,
Fresh battlelines were drawn Friday as the Democratic-led US Congress and the Republican White House faced off again over Iraq after both chambers approved a timetable for withdrawing US troops.
With the Pentagon saying its money to continue the war is likely to run out in just a few weeks' time, the Senate on Thursday approved a fresh infusion of cash, but tied the money to a timetable for withdrawing US troops.
Congress's upper chamber approved the 122 billion dollar spending bill along a mostly party line vote of 51 to 47.
The legislation sets a mandatory start to a troop pullout within 120 days of its final passage, and a guideline of March 31, 2008 for withdrawal of most US combat forces.
“This legislation serves the best interests of our troops,” said Democratic Senator Robert Byrd on the Senate floor after the vote.
“With passage of this bill, the Senate sends a clear message to the president that we must take the war in Iraq in a new direction,” he said.
But the bill, and the days of impassioned debate leading up to its passage, have set up the sharpest confrontation yet between the Democratic-led Congress and the US president, who adamantly rejects time restrictions on the presence of US troops.
Although a showdown with Bush is looming larger than ever, Democrats urged the president to sit down with lawmakers to find common ground.
“I hope that the president will drop his rhetoric and instead work with Congress to craft a responsible plan to transition our forces from Iraq,” said Byrd, the main author of the Senate legislation.
The White House on Thursday again condemned the vote, and blamed the absence of an emergency Iraq spending bill for a Pentagon decision this week to reallocate funds from other defense areas to the war-torn country.
“This re-programming of funds is only necessary because Congress has failed to act in a timely manner on the president's emergency funding request,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
“This again underscores the need to get the show on the road, get the bill to the president. He will veto it and then we'll take it from there.”
“I'll veto a bill that restricts our commanders on the ground in Iraq,” Bush said after meeting Thursday with Republican congressional allies.
So far neither side has shown a willingness to back down in the impasse, but neither side wants to be perceived as the party responsible for denying troops in Iraq the materiel and supplies they need.
The bill prevailed in part because of key Republican defections, including longtime Iraq war critic Senator Chuck Hagel and Senator Gordon Smith. Independent Democrat Joseph Lieberman voted against the bill.
Democrats were able on Tuesday to turn back Republican attempts to remove the deadline from the spending bill.
Measures on early troop withdrawal have now squeaked by in both chambers by razor-thin margins, but Democrats concede that they are unlikely to muster the two-thirds vote to override a presidential veto.
Still, they said, the vote was a powerful message of the “new direction” demanded in Iraq by the Congress and the US public.
Republicans could have “filibustered” Tuesday's vote, by refusing to end debate and call the question. They did so earlier this month on a non-binding resolution criticizing Bush's January decision to send extra troops to Iraq.
But minority leader Mitch McConnell said he decided it would be far more expeditious to let the bill pass, then allow the president to veto it.
“This bill is the document of our defeat. The president knows this. That's why he's said for weeks that he isn't going to sign it,” the Republican leader said. “No bill has deserved the veto pen more than this one.”
Democrats say they are obligated to instigate the policy change after being swept to power in November elections on a wave of deep public resentment over the Iraq war, which has cost more than 3,200 US lives and left tens of thousands of Iraqis dead.
The Senate bill now needs to be reconciled with a similar one approved last week in the House of Representatives, which would send 124 billion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and links the money to removing troops from Iraq by August 31, 2008.
