Democrats Want Iraq Pullout by Fall 2008

The plan, described in a Capitol Hill news conference by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other Democratic leaders, would require Bush to certify that the Iraqi government is meeting military, political and economic benchmarks. If he cannot, it would move up the U.S. withdrawal to as early as the end of this year.

Regardless of Iraqi progress in meeting the benchmarks, the plan calls for the gradual redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq starting March 1, 2008, and ending within six months.

The plan represents the toughest congressional challenge to Bush's Iraq war policy to date. It also marks the first time that Democrats, who took control of Congress in last year's midterm elections, have set a firm deadline for pulling U.S. combat troops out of Iraq after four years of an increasingly unpopular war that has left nearly 3,200 Americans dead and more than 23,000 wounded.

Democrats hope to attract Republican support for the bill by pointing out that it includes military funding beyond the level requested by Bush, adding money for health care for returning service members and veterans in the wake of a scandal over the treatment of wounded outpatient soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Dubbed the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans Health and Iraq Accountability Act, the bill requires the Pentagon to stick to its standards for training and equipping combat troops being sent abroad, and it enforces rules that limit their tours to no more than 13 months and stipulate that they have to stay home for at least a year between tours.

The bill also shifts more resources into the war in Afghanistan, where Democrats say the real war on terrorism should be fought to prevent the resurgence of the radical Islamic Taliban movement and the al-Qaeda terrorist network that attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

"This bill takes giant steps toward putting resources into that war, a war that is unfinished and nearly forgotten by the administration," Pelosi said in announcing the proposed legislation.

Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) said the bill was designed in part to improve U.S. military readiness, which he said has declined sharply because of strains caused by the war in Iraq.

He said that although Bush asked for $91 billion in an emergency appropriation to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Democratic bill provides $95.5 billion, including extra money for military health care, housing allowances, maintenance, training and equipment.

The bill also includes funding for non-military items, including Gulf Coast recovering efforts and agricultural disaster assistance, bringing the total proposed appropriation to more than $105 billion.

Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said Democrats plan to mark up the bill in his committee next week and bring it to the House floor for a vote the following week.

The proposal immediately came under attack from the House Republican leader, Rep. John A. Boehner of Ohio, who accused Democrats of offering a bill that would cause the U.S. mission in Iraq to fail and hand terrorists a victory.

The commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, "should be the one making the decisions about what happens on the ground in Iraq, not Nancy Pelosi or John Murtha," Boehner told reporters.

He added in a statement: "Democrats are using a critical troop funding bill to micromanage the war on terror, undermine our generals on the ground, and slowly choke off resources for our troops. Under the guise of supporting our troops, Democrats are actually mandating their failure." He vowed that Republicans would vigorously oppose the Democratic plan, which he called "a road map for terrorists."

In the Senate, Democrats held a closed-door meeting to consider a different approach to ending the war: a proposal to set a goal of U.S. troop withdrawal by March 2008.

Sen. John F. Kerry later issued a statement supporting the House Democrats' deadline proposal.

"That's an excellent start and that's what I will continue to fight for here in the Senate," Kerry said. "Real solutions demand a real exit strategy. American soldiers shouldn't continue to pay the price for the stubbornness of Iraqi politicians and a stubborn policy from this administration."

Obey said the House bill "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 and who are giving al-Qaeda sanctuary." The bill also "will attack the neglect of our returning troops and veterans who are badly in need of health care," he said, attempting to rectify a situation that was brought to the nation's attention by disclosures last month of substandard housing and bureaucratic inertia affecting outpatient soldiers at Walter Reed.

In addition, the bill "will set a timeline for bringing the United States' participation in Iraq's civil war to an orderly and responsible close," Obey said.

Among other things, he said, it provides about $3.5 billion in additional funding above Bush's request "to deal with the problems faced by returning servicemen and returning veterans by way of health care."

To help deal with an expected spring offensive by the Taliban in Afghanistan, the bill adds $1.2 billion to Bush's funding request for military operations in that country.

