May 16, 2007 1:00 p.m.
WASHINGTON -- The Senate overwhelmingly rejected calls for an early withdrawal from Iraq as Democrats struggled to find a path to end weeks of confrontation with President Bush over emergency war funding through Sept. 30.
The 67-29 defeat was even more decisive than a 255-171 House vote last week in which similar withdrawal language split Democrats and was rejected. But the gap between the White House and the new Democratic majority over Iraq appears to be only widening as the administration takes a hard line against even setting a target date for redeployment, subject to the president's approval.
Such a compromise had been crafted by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, but the Michigan Democrat abruptly withdrew the proposal this morning after White House officials said it would still provoke a presidential veto.
Mr. Bush already vetoed an earlier version of the war-funding bill that required him to begin withdrawing forces Oct. 1 and shift the focus of the U.S., mission to pursuing al Qaeda elements in Iraq and training government forces. Mr. Levin had countered with a proposal that Mr. Bush be given authority to waive this requirement every 90 days as long as he wishes, and its rejection by the White House is a blow to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) as he tries to find a compromise.
The Senate action on the withdrawal proposal came as Republicans offered two other Iraq amendments of their own under a process designed more to measure the strength of the ideas than really effect legislation. In each of the three cases, senators were asked to signal support by voting on a motion to cut off debate or invoke cloture -- requiring a 60 vote supermajority.
The withdrawal language obviously failed to get even a majority. But a second proposal, backed by Sen. John Warner (R., Va.), the former Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, also had a disappointing showing for its backers, getting only 52 votes on a 52-44 roll call.
In the past, Mr. Warner has been an effective bridge between Democrats and moderate Republicans on the war debate. But in this case, his proposals, largely demanding a series of reports from the White House, won over only eight Democrats and were likened by Mr. Reid to "weak tea."
"If you looked in the dictionary under weak, the Warner amendment would be listed right under it," Mr. Reid said.
In this atmosphere, the only proposal to get more than 60 votes was the simplest: a motion by Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran, the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, urging a resolution of the dispute by the end of this month.
This won an 87-9 roll call with Mr. Reid's support. Together with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), the majority leader has vowed to keep Congress in session through the Memorial Day recess if needed to get a deal. But the Nevada Democrat also warned that the president has to "deal with us" and can't expect "blank checks" from Congress.
In crafting its own compromise bill, the House avoided the withdrawal timetables that so provoked the president and instead proposed to withhold about half the war funding until a second vote in July when lawmakers can assess the situation in Baghdad.
An estimated $42.75 billion is provided up front for the military, including $23 billion for operations to ensure no disruption before July 31. But release of the $52.8 billion second installment, heavy with equipment-procurement funds, would be contingent on the second vote, which would follow reports from the administration due July 13 on the progress in Baghdad.
The White House was quick to reject this idea, but as the two withdrawal dates show, Mr. Bush would almost certainly win the second vote. Democrats concede as much and the House leadership had hoped the administration would see the offer as a graceful way for the two sides to untangle themselves from the standoff now.