Bush-Congress showdown over Iraq intensifies

WASHINGTON -- A Senate vote yesterday linking money for the Iraq war to a timetable for withdrawal sets up a standoff that could define the path of the war and appears likely to shape the remainder of the president's term , lawmakers in both parties said.

The 51-to-47 Senate vote -- taken six days after the House approved a similar measure, also by a close margin -- launches a course that Democrats and Republicans agree is virtually inevitable: The House and Senate will reconcile their bills and pass a measure that ties money for the war to a timeline for troop withdrawal; the president will veto it; and Democrats will fail to override the veto, leaving funding for the war mission in jeopardy.

"We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we've got a troop in harm's way, we expect that troop to be fully funded," Bush said yesterday at the White House, with Republican House members fanned out behind him. "And [when] we've got commanders making tough decisions on the ground, we expect there to be no strings on our commanders."

Though Democrats are loath to cut off funds for the war, they are facing growing pressure from the party's liberal wing to do just that. And conservative Democrats fear that if they do anything that appears to undercut the war mission, it could leave the party vulnerable to GOP attacks that they knowingly are jeopardizing troops in combat.

For now, though, Democratic leaders are celebrating their unity on Iraq and urging Bush to compromise with them -- and accept that the country wants him to begin bringing troops home.

"The ball is in the president's court," said Senate majority leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat. "We're satisfied that we've done the people's work. What is in this bill regarding Iraq is what the American people said they wanted Nov. 7 and what they have said in a more amplified manner since then."

Still, with the party divided over how far it should push efforts to end the war, most Democrats acknowledge there is little they can do other than apply political pressure on Bush. And with the 2008 elections looming, there is almost no chance they would allow funding for the troops to run out; many compare the scenario to the Republican Congress's 1995 budget showdown with President Clinton, when the GOP paid a heavy political price for being perceived as causing a federal government shutdown.

One option Democrats are strongly considering is approving funds for the war only on a month-by-month basis. That would put the president's conduct on a short leash and allow opposition to the war to build, which could compel reluctant lawmakers to the point where Democrats gain enough votes to defeat a presidential veto and force Bush's hand.

"Every day that goes by, we get closer to getting a majority" willing to cut off funds for the war, said Representative Michael E. Capuano, a Somerville Democrat. "Political realities will continue to set in for people."

As yesterday's Senate vote demonstrated -- only two Republicans crossed party lines to vote with Democrats -- the president can still depend on a relatively unified GOP caucus to support his war plans. Republicans blasted the Democrats' bill, saying that setting a withdrawal date would allow terrorists to prevail by waiting out the United States.

"Their victory is certain if we withdraw," said Senator John Ensign, a Nevada Republican. "We need to give the troop-surge plan time to succeed. We all must hope for its success."

The Bush administration has warned that unless Congress approves more money for the war by April 15, troops in the field will be short-changed. Democrats, however, contend that the president has already been given enough funds to wage the war through at least mid-June and could keep it going much longer by redirecting money from other Defense Department accounts.

Republicans are already preparing their argument blaming Democrats for a failure in Iraq if funding isn't approved promptly. Still, with public support for the war continuing to slide, even stalwart supporters of the White House acknowledge that they have work to do convincing voters of the stakes.

"We probably failed in our debate," said Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican. "The American people need to be informed that this really is taking over from General [David] Petraeus, sabotaging a plan, and could very well result in defeat. This act alone could very well result in moving us from a successful outcome to a failure."

The Senate bill would provide $123 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and require the president to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of becoming law. It would set a goal of ending combat operations by the end of March 2008, though this deadline would be nonbinding.

The House passed similar legislation last week, though its version would require combat troops to come home by September 2008. Lawmakers began discussions yesterday to reconcile the differences between the bills -- including the withdrawal deadlines -- to deliver a final version to the president's desk, though next week's congressional recess could delay a final product by more than a week.

Though the president has left no doubt that he will veto the measure, Democrats urged him to reconsider and follow a less confrontational path. Senator John F. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said Bush could demonstrate a willingness to work with Congress by discussing withdrawal strategies in the context of a diplomatic push that could bring peace to Iraq.

"If the administration is willing to have a legitimate discussion, maybe we can advance this," Kerry said. "The administration needs to decide whether they want to have a serious talk about how you resolve our interests in the Middle East or whether they want to continue down this stubborn path."