Bush Threatens to Veto Democrats' Iraq Plan

Under the House plan, Congress would institute the same tough benchmarks for the Iraqi government that Bush detailed in a national address in January. The president would have to certify by July 1 that the Iraqi government had made progress toward those goals. If he could not, troops would begin withdrawing, with all troops out of combat by year's end. If Bush could certify progress, he would have until Oct. 1 to certify that all of the benchmarks had been met. If they had not, troops would have to be withdrawn by March.

Whatever happened with the benchmarks, troop withdrawals would have to begin by March 1, 2008, under the House bill, and all troops would be out of combat roles by Aug. 31.

Despite the continued Democratic squabbling, Pelosi enjoys an important piece of leverage: money. At stake are billions for military health care and housing, homeland security, Gulf Coast hurricane relief and agriculture assistance.

Republicans denounced that as crass vote buying, while conceding it could prove hard to leave such perks on the table. "It's worked in the past," Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said.

GOP leaders tried to keep the debate focused on Iraq policy, saying the House proposal would restrict commanders on the ground. "Arbitrary timelines are little more than a road map for the terrorists, a tool they'll use to plot their maneuvers against American men and women in uniform," Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said.

Other Republicans warned that the Democratic proposals are reckless, lending "encouragement to our enemies in this battle of wills," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), a leading Bush ally.

Some Democrats voiced their own concerns. Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired admiral and Iraq war veteran, worried that military commanders would try to spare Bush the need to invoke a waiver to deploy troops deemed not fully ready, leading to unnecessary training, for instance.

Rep. Jim Cooper (Tenn.), a leading conservative Democrat, fretted about the timetable. "My personal opinion is, deadlines are not a good idea," Cooper complained. But Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), an antiwar liberal, said she could not accept legislation that gives Bush too much latitude. "They're asking me to trust the president of the United States, who everybody agrees has mismanaged, misled and lied to us," she said.

Similar concerns were raised in the Senate, as Democratic leaders have worked through at least three drafts over the past two weeks. The provisions did not change much from the original draft, written by Armed Services Chairman Carl M. Levin (Mich.) and Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) But the language did. For instance, the word "reauthorizing" was stricken at the insistence of Feingold, who had voted against the 2002 resolution, and wanted to avoid the appearance of granting permission now.

The biggest sticking point in the Senate is likely to be the March 31, 2008, date for withdrawal. It is presented as a goal, and it matches the timeframe set by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which issued lengthy recommendations on war policy in December.

But some conservative Democrats said they are reluctant to sign on to any measure that could be construed as limiting Bush's options. "I'm bothered by dates," Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said. "I think you still have to go on conditions for staying."