Talk about your hard-fought victories, this one looked like it might not happen at all. The [tag]House[/tag] Democratic leadership put together the “U.S. [tag]Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Health and Iraq Accountability Act[/tag],” which, among other things, would set a [tag]timeline[/tag] to bring troops home from [tag]Iraq[/tag] by Sept. 1, 2008. It represents the biggest shift in policy on the [tag]war[/tag] since it began.
And Democratic opposition nearly sunk the whole thing. Many progressive House Dems formed the [tag]Out of Iraq[/tag] Caucus, which calls for an immediate withdrawal. Most of them actively opposed today’s legislation because it delays the end of the war until next year. At the same time, conservative Dems in the Blue Dog Caucus expressed reservations on setting a timeline at all. All the while, 99% of House Republican said they’d oppose any Democratic effort to affect war policy.
It was a real test of Speaker [tag]Pelosi[/tag]’s leadership. Today, she passed.
A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress’ boldest challenge yet to the administration’s policy.
Ignoring a [tag]White House[/tag] [tag]veto[/tag] threat, 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 (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. “The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not.”
The 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. Bush has insisted that lawmakers allow more time for his strategy of sending nearly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq to work.
Several liberal lawmakers (Kucinich, Waters, Woolsey) voted against it, and I’ll concede it’s far from perfect, but I consider today a big win for critics of the war.
In case you’ve forgotten, here’s the plan: Bush would have until July 1 to demonstrate progress on his own benchmark plan. If the administration can’t demonstrate improvements, combat troops would be withdrawn by the end of this year. If the president can point to actual signs of political and military progress, troops would begin withdrawing by March 1, 2008 and all combat troops would have to be out by Aug. 31.
In some ways, the House Dems’ plan simply takes Bush’s plan and adds teeth. The president unveiled tough benchmarks for the Iraqi government in January, but there were no consequences for failure. Now, there are.
No one can accuse the policy of undercutting the troops — it fully funds the military (and then some), including resources for redeployment. It also includes $3.5 billion for improving military hospitals and veterans hospitals, and provides additional funds for veterans suffering with traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, or severe burn scarring. And what about Murtha’s readiness policy? It’s in there too — if Bush chooses to violate the military’s basic guidelines and send U.S. soldiers into combat without proper training and equipment, he must sign a waiver and explain his actions.
This was a major hurdle to clear, but it only gets more interesting moving forward. The Senate will begin debate as early as Monday on its own Iraq bill, which also calls for a troop withdrawal, but has several key differences from the House version (the Senate plan, for example, does not include a date-certain deadline). Plus, Senate Dems will need 60 votes, which means picking up about a dozen GOP votes.
And, of course, Bush has vowed to veto anything that doesn’t give him everything he wants, without conditions — even if that means rejecting the very bill that funds the war itself.
Nevertheless, today is encouraging. To see how individual members voted, check the roll call, which was just published online.