wrigley
2
Democrats Seek Withdrawal of Troops From Iraq in 2008 :houra
By Nicholas Johnston
March 8 (Bloomberg) -- House Democrats said they will seek to force the withdrawal next year of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, a proposal that President George W. Bush's aides immediately said he would veto.
The Democrat's withdrawal requirement will be attached to a war-spending measure and is intended to refocus military attention on the U.S. fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Democrats said.
``The proposal that we are talking about today will essentially redirect more of our resources to the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, fighting the right war in the right place against the people who attacked us,'' Representative David Obey, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, told reporters.
Bush would veto the Democratic plan, White House spokesman Dan Bartlett said.
``The administration would vehemently oppose and, ultimately, veto any legislation that looks like what was described today,'' Bartlett said aboard Air Force One as Bush headed to Brazil at the start of a five-nation visit to Latin America.
Senate Legislation
In the Senate, Democrats introduced a separate measure today that would revise the 2002 congressional authorization for the use of force in Iraq and require most U.S. troops to be withdrawn by March 31, 2008. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he wants the Senate to take up the resolution next week.
``This is, in effect, a resolution to end the Iraq war,'' said Senator Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat.
Under the House legislation, Bush would have to certify that the Iraqi government is making progress in bringing peace to the nation on July 1 and again on October 1, for U.S. troops to remain in the country. Even if the Iraqis meet those conditions, U.S. troop withdrawals would have to begin by March 1, 2008, and be completed within six months.
``It will set a timeline for bringing U.S. participation in Iraq's civil war to an orderly and responsible close,'' Obey said.
Killed
More than 3,100 U.S. military personnel have been killed in Iraq since the U.S. invaded in March 2003.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said House Democrats would be ``unified'' on the legislation, even after struggling to reach a consensus on a policy since passing a resolution last month that ``disapproves'' of Bush's strategy to send more U.S. troops to the war-torn country.
Before Democratic leaders finished presenting the new legislation to their colleagues, a group of party lawmakers who oppose the war denounced the measure.
``Here we are depending on the president and whatever he tells us about progress,'' California Democrat Lynn Woolsey said. ``Are we to believe we're going to get good information from the president?''
Woolsey and other members of a Democratic group calling for a quicker withdrawal from Iraq introduced an amendment to the spending bill that would require U.S. troops to withdraw by the end of this year.
`Home'
``We want our troops home with their families by Christmastime,'' Woolsey said. ``It's not enough to put restrictions on the president he will surely waive.''
Pelosi said no decisions had been made on the consideration of amendments. Debate in committee is to begin next week with consideration by the full House the following week.
``I believe in the end we'll be unified,'' Pelosi said.
Democrats who had expressed skepticism about putting undue restraints on military commanders in the field said it appeared that the measure introduced today would meet their approval.
``I think it is sufficiently broad to bring in enough of my colleagues,'' Dennis Cardoza of California said. Kansas Democrat Nancy Boyda said it strikes a ``good balance.''
Some U.S. forces would be allowed to remain in the country to continue training Iraq security forces and to protect U.S. diplomatic installations under the measure unveiled today.
House Republicans have pledged to oppose any war spending bill that includes too many provisions that tie Bush's hands.
``I'm going to vote against this if they try to micromanage the war,'' Illinois Republican Ray LaHood said. ``It's a no- brainer for me and it will be a no-brainer for a lot of Republicans.
$1.2 Billion
Democrats said their plan would provide $1.2 billion more than the administration requested for the conflict in Afghanistan. The measure would also add $3.5 billion for programs aiding recuperating soldiers, especially those with brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The legislation would also provide more than $12 billion for domestic programs unrelated to the war, including $2.5 billion to improve security at the nation's ports, airports and borders, $1 billion to buy pandemic flu vaccines and $2.9 billion to Gulf Coast states recovering from Hurricane Katrina.
The measure would have to pass the House and Senate, and would be subject to a Bush veto.
Reid announced the new Senate proposal after an afternoon meeting of Senate Democrats to find consensus on Iraq legislation. Senate Democrats were thwarted by Republicans in an effort to pass the House's nonbinding resolution because of disagreements over what alternative measures would be considered.
Authorization
The binding proposal introduced today says the original authorization for the war is no longer valid and that U.S. troops shouldn't be policing an Iraqi civil war. Like the House measure, it would allow some troops to remain for security and training.
Bush in January ordered the deployment of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq to improve security amid a growing insurgency against foreign forces and violence between Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority and Sunni Muslim minority.
The U.S. military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, said the deployment of the additional soldiers and Marines will be complete by early June. There are about 141,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now, including the first arrivals who are part on Bush's increase.
``We are receiving about one brigade per month,'' Petraeus said today in a news conference televised from Baghdad by the Pentagon. ``The combat forces should all be here and into location by early June.''
