Senate OKs war package as post-veto plotting begins

The Senate passed a $124.2 billion war supplemental funding bill Thursday on a 51-46 vote, sending the measure to President Bush's desk for his likely veto next Tuesday.

The House could attempt to override the measure shortly afterward, although Wednesday night's 218-208 vote showed Democratic leaders will not prevail. Rep. James McGovern, an anti-war Democrat from Massachusetts, said the attempt should be made and that Republicans who had been "bullied" into voting against the measure by the White House and GOP leadership might change their minds.

House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, D-Pa., said a vote to override would fail and questioned the wisdom of such a move. "I don't know why we would do it; we don't have the votes. But they're saying it's necessary, we have to do it," Murtha said.

The measure sets a nonbinding goal of withdrawing combat troops from Iraq by next March, except for troops protecting infrastructure, training Iraqi forces or conducting counterterrorism operations. The pullout would begin as early as July, contingent on Bush certifying that the Iraqi government is meeting governance benchmarks the White House has endorsed.

"This a balanced plan that recognizes we still have responsibilities in Iraq and will continue to do so even a year from now, but will force the Iraqis to fight their own civil war if they insist on doing so," said Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii.

Opponents argued Iraq is a central front in the war against al-Qaida and said the United States should remain until the battle is won. "It is al-Qaida that is trying to inflame a full-fledged civil war in Iraq, so we cannot fight al-Qaida and get out of a civil war. They are one," said Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn.

Murtha said he and House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., are discussing options for passing a new bill.

Murtha is recommending a two-month stopgap bill but acknowledged that plan has problems. "If we're not careful, you bump against the [August] recess," he said. But he prefers that approach to hold the White House more accountable for its handling of the war.

"Look, these guys have lied to us so much, I've even lost confidence in the military," said Murtha, a retired Marine colonel with ties to the Pentagon. He said there is no agreement among House Democrats, however.

A spokesman for Senate Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said no decision has been made on how to proceed. "Sen. Byrd has a phrase he likes very much: 'We'll roll up our britches when we get to that creek,' " he said.

One option would be to pass a full-year supplemental like the current version, but minus timetables for withdrawing troops from Iraq. Instead, it would include benchmarks and reporting requirements for the Iraqi government to meet political and security goals. But that option might have a more difficult time attracting votes from House Democrats.

"You start losing people like me when there are no timetables," McGovern said.

Freshman Democrats such as Rep. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, a war veteran, also argued against that approach. "It can't be window-dressing with me," Murphy said.