By Carl Hulse and Jeff Zeleny
The New York Times

Thursday 26 April 2007

Washington - The Senate narrowly passed a $124 billion war spending
bill early this afternoon after an emotional debate about the best way
forward in Iraq. The vote will send the measure to President Bush, who
has vowed to veto it because it would require American troops to begin
withdrawing by Oct. 1.

The 51-46 vote, far short of the two-thirds majority that would be
needed to override Mr. Bush's veto, came after a morning-long debate in
which supporters of the bill called it a way to make the Iraqis take
responsibility for their own security, while opponents called it a
blueprint for defeat.

But the outcome was regarded as certain all along, with the White
House saying the president might not even comment on it today, given the
absence of suspense.

Still, there was plenty of feeling in evidence in the Senate as it
debated the bill, which the House of Representatives narrowly approved
on Wednesday.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, called
the bill one that "we can and will proudly send to the president," and
one that charts a new course in Iraq while honoring America's fighting
forces.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the
measure is "the only way to make Iraqis take responsibility" for their
own destiny. Mr. Kennedy said the president has been wrong all along on
Iraq. "Now, he is wrong to threaten to veto this bill," the senator
said. "We cannot repeat the mistake of Vietnam."

Another Democratic supporter, Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island,
said the conflict is "a war that never should have started, and on this
president's watch may never end" without a timetable for American
withdrawal.

But Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, an independent who
lost the Democratic nomination last year at least partly because of his
support for the war, called the bill "a deadline for defeat" and said it
would have "exactly the opposite effect that its supporters expect"
because it would discourage the Iraqis.

And Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, said it was
high time to "look beyond the politics of this thing, and do the right
thing" by letting Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in
Iraq, a chance to finish the job.

General Petraeus himself acknowledged this morning that the
situation in Iraq is "exceedingly complex and very tough."

"Success will take continued commitment, perseverance and sacrifice,
all to make possible an opportunity for the all-important Iraqi
political actions that are the key to long-term solutions to Iraq's many
problems," the general said at a Pentagon briefing.

At the White House, meanwhile, a spokeswoman for the president, Dana
Perino, said that Mr. Bush would veto the measure "very soon," so that
"we can take the next step." The next step, presumably, would be more
back-and-forth between the White House and the Capitol, since backers of
the bill have nowhere near the two-thirds majority required in each
chamber to override a veto.

Asked if Mr. Bush planned to comment, Ms. Perino said, "Look, this
is a little bit of a foregone conclusion, a little bit anti-climactic,"
she said.

The veto will be the second of Mr. Bush's presidency, and the first
since Democrats gained control of Congress. Last year, Mr. Bush vetoed a
stem-cell research bill.

On Wednesday, only hours after General Petraeus told lawmakers he
needed more time to gauge the effectiveness of the recent troop buildup
there, the House approved the measure by 218 to 208."Last fall, the
American people voted for a new direction in Iraq," said Speaker Nancy
Pelosi, Democrat of California. "They made it clear that our troops must
be given all they need to do their jobs, but that our troops must be
brought home responsibly, safely, and soon."

Republicans accused Democrats of establishing a "date certain" for
America's defeat in Iraq and capitulating to terrorism.

"This bill is nothing short of a cut and run in the fight against Al
Qaeda," said Representative Harold Rogers, Republican of Kentucky.

On the final vote, 216 Democrats and 2 Republicans supported the
bill; 195 Republicans and 13 Democrats opposed it. The legislation
provides more than $95 billion for combat operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan through Sept. 30, with the money conditioned on the
administration's willingness to accept a timetable for withdrawal and
new benchmarks to assess the progress of the Iraqi government.

Democratic leaders plan to send the bill to the White House early
next week - coinciding with the fourth anniversary of Mr. Bush's May 1,
2003, speech aboard an aircraft carrier, when he declared the end of
major combat operations in Iraq, under a banner that said "Mission
Accomplished."

With the outcome essentially preordained, advocacy groups on both
sides of the issue were readying campaigns to try to shape public
opinion as the showdown unfolds.

Groups aligned with the Democrats plan to capitalize on the
connection between the veto and the "mission accomplished" anniversary.
Americans United for Change has produced a television commercial that
replays scenes of Mr. Bush on the carrier and says: "He was wrong then.
And he's wrong now. It's the will of one nation versus the stubbornness
of one man."

Allies of the president are mobilizing as well. The conservative Web
site Townhall.com was organizing an online "no surrender" petition, and
urging visitors to the site to tell the Democratic Party's "rogues'
gallery that we will not stand for their defeatism," adding, "While they
may lack courage, our troops do not and they deserve the resources
needed to win this war."

With the vote barely behind them, House Democrats were already
considering how to respond legislatively to Mr. Bush's veto. Though
there are differing ideas, Representative John P. Murtha of
Pennsylvania, a Democrat who oversees defense appropriations, said his
preference would be to "robustly fund the troops for two months," and
include benchmarks but no timetable for withdrawal.

In addition to General Petraeus, lawmakers in the House and Senate
heard on Wednesday from Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England,
Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte and Adm. Edmund P.
Giambastiani Jr., vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

As they walked into the House briefing, the officials were greeted
by about a dozen war protesters, some of whom shouted: "War criminal!
War criminal!" One woman walked alongside the general, urging him in a
softer tone to consider her point of view.

After the briefing, whose substance was classified, Representative
Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader, disputed criticisms
that Democrats were trying to end the war before giving the
administration's plan a chance to succeed.

"Nobody is saying, 'Get out tomorrow,' " Mr. Hoyer said, noting that
the legislation would allow American troops to remain in Iraq to battle
terrorist groups.

He and Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican
leader, differed on what emerged from the briefing as the most
significant cause of violence in Iraq. Mr. Hoyer attributed it to
sectarian strife, while Mr. Boehner cited Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia,
calling the group "the major foe that we face in Iraq today."

Democrats sought to portray their approach as reasonable and called
for Mr. Bush to reconsider before sending the bill back to Congress.

"I believe that this legislation, if people were to just take their
time and read it, is the exit strategy that the president ought to be
pleased to receive," said Representative James E. Clyburn of South
Carolina, the Democratic whip.

But Republicans called it a dubious attempt at micromanaging the war
and said Democrats were also seizing the opportunity to stuff the bill
with home-state spending.

The president's allies, aware of public dissatisfaction with the
war, acknowledged the difficulties on the ground in Iraq while
portraying the Democratic approach as a prescription for defeat.

"It's been ugly, it's been difficult, it has been very painful,"
said Representative David Dreier, Republican of California. "We all feel
the toll that has been taken and are fully aware of the price we are
paying, especially in a human sense. But we do not honor those who have
sacrificed by abandoning the mission."

The House vote on Wednesday and the preceding debate closely
resembled those of one month ago, when the House passed its initial
version 218 to 212.