To contact the reporter on this story: Nicholas Johnston in Washington at
By Nicholas Johnston
March 8 (Bloomberg) -- House Democrats said they will seek to force the withdrawal next year of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, a proposal that President George W. Bush's aides immediately said he would veto.
The Democrat's withdrawal requirement will be attached to a war-spending measure and is intended to refocus military attention on the U.S. fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Democrats said.
``The proposal that we are talking about today will essentially redirect more of our resources to the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, fighting the right war in the right place against the people who attacked us,'' Representative David Obey, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, told reporters.
Bush would veto the Democratic plan, White House spokesman Dan Bartlett said.
``The administration would vehemently oppose and, ultimately, veto any legislation that looks like what was described today,'' Bartlett said aboard Air Force One as Bush headed to Brazil at the start of a five-nation visit to Latin America.
Senate Legislation
In the Senate, Democrats introduced a separate measure today that would revise the 2002 congressional authorization for the use of force in Iraq and require most U.S. troops to be withdrawn by March 31, 2008. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he wants the Senate to take up the resolution next week.
``This is, in effect, a resolution to end the Iraq war,'' said Senator Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat.
Under the House legislation, Bush would have to certify that the Iraqi government is making progress in bringing peace to the nation on July 1 and again on October 1, for U.S. troops to remain in the country. Even if the Iraqis meet those conditions, U.S. troop withdrawals would have to begin by March 1, 2008, and be completed within six months.
``It will set a timeline for bringing U.S. participation in Iraq's civil war to an orderly and responsible close,'' Obey said.
Killed
More than 3,100 U.S. military personnel have been killed in Iraq since the U.S. invaded in March 2003.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said House Democrats would be ``unified'' on the legislation, even after struggling to reach a consensus on a policy since passing a resolution last month that ``disapproves'' of Bush's strategy to send more U.S. troops to the war-torn country.
Before Democratic leaders finished presenting the new legislation to their colleagues, a group of party lawmakers who oppose the war denounced the measure.
``Here we are depending on the president and whatever he tells us about progress,'' California Democrat Lynn Woolsey said. ``Are we to believe we're going to get good information from the president?''
Woolsey and other members of a Democratic group calling for a quicker withdrawal from Iraq introduced an amendment to the spending bill that would require U.S. troops to withdraw by the end of this year.
`Home'
``We want our troops home with their families by Christmastime,'' Woolsey said. ``It's not enough to put restrictions on the president he will surely waive.''
Pelosi said no decisions had been made on the consideration of amendments. Debate in committee is to begin next week with consideration by the full House the following week.
``I believe in the end we'll be unified,'' Pelosi said.
Democrats who had expressed skepticism about putting undue restraints on military commanders in the field said it appeared that the measure introduced today would meet their approval.
``I think it is sufficiently broad to bring in enough of my colleagues,'' Dennis Cardoza of California said. Kansas Democrat Nancy Boyda said it strikes a ``good balance.''
Some U.S. forces would be allowed to remain in the country to continue training Iraq security forces and to protect U.S. diplomatic installations under the measure unveiled today.
House Republicans have pledged to oppose any war spending bill that includes too many provisions that tie Bush's hands.
``I'm going to vote against this if they try to micromanage the war,'' Illinois Republican Ray LaHood said. ``It's a no- brainer for me and it will be a no-brainer for a lot of Republicans.
$1.2 Billion
Democrats said their plan would provide $1.2 billion more than the administration requested for the conflict in Afghanistan. The measure would also add $3.5 billion for programs aiding recuperating soldiers, especially those with brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The legislation would also provide more than $12 billion for domestic programs unrelated to the war, including $2.5 billion to improve security at the nation's ports, airports and borders, $1 billion to buy pandemic flu vaccines and $2.9 billion to Gulf Coast states recovering from Hurricane Katrina.
The measure would have to pass the House and Senate, and would be subject to a Bush veto.
Reid announced the new Senate proposal after an afternoon meeting of Senate Democrats to find consensus on Iraq legislation. Senate Democrats were thwarted by Republicans in an effort to pass the House's nonbinding resolution because of disagreements over what alternative measures would be considered.
Authorization
The binding proposal introduced today says the original authorization for the war is no longer valid and that U.S. troops shouldn't be policing an Iraqi civil war. Like the House measure, it would allow some troops to remain for security and training.
Bush in January ordered the deployment of 21,500 additional troops to Iraq to improve security amid a growing insurgency against foreign forces and violence between Iraq's Shiite Muslim majority and Sunni Muslim minority.
The U.S. military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, said the deployment of the additional soldiers and Marines will be complete by early June. There are about 141,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now, including the first arrivals who are part on Bush's increase.
``We are receiving about one brigade per month,'' Petraeus said today in a news conference televised from Baghdad by the Pentagon. ``The combat forces should all be here and into location by early June.''
To contact the reporter on this story: Nicholas Johnston in Washington at
