President, Democrats spar on war funding

WASHINGTON -- President Bush yesterday invited Democratic leaders to meet with him to discuss legislation that provides $100 billion for the US war in Iraq, but he ruled out making any concessions to Democrats on their effort to include a timetable for US troop withdrawal.

Moments after he invited Democratic leaders to come to the White House, Bush called Democrats "irresponsible," accusing them of endangering funding for the war and seeking to set what he called an "artificial timetable" for troop withdrawal.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid promptly rejected Bush's offer for the meeting, saying it was unfair for Bush to set preconditions for the discussion. Reid, a former trial lawyer, said, "You never settle a case going in saying, 'You can come and meet with me, but here's what the result's going to be before we meet.' "

Beyond the tough words, however, were signals that both sides intend to play out the political drama over the timetable proposal and then get Bush the money he wants for Iraq. Reid said, "Democrats are determined to make sure the troops have the funds they need." And Bush at one point urged Democrats to pass the legislation even if it includes the timetable so that he could veto it, allowing both sides to move forward on what he called a "clean bill" for funding the war.

The standoff between Bush and Reid -- which occurred while the House remained out of session -- revolves around legislation backed mainly by Democrats that sets timetables or goals by which US troops should be withdrawn. The bill also includes $100 billion needed for US troops in Iraq and $20 billion in domestic spending, including some programs Bush has criticized as wasteful.

The House version of the bill calls for the withdrawal of most US troops by the end of August 2008, while the Senate bill sets a nonbinding goal of withdrawing troops by the end of March 2008. The two chambers will meet soon to reconcile the differences between the two bills, and Bush's speech yesterday before the American Legion in Virginia was intended to try to influence the outcome of that meeting. The narrow passage of the measure in both chambers has left little doubt that if Bush follows through on his threat to veto the legislation, there would not be enough votes to override the veto.

Democratic leaders have stressed that their proposal would not cut off funding. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said on ABC-TV on Sunday, "We're not going to vote to cut funding, period." That comment prompted the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, to say yesterday that there is "a debate among Democrats, Senator Levin taking one position and Senator Reid taking another, on the advisability of cutting off funds for the troops."

Reid has called for cutting off funding, but only if Bush fails to meet the Senate goal of withdrawing troops by the end of March 2008. Reid played down any disagreement yesterday, saying he supports funding for the troops but wants the money to be directed toward encouraging a political solution in Iraq.

"Our legislation says that the goal would be by April 1 of next year to . . . have our troops coming home," Reid said. "So I think the president needs to look at what we're trying to [do]. We're trying to be reasonable."

Reid said Bush's call for a meeting with Democrats and refusal to negotiate about a timetable show that the president hasn't adjusted to a Democratic-controlled Congress. "The president is now having to deal with a Congress," Reid said. "He has never had to do that before. The president in the past, he has just done whatever he wanted. He had a big rubber stamp up here on Capitol Hill."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Bush would not use a meeting with Democrats to negotiate a timetable for withdrawal.

"This is not a meeting in order to compromise," Perino said. "This is a meeting to discuss the way forward, because the Democrats have to admit that they don't have the votes to override the president's veto. And at the same time, they say that they want to fund the troops. So at some point, the Democrats are going to have to come to a consensus on how to move forward. And a meeting with the president is a chance for the leaders to get together -- leadership from both parties -- to sit down and figure out how they're going to do that."

Some Democrats, such as Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, a presidential candidate, have criticized Democratic leaders for agreeing to continue to fund the war. Kucinich has said the House-passed bill, even with the requirement that most troops leave by the end of August 2008, means that "Washington has said more war."

Late yesterday, in a statement issued jointly by Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the two Democratic leaders stressed anew that they would continue funding the war while pressuring Bush to accept a timetable. "We renew our request to work with [Bush] to produce a bipartisan bill that provides our troops and our veterans with every penny they need, but in turn, demands accountability," the Democratic leaders said.