Dems back date to get the hell out of Iraq

Democrats Back Date for Start of Iraq Pullout - New York Times April 24, 2007 Democrats Back Date for Start of Iraq Pullout By CARL HULSE WASHINGTON, April 23 — Congressional Democrats agreed Monday to ignore President Bush’s veto threat and send him a $124 billion war spending bill that orders the administration to begin pulling troops out of Iraq by Oct. 1. “On Iraq, the American people want a new direction, and we are providing it,” said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, a leader of the Congressional negotiators who came to terms on the legislation that has become a test of wills between Mr. Bush and the Democratic majority on Capitol Hill. The House and Senate are to vote on the agreement and send it to the White House by the end of the week, and Democrats expressed confidence that they could secure narrow approval. But even as they ironed out differences between House and Senate approaches to Iraq policy and cut some spending that has drawn Republican scorn, Democrats acknowledged that the bill would be rejected by the president. Mr. Bush made it clear again on Monday that he would use the second veto of his tenure to kill the legislation, which would set a goal of having most American combat forces out of Iraq within six months of Oct. 1. “An artificial timetable of withdrawal would say to an enemy, ‘Just wait them out,’ ” he said. “It would say to the Iraqis, ‘Don’t do hard things necessary to achieve our objectives,’ and it would be discouraging for our troops.” Despite their opposition, Congressional Republicans chose not to challenge the timeline in the legislation, saying they preferred to get the veto showdown over with so Congress could quickly focus on drafting an acceptable measure that would deliver the money sought for the Pentagon. “We all know this bill is going nowhere fast,” said Representative Jerry Lewis of California, the senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee. Under the compromise approved Monday, the Iraqi government would be subjected to benchmarks that would gauge its progress in developing its own security forces, disarming sectarian militias, allowing pursuit of extremists, reconciling Sunni and Shiite factions, and deciding on distribution of oil revenues. Under the legislation, if Mr. Bush determined that progress was being made, he would be directed to begin withdrawing troops by Oct. 1, with a goal of most forces being removed within 180 days, except for those protecting American facilities, those engaged in counterterrorism and those training and equipping Iraqi forces. The legislative proposal would also block spending on American forces unless they were judged “fully mission capable” by military standards, and would prohibit military tours in Iraq of more than one year. The president could waive those requirements. While the legislation incorporates the troop readiness standards of the House, it sets the full withdrawal of forces as a goal more in line with the Senate bill, considering that the House had earlier required that most forces be out by fall 2008. But the Oct. 1 deadline for beginning a withdrawal is quicker than any envisioned by the House and could help sell the plan to ardent war critics. In a tough attack on Mr. Bush in which he accused the president of being in denial on conditions in Iraq, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said the legislation would provide “a way forward,” combining the withdrawal timetable with benchmarks to measure the progress of the Iraqi government. “No more will Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration’s incompetence and dishonesty,” Mr. Reid said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson Center here. Republicans accused Democrats of overstepping their constitutional authority and micromanaging the war. And they noted that the legislation would require a pullout whether or not the Iraqis were making progress in stabilizing their country. “This latest proposal mandates that, no matter how well the Iraqi government meets its benchmarks and no matter how well our troops succeed in Iraq, the surrender must begin no later than Oct. 1,” said Senator Mitch McConnell (R-half wit of Kentucky), the Republican leader. But Democrats urged the president to sign the legislation, saying the pullout was a reasonable goal and that the president’s strategy was not working. “This war has dragged on too long, and I think we should remind ourselves that we’ve been in this war longer than we were in World War II, and we thought that was an eternity,” said Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii. He and others noted that the legislation would pump needed money into military health care in the wake of disclosures of poor conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. In all, the measure includes $1.8 billion for veterans’ health care that was not in the White House request. The bill provides $95.5 billion for operations, mainly in Iraq and Afghanistan — $4 billion more than sought by the president. The legislation also includes $6.9 billion for recovery along the Gulf Coast, compared to $3.4 billion sought by the White House. It allocates $650 million on children’s health programs, $400 million on home heating aid and $500 million on wildfire control. The measure would also provide $3.5 billion to the nation’s farmers, but the Democratic negotiators dropped other farm aid in the wake of accusations from Mr. Bush and Republicans that the bill had been larded with special interest provisions to attract enough votes for passage. Among the spending eliminated was money for spinach growers, Christmas tree farmers, shrimp fisherman and sugar cane growers. Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, said the extra spending was still excessive, causing Representative David R. Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin and chairman of the Appropriations Committee, to bristle. “I’m willing to stand by every single item in this bill,” he said. Aware that the votes do not exist to override the veto, lawmakers said they expect that Congress and Mr. Bush would eventually agree on a spending measure without the specific timetable, but with benchmarks for the Iraqi government. Mr. Reid, the majority leader, said the measure was just one aspect of the Democratic push to force Mr. Bush to reconsider his Iraq policy. He acknowledged that the approach might not satisfy war opponents who supported Democrats in the past election in order to end the conflict, but said it was nearly impossible to do more without Republican support, given the tight margins in Congress. “I understand the restlessness that some feel,” said Mr. Reid, who last week drew criticism for suggesting the war was already lost. “Many who voted for change in November anticipated dramatic and immediate results in January. But like it or not, George W. Bush is still the commander in chief, and this is his war.”