Sparks Fly Over Iraq Vote

Bush Blasts Democrats After House Passes Bill Setting Deadline For Troop Withdrawal

(CBS/AP)  A sharply divided House of Representatives delivered a stinging rebuke to President Bush on Friday, voting to order him to bring combat troops home from Iraq by the fall of next year.

Just over an hour later, an angry Mr. Bush accused Democrats of staging nothing more than an "act of political theater" and said that if the spending bill is not approved and signed into law by April 15, troops and their families "will face significant disruptions."

Ignoring Mr. Bush's promised veto, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a binding war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not."

Joined at the White House by veterans and service family members, Mr. Bush said: "A narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law and brings us no closer to getting the troops the resources they need to do their job.

"These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen."

The House vote, echoing clashes between lawmakers and the White House over the Vietnam War four decades ago, pushed the Democratic-led Congress a step closer to a constitutional collision with the wartime commander in chief. Mr. Bush has insisted that lawmakers allow more time for his strategy of sending nearly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq to work.

CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports that the bill also requires troops get a year's rest between tours of duty — making it difficult to maintain the President's troop surge.

The roll call also marked a triumph for Pelosi, who labored in recent days to bring together a Democratic caucus deeply divided over the war. Some of the party's more liberal members voted against the bill because they said it would not end the war immediately, while more conservative Democrats said they were reluctant to take away flexibility from generals in the field.

But to get enough members of their own party on board, Attkisson reports, Democrats practically had to buy votes by tacking on billion of dollars in pet projects that have nothing to do with the War on terror — including special-interest money for spinach, tropical fish, citrus ... $13 billion worth in all.

Republicans were almost completely unified in their fight against the bill, which they said was tantamount to admitting failure in Iraq.

"The stakes in Iraq are too high and the sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families too great to be content with anything but success," said Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

Voting for the bill were 216 Democrats and two Republicans — Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland and Walter Jones of North Carolina. Of the 212 members who opposed the bill, 198 were Republicans and 14 were Democrats.

The bill marks the first time Congress has used its budget power to try to end the war, now in its fifth year, by attaching the withdrawal requirements to a bill providing $124 billion to finance military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of this year.

Excluding the funds in the House-passed bill, Congress has so far provided more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including about $350 billion for Iraq alone, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. More than 3,200 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since war began in March 2003.

The next step is up to the Senate, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss. Democrats there are backing a bill that has already passed out of committee and funds the war with an even tighter troop pullout deadline — one year instead of 18 months.

They don't have the 60 votes to pass it, but Republicans don't have 60 to fund the war without conditions, either — meaning that will be the first place to start looking for some kind of compromise between letting the president make all the decisions about the war and having Congress decide when it will end.

Attkisson reports that there "no way" the Senate will pass any bill with a firm deadline. The most likely scenario, she says, is that in the end Congress compromises and that President Bush and the troops get their funding — with no deadline.

In Friday's House debate, Democrats said it was time for them to begin influencing the war's path.

"The American public expects the Congress of the United States to do something," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. "Not simply to say 'yes' to failed policies, but to on their behalf, speak out and try to take us in a new direction."

"What we're trying to do in this legislation is force the Iraqis to fight their own war," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who had helped write the bill.

With Democrats holding 233 seats and Republicans with 201, Democrats were able to afford only 15 "no" votes. Accordingly, Pelosi, and her leadership team spent days trying to convince members that the bill was Congress' best chance of forcing Bush to change course. To aid the argument, they added more than $20 billion in domestic spending — labeled pork by detractors — in an effort to lure votes.

They got a breakthrough Thursday when four of the bill's most consistent critics said they would not stand in its way. California Democrats Lynn Woolsey, Diane Watson, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters said they would help round up support for the bill despite their intention to personally vote against it because it would not end the war immediately.

"Despite my steadfast opposition, I have told the speaker that I will work with her to obtain the needed votes to pass the supplemental, but that in the end I must vote my conscience," said Watson.

The Iraq deadline created an unusual dynamic in the sharply partisan Congress. Bush loyalists teamed up with some anti-war liberals in opposing the measure. Conservatives said a firm deadline for the war would tie the hands of military commanders and embolden insurgents after the U.S. left Iraq, whereas many liberals said the bill would continue to bankroll an immoral war for more than a year.

