As you’ve no doubt heard by now, the House held two big votes on war funding last night, one on partial funding for two months and another on a near-total withdrawal of U.S. forces within nine months. The prior passed, despite a presidential veto threat, and the latter fell short, but the votes are worth taking a closer look at.
The House last night pushed through its second plan to fund the Iraq war and reshape war policy, approving legislation that would provide partial funding for the conflict but hold back most of the money until President Bush reports on the war’s progress in July.
Coming only a week after the Democrats’ first war funding bill was vetoed, the House’s 221 to 205 vote defied a fresh veto threat and even opposition from Democrats in the Senate.
“The president has brought us to this point by vetoing the first Iraq Accountability Act and refusing to pay for this war responsibly,” declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). “He has grown accustomed to the free hand on Iraq he had before January 4. Those days are over.”
On the partial funding measure, let’s not lose sight of the big picture here. As recently as a week ago, the WaPo had a front-page item suggesting House Democratic leaders were already in retreat. As recently as a few days ago, Aravosis reported that conservative Blue Dog Democrats in the House, most of whom voted with the party on the withdrawal timelines, would abandon the party on funding this week.
As it turns out, House Dems not only passed the bill they wanted, the also did much better than expected. As this roll-call vote shows, the Blue Dogs stuck with the party and the same two Republicans who voted with Dems last time did so again. Pelosi’s leadership shouldn’t go by unnoticed here — she’s keeping the caucus together against the president’s policy. Indeed, on the phased withdrawal vote, 14 Dems broke ranks. Last night, that number was just 10. In other words, Democratic standing is getting stronger, not weaker.
As for the other bill, which progressives were keeping a close eye on, it also exceeded expectations.
The final tally came just an hour after antiwar Democrats mustered 171 votes for far tougher legislation that would all but end U.S. military involvement in Iraq within nine months. The 255 to 171 vote against that measure meant that nowhere close to a majority backed it, but the fact that 169 Democrats and two Republicans voted for it surprised opponents and proponents alike.
“I didn’t think I was going to get anywhere near 171 votes,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), the withdrawal bill’s chief author. “This is proof that the United States Congress is getting closer to where the American people already are.”
Here’s the roll call on that bill.
As for the White House’s reaction to all of this, the media is emphasizing the president’s new-found willingness to add benchmarks to the funding bill, but it’s unclear whether Bush means toothless benchmarks (aka, suggestions) or actual benchmarks. Dem leaders are making clear that they have no tolerance for a shell game.
“The President has long said he supports benchmarks; what he fails to accept is accountability for failing to meet those benchmarks,” Pelosi said. “Benchmarks without consequences and enforcement are meaningless, a blank check.”
Stay tuned.