said Rep. Phil English (R-Pa.), one of the bill's authors. "There is a center building in this institution that can now help drive this debate."

Under bill, the defense secretary would have 60 days to present to Congress plans for withdrawing combat forces and making a transition from a military mission to one of counterterrorism and the training of Iraqi security forces. But the measure would not specify a withdrawal timeline or require the administration to implement the plan.

The report would have to detail the number of troops necessary for the new missions, the equipment that would have to remain, exactly how troops and materiel would be brought home, and a timeline for the transition. After the initial report, the administration would have to report back every 90 days. Advocates said the continual requirement to report would keep discussions of troop reductions in the forefront of the war debate.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who has said that any Iraq legislation should ensure troop withdrawals, gave no assurance yesterday that he would give the bill a Senate vote.

The bill, co-sponsored by Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), John Tanner (D-Tenn.) and English, attracted the support of 196 Democrats and 181 Republicans. Thirty Democrats, largely from the party's antiwar wing, and 16 Republicans voted no. The bill's authors hailed the overwhelming vote as a turning point, if for no other reason than that it would force a recurring debate on how the United States can get out of Iraq. "I think this bill is the crucial fulcrum, the key, the tipping point for pulling out of Iraq," Abercrombie said. 

Republican leaders dismissed the bill's significance. The staff of House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) released a fact sheet emphasizing that the bill would not require a withdrawal of forces and would merely require the Defense Department to do what it is already doing: draft contingency plans for a withdrawal. If anything, the bill is simply "a slap in the face to the Left," Boehner's fact sheet said.

Many Democrats were not particularly impressed either. "I don't think anybody likes it, but it does paint an important picture: Can we at least get a plan on the table?" said Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio).

Even as House leaders were pursuing a compromise, three leading House Democrats vowed yesterday that they will not entertain Bush's war funding request until he dramatically changes his Iraq war policy. The lawmakers — Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (Wis.), defense subcommittee head John P. Murtha (Pa.) and Jim McGovern (Mass.) — also proposed paying for any further war funding with a temporary surtax that would add 2 to 15 percent to existing income tax bills.

"This is the first time in American history where the president has taken the country to war and said, 'Okay, everybody's going to have to sacrifice with a tax cut,' " Obey said.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino declared that Democrats "are willing to raise taxes on just about anything."

Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) dismissed the proposal out of hand in a statement: "Some have suggested that shared sacrifice should take the form of a draft; others have suggested a surtax. Those who oppose a tax and the draft also should oppose the President's war. Just as I have opposed the war from the outset, I am opposed to a draft and I am opposed to a war surtax."

Go to original article

"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on VT may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. VT has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is VT endorsed or sponsored by the originator. Any opinions expressed by the author(s) are not necessarily those of VT or representative of any staff member at VT.)