"If you want peace, stop funding this war," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.

"Approval of it means we vote to abandon Iraq at an arbitrary time no matter the situation, said Republican Rep. Ted Poe. It's also "loaded with squealing pork that has nothing to do with our troops or the war," added Poe, R-Texas, referring to the billions of dollars added to the bill to fund domestic programs and attract votes.

But members said Pelosi was able to convince liberal members of her caucus that the legislation was their best shot at challenging the president on the war, even if it fails to become law.

[emhawks]

Bush is angry because he's thinking of all the money he'll lose if America starts to leave Iraq by fall of next year! Hopefully, this will anger our beloved Vice-President enough to cause a fatal heart attack.
"Patriotism is suppporting your country all the time & your government when it deserves it."
- Mark Twain

[louin0]

I think that President Bush should heed the latest vote that was won by the Democrats and see that the war has ended by 2008

[actornaught]

Certainly alot of anger in these posts. I don't think it's an accident that the vast majority of this anger is against the president, and whoever may support him.

As much as I may've participated in name-calling at some posters here, I mostly don't hold it against them. I am sure they are just caught up in the frenzy stirred up by media personalities. The limbaughs, fox's, coulters, etc, should be ashamed of themselves. They've simply taken the cheap insult route, and used limited talents to make money.

I am also angry at the voters that gave this puke of a politician a 2nd chance to shovel money to crooks. Osama wants us bankrupt, and Bush is cooperating. Bush & Co. just disregard THEIR SIDE EFFECT of so many deaths of our best & brightest, among them, my son.

Some posters here are among the minority that feels the need to continue to pour such horrid investment into a misguided commitment to a very defective 'decider'. They should also be ashamed, and reexamine their commitment. I know, I did.

I'm not going to suggest a detailed solution, tho' i can. Nothing that's happening makes any freakin' sense. So whatever we do next doesn't need to make any sense, either. However it gets done, we should leave Iraq as soon as possible. Period.

[wayfedup]

Love her or hate her, Speaker Pelosi has got this one absolutely right.
Posted by heetseeker at 06:26 AM : Mar 24, 2007

heetseeker... perhaps there's hope for you afterall; Open those peepers of yours just a little wider, and see the truth for what it is, and NOT for what "they" tell you it is; I'm pulling for you, guy!

[bm6005]

It was a shameful day in American history.
Posted by mbcsmith

So leave!!

[mcvet]

Yesterday the LIBS in Congress weakened the defense of this nation and BETRAYED our fighting men and women in uniform. It was a shameful day in American history.
Posted by mbcsmith at 10:32 AM : Mar 24, 2007

Well of course! We should never turn on the Fuehrer and cause him to lose face. So what if he attacked the WRONG country and so what if the AMERICAN PEOPLE want him out and us out of Iraq? No big deal to you fascist, you just keep on keepin on. If you ain't with us and our party then you aren't American. All the while the Taliban and Bin Laden just go about their merry business of blowing people up. They say you have to be stupid to carry a swastika, you prove that point. Sieg Heil.

[mcvet]

That question is being worked out in Congress, Pray that we are the Victors or our way of life will be lost forever.
Posted by gunnerv1 at 10:34 AM : Mar 24, 2007

Blab, blab, blab, blab, Liberal's, blab, blab, blab. Do YOU realize the "Enemy" isn't in this nation. That's right Sparky Bush attacked the WRONG country. These people are not going to follow us home, hell they can't even get enough gas to get to the market. You Fascist and your ego's, Your "I'm always right and you're always wrong" is going to distroy this nation. Iraq WAS NO Threat to this nation. The Threat has been ignored and now has rebuilt it's army. I feel sorry for you fascist and your love for your fuehrer. As Incompetent as he's been and with all the LIES he's told all of you, you just keep up with the Party Line. This nation is much more important than your party and WAY more important than your Fuehrer losing face. HE screwed this up, it's a Civil War and we have NO business committing these acts, Invading and occupying a Country. Get over it! We the People Voted and We the People say we need NEW leadership. Sieg Heil

[gunnerv1]

Victory or defeat in this war is going to come at a high price. It will be much, much higher if we have to finish this on our shores. Do you people realize that it won't be over if we just pack up and leave (besides confirming that we are "Paper Tigers") I don't like war (W-e A-re R-ight)and we did not start this one, oh I know that all of the Liberals are going to jump on that one and I don't care. You can qoute or make it up as you go along, but the fact is: we did not start it. The other fact is: We must finish it. Victory is defined as when the opposing force lays down it arms and leaves the field of battle. Now we must define who is the opposing forces. Us or them. That question is being worked out in Congress, Pray that we are the Victors or our way of life will be lost forever.

