• Cover Story
• Table of
  Contents
• Contents By
  Topic
• Columns
  • Brownstein
  • Cook
  • Crook
  • Powers
  • Rauch
  • Stokes
  • Schneider
  • Taylor Jr.
• Regular
  Features
  • Hotline Extra
  • Inside Washington
  • Insiders Poll
  • K Street Corridor
  • People
  • The Week on the Hill

At this time last year, Democrats in Congress were engaged in a fierce showdown with President Bush over their effort to impose a timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq. They sent him a $124 billion war supplemental, which he vetoed, after which they ultimately removed the withdrawal timeline in order to win the president's signature. In return, Democrats got $17 billion in nonwar spending.

Another showdown looms now over a $184 billion war funding bill--the largest yet--that will keep U.S. troops engaged in the five-year Iraq conflict. But even with more Iraq money pending than ever, the showdown this time is not about the war. Although House Democratic leaders have again proposed a troop withdrawal timeline, it is widely assumed they'll eventually drop the controversial plan, which means that its inclusion gives them no negotiating leverage. Instead, the debate over this year's supplemental has shifted almost completely to the domestic spending that Democrats want tacked on.

"The majority party in this House has a significant institutional problem as it deals with this issue," House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., explained to reporters during a May 6 briefing in his corner office in the Capitol. "There's no question here that in the House, a majority of Democrats are adamantly opposed to the war, and if we had our way, the war would be over a long time ago. There's also no question that in the Congress itself, we don't have the majority to implement what it is we want to do."

That political reality has confounded Democrats and emboldened Republicans. The majority party, knowing its hands are largely tied on the war, spent much of the spring debating how much nonwar spending to try to add to the supplemental without inviting a repeat of last year's veto.

Democratic lawmakers generally support boosting unemployment benefits and military veterans' college aid, but they have disagreed behind closed doors over what additional domestic programs to fund, and whether to offset the extra spending with tax hikes. They have also differed over the process, with some Democrats pushing for a more confrontational approach with Bush, and others chafing over their leaders' decision to bypass Appropriations Committee markups in both chambers.

As Democrats debated, Republicans consolidated, rejecting most domestic spending proposals and war restrictions. "They can't deliver," Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., said of Democrats' desire to end the war. "They also know there's been noticeable and very real progress" in Iraq.

Despite the lack of attention to Iraq policy this spring, House Democrats did propose a slate of conditions on the war spending. Anti-war groups issued a May 7 statement proclaiming that the conditions "represent the most significant restriction on President Bush's war policy since the war began in 2003."

One of the conditions--pushing Iraqis to shoulder more of the financial burden for their country's security and reconstruction--has a strong chance of becoming law, because it has garnered bipartisan support in Congress and the acceptance of the administration. "It would represent the most significant bipartisan change in our strategy in some time," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, a key negotiator of the financial provision. "It starts to pave the way toward the Iraqis assuming more responsibility for their own security and for stabilizing and rebuilding their country."

The initial House version of the supplemental required that Iraqis match U.S. reconstruction funds dollar-for-dollar. In the Senate, Collins and other Armed Services Committee members have negotiated with the administration on a proposal requiring the Iraqis to assume even greater financial responsibility for paying and equipping their own troops and offsetting U.S. military fuel costs. "You don't spike the ball at the 5-yard line, but it looks pretty good," Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., another negotiator, said of the prospects of the provision becoming law.

House members of both parties, including Shays, also back the financial shift. "I think it makes sense," Shays said, although he added that the military should still provide some funds to foster Iraqi loyalty to U.S. troops. "We don't want to do anything that ties our hands and prevents our generals from maximizing as much loyalty from the Iraqis as possible."

In addition to the financial provision, there is bipartisan support for limits on defense contractors; a restriction on setting up permanent military bases in Iraq; and a requirement that the administration consult with Congress before finalizing a U.S.-Iraq bilateral agreement to replace an expiring U.N. mandate in December.

Nelson said that the number of such restrictions may ultimately be limited to ensure passage. "You can pile on too much, and then it just collapses because then there are so many reasons to veto it and probably fewer votes to override," he said. "It's a balance."

The balance largely depends on what conditions Republicans are willing to accept. House GOP leaders have called for a bill free of any war restrictions--a notion some Republican senators support as well. Many Republicans maintain that the decline in violence in Iraq has dampened public pessimism about the war and increased confidence in Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. His April testimony confirmed Republicans' belief that the war is going better this year than last year.

"Keep it clean," Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said of the supplemental. "This year, we have the results of the [troop] surge, and the facts bear out General Petraeus's testimony."

Some anti-war leaders--and even some war proponents--argue that the restrictions Congress is considering mean little anyway. Pete Hegseth, executive director for Vets for Freedom, which supports the war, said that the military doesn't want permanent bases in Iraq and that Iraqis are already paying far more for reconstruction costs than Americans are. "I think you've got members of Congress trying to get feel-good talking-point votes so that they can go back to their districts to say, 'Lookie here, I fought the war,' " Hegseth said.

On the opposite side of the debate, Kelly Dougherty, executive director of Iraq Veterans Against the War, agreed that the pending war policy provisions amount to window dressing. "It seems contradictory to me to say that this would represent Congress forcing some turning in the occupation when it's $162.5 billion going toward the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," she said. "That's a lot of money."

Brad Woodhouse, president of Americans United for Change, said his organization and others that are part of the anti-war "Iraq Campaign 2008" are lobbying House members to vote against the war funding and for the war policy restrictions, even though it's clear the funding will ultimately be approved and the restrictions will be limited. "The anti-war movement, in combination with the Democrats in Congress, may not have substantially changed the president's war policy, but we have continued to keep up the heat on the Republicans and the president," Woodhouse said.

Nonetheless, much of the anti-war groups' focus has shifted to the November election, given the foregone conclusion on the supplemental this spring. "In the long run, this war is going to end, though it certainly appears it's going to take another election to do that," Woodhouse said.

That calculus is driving the debate on the Hill as well. Bush's supporters know they have time on their side for now, while his opponents believe change is coming after November. For now, Democrats are willing to hold their noses and let the war funding through. "I hate this war and I hate the idea that we have to deal with it," Obey said, "but I've got an obligation not just to my party and to my own feelings but also to the institution itself. This is a good-faith effort to give people an opportunity to make the choices on the important issues."

Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, has been largely stuck in the middle over the past year, wishing that Bush would announce a plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq without Congress demanding it. "I would have hoped a long time ago he would have come to Congress and said, 'Look, here's the plan, and we're going to do it. It's not going to be precipitous; it's going to be a withdrawal over a period of time,' " he said. "That's what should have happened and it didn't."

But Voinovich added that the election imposes its own timeline on U.S. involvement in Iraq. "We've got 10 months here, and I think we should be doing everything we can to move this along and get that message across to them over there" in Iraq, he said. "We are going to have the end of the day on that, and the sooner they realize it, the better off they're going to be."