Iraq withdrawal redux

The House is expected to rejoin the Iraq debate Friday with a quickly called vote on withdrawing troops from Iraq that caught some Democrats by surprise and was ridiculed by Republicans.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced the bill calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops at a Thursday press conference, saying its language will parallel the Iraq supplemental spending bill that President Bush vetoed in May.

{mosads}It would require withdrawal to begin immediately on passage, with a goal of completing the withdrawal in a year.

The bill will also veer into the debate on torturing those suspected of terrorism by setting into law the rules in the Army Field Manual, which does not allow torture. That would ban intelligence agencies, such as the CIA, from using controversial practices like waterboarding, a technique that simulates drowning.

Pelosi gave no indication that she expected the measure to fare better than previous Iraq withdrawal bills, which have either been vetoed by President Bush or have not even passed the Senate.

“We are restating the differentiation between us and the president of the United States,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “This gives voice to the desires of the American people.”

Pelosi promised this would be the last vote this year on Iraq if President Bush vetoes the measure. At a closed House conference where she announced the planned vote, Pelosi said she had not intention of moving another bill on Iraq this year if the latest effort is vetoed, according to a source who attended the meeting.

Republicans, however, attacked Democrats for going to the well once again with votes calling for a withdrawal of troops. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) issued a statement to reporters with the headline “Another ‘Withdrawal Date?’”

“What unfortunate timing for Democrats, announcing yet another attempt at a withdrawal date on a day when the papers are filled with encouraging news from Iraq,” McConnell said in the statement.

The measure also caught many Democrats off guard. In the early afternoon, most legislators interviewed said they hadn’t seen the legislation, even some who were actively trying to obtain a copy.

Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), the co-sponsor of the last significant Iraq legislation in the House, said mid-afternoon Thursday that he didn’t even know he would be voting on an Iraq bill the next day.

“Between Peru free trade, AMT, SCHIP and everything else, I don’t know what we’re doing next,” Tanner said in reference to legislation on the alternative minimum tax and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

The most ardent Democratic war opponents were wary of the legislation, because completion of the withdrawal in a year would be only a “goal,” not a requirement.

“I’d rather we put something out there that’s stronger than goals,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), a co-founder of the Out of Iraq caucus who voted against the supplemental in May. “It’s goals instead of guaranteed withdrawal. That makes it soft for me.”

But Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.), an Out of Iraq caucus member with stronger ties to leadership, suggested concerns like Woolsey’s can be overcome with a pledge by Democratic leaders that no other funding bill will be presented.

“If the Senate doesn’t deal with it, or if the president vetoes it, then that’s it, we’re not going to keep negotiating,” McGovern said. “We’re in the fifth year of this war. We need to push a harder agenda.”

He said such a promise would be required to get his vote.

Republicans criticized the plan as cutting off money to troops in the field. They also accused Democrats of ignoring good news coming out of Iraq.

 “While our troops are quelling violence and defeating terrorists in Baghdad and throughout Iraq, Democrats in Washington are trying to choke off funds for our troops in the field,” McConnell said in the statement.

Pelosi said she hoped the measure would be voted on Friday, but noted that there can be difficulties in getting measures to the floor. If it doesn’t get voted on Friday, the bill will be left hanging for the Veterans Day weekend.

The withdrawal language will be attached to a four-month, $50 billion “bridge fund” that keeps money flowing to troops in the field.

The legislation would also incorporate language in bills by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) requiring more training and rest time for troops between deployments.

The $50 billion could be used only toward the withdrawal and other goals laid out in the legislation, Pelosi said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said a bridge fund with Iraq language will be on the Senate floor next week. He said the bill would include language that there be a goal for withdrawal, while Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said the goal for withdrawal would be longer than nine months, but less than 15 months.

“The House is proceeding in the right direction,” Reid said. “This is all up to the White House. … We’re offering another $50 billion as a so-called bridge fund. It’s not a question of us of finding the votes to pass this. We support this … it’s up to the Republicans whether they will help us with any votes to pass this.”

Manu Raju contributed to this report.