As explained by the Democrats, the plan to withdraw U.S. combat troops from Iraq requires Bush to hold the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to benchmarks that Bush himself has set in calling for progress toward national reconciliation. While setting out steps he expects the Iraqi government to take, however, Bush has steadfastly refused to set any sort of a timetable or to spell out penalties for failing to meet the commitments.

Under the plan, Bush must certify by July 1 that there is progress in meeting the benchmarks. If such certification is not submitted, the proposed legislation calls for the United States to then begin withdrawing its troops from Iraq on a six-month timetable.

If Bush provides the initial certification, he must subsequently certify by Oct. 1 that the Iraqis have finished meeting the benchmarks. If the second certification is not forthcoming, the 180-day withdrawal period would start then, with completion of it set for the end of March 2008.

Regardless of whether the Iraqis meet the benchmarks or not, the United States must start withdrawing combat troops from Iraq by March 1, 2008, and complete the process by the end of August, according to the plan.

"No matter what, by March 2008 the redeployments begin," Pelosi told reporters in explaining the timetable.

She said she hopes to enlist the support of liberal Democrats who want a more rapid, less conditioned troop withdrawal.

"We will come together and find our common ground," Pelosi said. "I believe in the end we will be unified." She said she hopes strong opponents of the war will be swayed when "they see there are dates certain here for the first time in Congress for the redeployment of our troops out of Iraq."

Of Republicans, she said, "We hope they would be supportive of a supplemental that provides for the equipping and preparation of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan."

She declined to address the prospect of a presidential veto, saying, "We're at stage one. We have to pass the bill." She added that her overall advice to her colleagues has been to "never confine your best work . . . to what will be signed by George W. Bush, because that is too limiting a factor."

The proposed House legislation would require the Defense Department to adhere to its existing standards for equipping and training U.S. troops sent overseas and for regulating the duration and frequency of combat tours.

"We should not be sending our troops into battle without the proper training, without the proper equipment," and without giving them sufficient time at home, Pelosi said.

However, the proposal would permit the president to formally waive these standards. While it would be politically risky for Bush to issue such a waiver, the provision would allow him to proceed with his plan to deploy more than 21,500 additional combat troops to Iraq over the next few months. Most of the reinforcements are Army soldiers being sent to Baghdad to help implement a security plan for the war-ravaged Iraqi capital.

Murtha said in an interview that he believes Bush will not be able to certify the troops being sent to Iraq as rested and ready, but also will not be able to invoke a waiver for political reasons. He said that means troops could begin coming home by the end of this year.

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) expressed concern that the Democrats were trying to buy GOP votes with lavish spending on veterans and military health care, agriculture subsidies and other measures popular with lawmakers.

Rep. F. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), a leader of the conservative Blue Dog caucus of House Democrats, refused to commit himself on the plan, but he and other conservatives were leaning toward supporting it.

"Many of us don't want to play general, but we know the policies that have been laid out by the civilian leadership of this administration aren't working," he said.

Boyd said that if the bill is what is needed to get that message to the White House, he may have to vote for it.

Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kan.), who also represents a Republican-leaning district, said she would vote for the deal.

"It's not perfect, but it's the best balance we can get," she said.

Democratic leaders concede they have more problems with the liberal wing of their party than with the conservatives.

Nevertheless, some antiwar firebrands were ready to sign on. Rep. Carol Shay-Porter (D-N.H.), said that for the first time there are firm dates to end the war, and she indicated that this should get her vote.

"This has been agonizing for be, but I recognize at one point, there has to be a meeting of the minds, and a recognition that this is the best we can get," she said.

But other antiwar Democrats were adamantly opposed.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said she could not accept legislation that relies on Bush to certify that benchmarks are being met in Iraq or that the troops are rested and trained.

"They're asking me to trust the president of the United States, who everybody agrees has mismanaged, misled and lied to us," she said.

Yes, Waters said, the legislation is supposed to get the troops out of combat by Aug. 31, 2008, regardless of Bush's actions. But, she added, for many Democrats, that is far too late.