6:33 AM PDT, May 4, 2007 Jobs    Cars   
Real Estate
   Apartments    Shopping  |   Weather    Traffic  

National News

Single page   Print   E-mail story     Small Text Size Regular Text Size Large Text Size Change text size
THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ: PULLOUT PLAN

Congress sets terms of Iraq exit

Like the House, the Senate passes a war funding bill with troop withdrawal dates. Bush promises a veto.
By Noam N. Levey, Times Staff Writer
April 27, 2007

WASHINGTON — In an act unparalleled since the Vietnam War, Congress passed legislation Thursday that directs the president to begin bringing home U.S. troops from Iraq and extricating America from the midst of a bloody civil war.

The historic 51-46 Senate vote for a $124-billion war spending bill — which followed House passage of the measure Wednesday — thrust a withdrawal timeline on a fiercely resistant White House.

It came even as the top commander in Iraq appealed for more time, saying the United States is "just getting started."

Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, on his first return to Washington since he took command, said Thursday at a Pentagon news conference that the war was "going to require enormous commitment, and commitment over time."

The widely respected commander declined to say how long he believed the current troop levels would be needed, and warned, "This effort may get harder before it gets easier."

Bush has repeatedly criticized Congress for interfering with military decisions and has pledged to veto the spending measure as soon as it reaches his desk next week.

Democratic lawmakers acknowledge they do not have the votes to override a veto, but have defiantly promised to pass more legislation to try to bring the divisive, four-year war to a close.

"Under the Constitution, Congress has a duty to question the war policies of this or any president," said 89-year-old Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.V.), who began serving in Congress before the Vietnam War. "We must listen to the voices of the people. And the American people have sent a very clear message to Washington. It is time to start to bring our troops home from Iraq. The Congress has responded."

The White House quickly condemned the vote, although Bush himself made no public comment. Spokeswoman Dana Perino described it as "defeatist legislation that insists on a date for surrender, micromanages our commanders and generals in combat zones from 6,000 miles away and adds billions of dollars in unrelated spending."

Despite weeks of speeches deriding Democrats for meddling in the war, the president did not swing a single vote in Congress. And recent polls show that popular support for withdrawing troops actually increased while Bush was aggressively attacking the Democrats for their timeline.

The complex measure that Democrats pushed through Congress funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and provides billions of dollars for veterans' healthcare, relief for hurricane-damaged Gulf Coast states and other nonmilitary programs. It does not cut funding for military operations in Iraq.

Nor are its limits on the military unprecedented. Over the last three decades, lawmakers have repeatedly dictated how and when American forces can operate abroad, including in Central America, Somalia and the Balkans. But by explicitly setting the terms for an end to U.S. involvement in a war, this Congress has gone further than any since the Vietnam era.

Then, lawmakers imposed limits on what the armed forces could do, ordering troops out of Cambodia after President Nixon's controversial 1970 incursion.

But Congress did not finally ban U.S. military operations in Southeast Asia until after the Paris peace accords were signed in 1973. And lawmakers did not cut funding until all U.S. forces had been withdrawn.

In contrast, Democrats have pushed through a far more confrontational plan that would require the president to wind down the Iraq war. And they did this less than four months after taking power in an election widely viewed as a referendum on Bush's conduct of the war.

The Democratic plan ties the withdrawal to the performance of the Iraqi government, which American officials and lawmakers have repeatedly criticized for not moving quickly enough to reduce violence between Shiites and Sunni Arabs.

If Bush fails to certify that the Iraqi government is making progress on a series of "reconciliation initiatives" — including disarming militias and equitably dividing oil revenue among the country's ethnic and sectarian groups — withdrawals must begin July 1.

The plan sets a nonbinding goal of completing the withdrawal within 180 days, which would end the U.S. combat role on Dec. 27.

The measure gives Bush more leeway if he can demonstrate that the Iraqi government is making progress. Under that scenario, the plan orders the withdrawal to begin Oct. 1, with a goal to complete the pullout by March 28.

Acknowledging the threat from international terrorism, the Democratic plan allows some troops to remain to train Iraqi forces, protect American interests and conduct limited counter-terrorism operations.



Single page
 
  1   2   3   4   >>   

   


ADVERTISEMENT

Poll
Do you think a troop withdrawal timetable should be part of the Iraq budget?
Yes, Congress should force the issue.
No, it's a sign of surrender to terrorists.


Related Stories
-
-
-

More Nation News
- Berkshire wealth clashes with Gates mission in Sudan
- Differences emerge as Republicans debate
- Hate crime bill veto is vowed





ADVERTISEMENT

Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times      Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Home Delivery | Permissions | Contact

Partners: Hoy | KTLA | Careerbuilder.com for jobs | Cars.com for autos | Apartments.com for rentals | ShopLocal | FSBO (For Sale By Owner) | Open Houses
Boodle.com for Grocery Coupons | Houses for Rent | Recycler for Free Classifieds