[mbcsmith]

Yesterday the LIBS in Congress weakened the defense of this nation and BETRAYED our fighting men and women in uniform. It was a shameful day in American history.

[rharrin1]

"It's also "loaded with squealing pork that has nothing to do with our troops or the war," added Poe, R-Texas, referring to the billions of dollars added to the bill to fund domestic programs and attract votes."

Gee is that the same as republicans adding the drilling for oil on to the bottom of the defense budget when they had the majority.

Just goes to show folks republicans do have bad memories or they are just plain stupid.

[omega39-2009]

an angry Mr. Bush accused Democrats of staging nothing more than an "act of political theater"

It reminds me of those resolutions the last house used to pass saying "We support the president's handling of the Iraq war" and then tacking on "we support our troops" so they could go after anyone that voted against it.

What goes around comes around.

[jpesot]

Another reference to Churchill. Hate to break the news to you but Bush ain't him.

Now maybe you can define victory in clear terms, objecitve terms that can be used to detemrine when we have won. Understand.

Please use the kind of terms that one would use to hold a victory celebration on an aircraft carrier. Oooopss, already had that.

Bush's use of the term victory is no such victory. This administration and its suppporters throw around the word victory as if they knew what it meant.

Clearly, they do not.

[pattipace7]

It is situations like this that make me thank the lord for four letter words like VETO.
Who was it that stated: There is only one answer to defeat and that is victory? It was either President Bush or Winston Churchill, someone better explain this reality to Ms Pelosi!

[frankly6]

Bushism:

"You know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror."%u2014Interview with CBS News, Washington D.C., Sept. 6, 2006

[omega39-2009]

"It's also "loaded with squealing pork that has nothing to do with our troops or the war," added Poe, R-Texas, referring to the billions of dollars added to the bill to fund domestic programs and attract votes."

Gee, kind of like those Republican days of old where the votes were kept open for hours while congress people were bribed with bridges to nowhere or trying to tack ANWR on a defense bill. It's really too bad the Reps didn't use the nuclear option as well, I would love to hear them whining about the Dems using that too.

[frankly6]

Bushism:

"You know, when I campaigned here in 2000, I said, I want to be a war President. No President wants to be a war President, but I am one."%u2014Des Moines, Iowa, Oct. 26, 2006

[frankly6]

Bushism:

"The best way to defeat the totalitarian of hate is with an ideology of hope%u2014an ideology of hate%u2014excuse me%u2014with an ideology of hope."%u2014Fort Benning, Ga., Jan. 11, 2007

[tuckerndfw]

What is so hard to understand about the fact that the majority of the American people want US forces withdrawn from Iraq?

It is irrelevant what warmongers, including Bush and his war profiteering cronies, want.

Party affiliation is irrelevant to the fact the majority of Americans no longer support the military occupation of Iraq.

[mcvet]

Bush will veto, and there isn't it a sufficient majority to overturn the veto. So much for the "great mandate"...
Posted by jdweymouth at 12:07 AM : Mar 24, 2007

LOL Well now IF Sir Lies-A-Lot veto's it then he can hardly come back and say the lack of funds to fight the war is because of Democrats now can he. They have made an honest offer to compromise their position and you Nazi's, as usual, have to have it all your way. Not this time Sparky... not this time.

[forthepeaple]

all of you have to remember again that there is no and again NO "EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE" CLAUSE IN OUR CONSTITUTION.. THE SUPREME COURT DEINED NIXON HE TRY TO SAY I HAVE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGES AND THE COURT SAID TRY AGAIN, DEINED

SO LET THE WHITEHOUSE KEEP RUNNING THERE MOUTHS ON THIS. I WILL VETO IT HE SAYS, RIGHT LIKE THAT WILL HAPPEN, HE NEEDS THE MONEY. AND YOU WAIT HE WILL SIGN IT AND DO WHAT HE WANTS ANYWAY, JUST LIKE HE HAS DONE FOR NOW GOING ON 5 YEARS..