NYT : House Resolution Rejects Permanent Bases in Iraq

House Resolution Rejects Permanent Bases in Iraq

By CARL HULSE | July 26, 2007

WASHINGTON, July 25 — The House voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to bar permanent United States military installations in Iraq as lawmakers readied for yet another clash over a Democratic demand to withdraw combat troops from the conflict.

By a vote of 399 to 24, the House adopted a resolution that would limit federal spending intended “to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq or to exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq.”

Democrats said the measure, the latest in a series of politically tinged war votes, was needed to make it clear that America had no plan for a permanent military presence in Iraq — a fear they said was fueling some attacks on American troops and building the insurgent resistance.

“We must soundly reject the vision of an open-ended occupation as bad policy that undermines the safety of our troops and recognize it for what it is: another recruiting poster for terrorists,” said Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California and an author of the proposal.

House Republicans offered little resistance, saying the plan essentially reflected current law and Bush administration policy. But they criticized Democrats for what they said was meaningless legislation since the administration had not called for permanent bases.

“The bill brought to the floor by the majority today represents yet another political stunt, and an intellectually dishonest one at that, because the United States has never proposed establishing a permanent base in Iraq or anywhere else,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader. All of the plan’s opponents were Republicans.

The vote came as Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, chairman of the subcommittee that sets Pentagon spending and a leading Democratic critic of the war, indicated he would try, as early as next week, to add a new withdrawal plan to the annual military spending bill.

Under Mr. Murtha’s draft proposal, President Bush would be required to present Congress with a classified plan for bringing regional stability in the Middle East and within 60 days begin “an immediate and orderly redeployment of U.S. armed forces from Iraq.”

The withdrawal would begin with troops that have been there longer than a year. The proposal, which also calls for an estimate of the American presence in the region for the next five years, does not set a deadline for removing the troops, though Mr. Murtha estimated it would take more than a year.

Mr. Murtha predicted that the central showdown over the withdrawal plan would come in September, after the Congressional recess. He said he had indications that more Republicans and some in the military might be ready at that time to rally behind his latest proposal.

“When you get to September, this is history, this is when we are going to have a real confrontation with the president,” Mr. Murtha told reporters. “I see signals that things are going to get worked out.”

But House Republicans were likely for now to oppose Mr. Murtha’s plan as a misguided Congressional infringement on the president’s powers as commander in chief. And many Democrats prefer an end-date for the withdrawal.

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House speaker, said lawmakers should expect repeated votes on Iraq policy, and she criticized Mr. Bush for citing, in a speech on Tuesday, Al Qaeda as the chief reason for keeping troops there.

“Just when you think you have seen it all, just when you think you have heard it all, the president mentioned Al Qaeda nearly 100 times to justify his course of action in Iraq,” said Ms. Pelosi, who said Democrats were prepared to vote every day on Iraq policy if necessary.

In the Senate, where lawmakers have put off their dispute over Iraq for now, senior members resurrected popular parts of a Pentagon policy measure that stalled last week in the stalemate over the Democratic push for a withdrawal timetable.

In a bipartisan decision, the Senate approved provisions intended to bring improvements in active-duty and veterans health care and provide a 3.5 percent military pay raise as of Oct. 1. The remaining elements are not expected to resurface in the Senate until September.