By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
November 14, 2007
WASHINGTON - Three leading House anti-war Democrats said they
now back a $50 billion bill that funds the war but calls for
most troops to come home by December 2008. Their support paves
the way for the bill's passage Wednesday.
The trio, California Reps. Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Maxine
Waters, represent a liberal anti-war caucus that last week
expressed opposition to the measure on the grounds it was too
soft and did not demand an end to combat.
The bill requires that President Bush initiate troop withdrawals
within 30 days of its passage with the goal of bringing home
most soldiers and Marines by Dec. 15, 2008.
The White House said Bush would veto the bill if it comes
to him. Presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino called the legislation
the "height of irresponsibility," charging Democrats
with merely trying to "appease radical groups" such
as MoveOn.org and Code Pink.
"Once again, the Democratic leadership is starting this
debate with a flawed strategy, including a withdrawal date
for Iraq, despite the gains our military has made over the
past year, despite having dozens of similar votes in the past
that have failed, and despite their pledge to support the troops," she
said. "Democrats believe that these votes will somehow
punish the president, but it actually punishes the troops."
A provision added to the bill, to satisfy liberal caucus members,
states that the primary purpose of the $50 billion included
in the bill "should be to transition the mission" and
redeploy troops in Iraq, "not to extend or prolong the
war."
The measure is largely a symbolic jab at Bush, who has already
begun withdrawing some troops but fiercely rejects the notion
of setting a timetable for the war.
"While this bill is not perfect, it is the strongest
Iraq bill to date," the Democratic trio wrote in a joint
statement. "This is the first time that this Congress
has put forth a bill that ties funding to the responsible redeployment
of our troops, and it also includes language mandating a start
date for the president to begin the redeployment of our brave
men and women."
Woolsey, Lee and Waters said they remained disappointed that
the 2008 date was a nonbinding goal that Bush could ignore.
But, they said they realized the provision made it more likely
that the Senate could pass it.
"This is a concrete step in the right direction, and
an important marker for this Congress to lay down," they
wrote.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters on
Wednesday that he anticipates the bill will pass.
Similar legislation has repeatedly passed along party lines
in the House only to sink in the Senate, where Democrats hold
a razor-thin majority and 60 votes are needed to overcome procedural
hurdles.
It is expected that if the measure fails in the Senate, Democrats
will not consider Bush's war spending request until next year.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that if it
does pass and Bush rejects the bill, "then the president
won't get his $50 billion."
The money included in the bill represents about a quarter
of Bush's $196 billion war spending request for the 2008 budget
year, which began Oct. 1.
Democrats say the military won't need the money until early
next year. Until then, the Pentagon can transfer money from
less urgent accounts or fourth quarter spending to cover costs,
they say.
The Pentagon says moving money around is a bureaucratic nightmare
that costs more in the long-run. And if taken to the extreme,
the military would eventually have to freeze contracts or lay
off civilian workers to ensure troops in combat have what they
need.
In another provision sure to draw White House opposition,
the House bill would require that all government interrogators
rely on the Army's field manual. The Army's manual was updated
in 2006 to specifically ban the military from using aggressive
interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding.
The bill also requires that the president certify to Congress
15 days in advance that a unit being sent into combat is "fully
mission capable," although Bush could waive that requirement
if necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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. BadConcress.com has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is BadCongress.com
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
|
