The House of Representatives passed a bill today that would require troops begin withdrawing 120 days after enactment of the bill, and to withdraw completely from Iraq by April 1, 2008.

The Democratic-controlled House shrugged off another veto threat from President Bush in approving a measure requiring the withdraw U.S. troops by spring.

Earlier, Bush ruled out any change in war policy before September.

Democratic leaders engineered a 223-201passage of legislation requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops to begin within 120 days, and to be completed by April 1, 2008. The measure envisions a limited residual force to train Iraqis, protect U.S. assets and fight Al Qaeda and other terrorists.

The vote generally followed party lines: 219 Democrats and four Republicans in favor, and 191 Republicans and 10 Democrats opposed.

“The report makes clear that not even the White House can conclude there has been significant progress,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

To Bush and others who seek more time for the administration’s policy to work, she said, “We have already waited too long.”

Republicans sided with Bush — at least for now. The bill “undermines Gen. Petraeus, undermines the mission he has to make America and Iraq safe,” said the House GOP leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio. “What we have here is not leadership, it’s negligence.”

We’ll wait to see what the Senate does about this bill and what comes out of reconciliation.

Right now, if people vote the same way they did today, this is not a veto-proof majority.

The Democratic House of Representatives is hell-bent on confrontations with the president as to what authority belongs to whom.

Now they are set to approve a bill that would fund the troops only until July, a scant two months away.

President Bush would veto a bill drafted by House Democratic leaders that would fund the Iraq war only into the summer months, his spokesman said Wednesday.

The Democrats’ proposal would pay for the war through July, then give Congress the option of cutting off money after that if conditions do not improve. Bush requested more than $90 billion to fund the war through September.

“There are restrictions on funding and there are also some of the spending items that were mentioned in the first veto message that are still in the bill,” White House press secretary Tony Snow said on Air Force One traveling with Bush.

Asked directly if Bush would veto the House bill in its current form, Snow said, “Yes.”

Bush vetoed an earlier bill because it set deadlines for U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq.

The new proposal is aimed at appeasing Democratic lawmakers who want to end the war immediately and are urging leaders not to back down after Bush’s veto. But lacking a firm endorsement by the Senate, the challenge by House Democrats seemed more for political show than a preview of another veto showdown with Bush.

If you know it’s going to be vetoed and you can’t override the veto, why engage in fruitless effort?

Congress has the power of the purse and, as such, can withdraw funding for the war at any time. If they don’t want to compromise to make our troops safe longer than two months then use the constitutional power they have and defund the war.

All this other nonsense is just that.

From the official White House Web site is the transcript of the president’s veto message:

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Twelve weeks ago, I asked the Congress to pass an emergency war spending bill that would provide our brave men and women in uniform with the funds and flexibility they need.

Instead, members of the House and the Senate passed a bill that substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgment of our military commanders. So a few minutes ago, I vetoed this bill.

Tonight I will explain the reasons for this veto — and my desire to work with Congress to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. We can begin tomorrow with a bipartisan meeting with the congressional leaders here at the White House.

Here is why the bill Congress passed is unacceptable. First, the bill would mandate a rigid and artificial deadline for American troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq. That withdrawal could start as early as July 1st. And it would have to start no later than October 1st, regardless of the situation on the ground. (more…)

California Conservative does a pretty good job of fisking the comments made by Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi after the president’s veto speech last night.

Here’s the transcript of their speech:

Statement by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on President Bush’s veto of the Iraq spending bill, as provided by CQ Transcriptions:

REID: The president may be content with keeping our troops mired in the middle of an open-ended civil war, but we’re not — and neither are most Americans.

A bipartisan majority of Congress sent the president a bill to fully fund our troops and change the mission in Iraq. The president refused to sign this bill. That’s his right, but now he has an obligation to explain his plan to responsibly end this war.

In the coming days, we’ll continue to reach out to the president, and we hope congressional Republicans who remained silent — congressional Republicans through this whole debate — will work with us as well.

But if the president thinks that by vetoing this bill he’ll stop us from working to change the direction of the war in Iraq, he is mistaken. (more…)