Washington – Democrats gave up their demand Tuesday for troop withdrawal deadlines in a war spending package, abandoning their top goal of bringing U.S. troops home and handing President Bush a victory in a debate that has roiled Congress for months.
Bush, who has vetoed one spending bill with a troop timeline, had threatened to do the same with the next version if it came with such a condition. Democratic leaders pressed ahead under heavy pressure from liberals who believe the party won control of Congress in November on the strength of anti-war sentiment. But in the end, Democrats said they did not have enough votes to override a presidential veto and could not delay troop funding.
The spending package, expected to total $120 billion when the final version is released today, would require Bush to surrender virtually none of his war authority. Democrats were working to secure other priorities Bush has resisted – an increase in the minimum wage and funding for domestic programs, including veterans’ benefits, Hurricane Katrina relief and agricultural aid.
Instead of sticking with troop-withdrawal dates, Democrats accepted a GOP plan to establish 18 political and legislative benchmarks for the Iraqi government, with periodic reports from Bush on its progress, starting in late July. If the Iraqis fall short, they could forfeit U.S. reconstruction aid.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was so disappointed with the outcome that she said she might vote against the Iraq portion of the package, which will be split into two parts when it comes before the House.
“I’m not likely to vote for something that doesn’t have a timetable,” Pelosi said.
Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., worked to hammer out a final agreement through Tuesday evening, consulting regularly with GOP leaders and the White House. The package is expected to come before the House and Senate on Thursday and to be sent Bush no later than Friday, before members of Congress leave for a week-long Memorial Day recess.
Reid called the benchmark language “extremely weak,” but he noted that Bush had initially demanded a bill with no strings attached on Iraq.
