HAT TIP : By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
A sharply divided House voted Friday to order President Bush to bring combat troops home from Iraq next year, a victory for Democrats in an epic war-powers struggle and Congress’ boldest challenge yet to the administration’s policy.
Ignoring a White House veto threat, lawmakers voted 218-212, mostly along party lines, for a binding war spending bill requiring that combat operations cease before September 2008, or earlier if the Iraqi government does not meet certain requirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their election sweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.
“The American people have lost faith in the president’s conduct of this war,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. “The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not.”
The vote, echoing clashes between lawmakers and the White House over the Vietnam War four decades ago, pushed the Democratic-led Congress a step closer to a constitutional collision with the wartime commander in chief. Bush has insisted that lawmakers allow more time for his strategy of sending nearly 30,000 additional troops to Iraq to work.
The roll call also marked a triumph for Pelosi., who labored in recent days to bring together a Democratic caucus deeply divided over the war. Some of the party’s more liberal members voted against the bill because they said it would not end the war immediately, while more conservative Democrats said they were reluctant to take away flexibility from generals in the field.
Republicans were almost completely unified in their fight against the bill, which they said was tantamount to admitting failure in Iraq.
“The stakes in Iraq are too high and the sacrifices made by our military personnel and their families too great to be content with anything but success,” said Republican Whip Roy Blunt (news, bio, voting record), R-Mo.
Voting for the bill were 216 Democrats and two Republicans — Wayne Gilchrest (news, bio, voting record) of Maryland and Walter Jones (news, bio, voting record) of North Carolina. Of the 212 members who opposed the bill, 198 were Republicans and 14 were Democrats.
The bill marks the first time Congress has used its budget power to try to end the war, now in its fifth year, by attaching the withdrawal requirements to a bill providing $124 billion to finance military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of this year.
Excluding the funds in the House-passed bill, Congress has so far provided more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including about $350 billion for Iraq alone, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. More than 3,200 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since war began in March 2003.
Skeptical Brotha 
I’m glad it passed even if the date isn’t soon enough.
This is window dressing. the Senate will shred it or Bush will veto it. Also Nancy only succeeded the old Washington way…doling out the pork. Kinda makes you proud she’s making a difference.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070323/news_lz1ed23bottom.html
The only reason “The American people have lost faith in the president’s conduct of this war,” as Nancy Pelosi claims is the unending barrage of the Left’s bull. “The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not.” She means reality TV controlled by the liberals. Americans do not and have not seen the reality in Iraq. Reality TV rarely shows the soldiers side, the Iraqi people’s side, and humanitarian side, or any other positve side of the our military’s work in Iraq. Only the get our military out of Iraq side is continually drummed into American heads.
If Iraq is like 1930s Germany, an infant democracy will not survive. As we should have learned with Hitler, experienced democracy have to work with new one until they actually can exist on their own, even more so in the Middle East.
Besides, the war ended a long time ago. The cultural war in America wages on; Iraq is the new battle ground. The victims will all those hopeful Iraqis for a life without oppression.
Daniel types from his easy chair while lower class people go to Iraq to earn money for college. Daniel types from his easy chair while lower class convicts get a choice between Iraq and prison. While the sons of poverty in Latin America go to Iraq to earn entry into the promised land of North America for them and their families. Daniel types from his easy chair while the full horror of this war for blood money from a system of corrupt cronyism is not shown by the liberal media that is owned by those same corporations that profit from it. Daniel should go to Iraq to see for himself how loved he is over there.
Oh, and how big do you want the Iraq memorial wall to be?
Iraq was lost when Daniel’s heroes tried to do it on the cheap, ignoring the plans of the Generals, who DID KNOW what needed to happen.
This is a civil war.
This is not OUR civil war.
We are presently in Iraq for:
1. Oil
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Israel
4. Haliburton
None of those reasons are worth one more American life.
Let the oil companies find out who they want to bribe.
Let the Saudi’s put their OWN damn men into Iraq.
As for Israel, well…let them fight their own fights…
And for the treasonous Haliburton? Let them burn in hell for their mistreatment of our soldiers at their avaricious hands.
As for the neo-con architects of this debacle, they need their own spigots in Hell too.
Bring our men and women home.
I’ve said it before..
There IS a War on Terror.
We aren’t fighting it.
And, Daniel dear?
We SHOULD be in Afghanistan. We REALLY should be scared as hell about PAKISTAN.
Iraq was a debacle and will permanently stain the USA for generations to come.
Daniel,
1.) It is not (can’t resist referring you here)
2.) The end of the passage I’m quoting is still very valid. But I don’t think the people of Iraq will learn that democracy is a value itself that they should defend against those of their own who would nip it in the bud just through. I agree with the previous post that I remember hearing some purely military strategists who stated before that the whole thing would need much more than just finish daddy’s job and then earn some contracts for rebuilding the country. If we don’t get to the people of Iraq in a major way and get them to actually want what we have to offer, it wouldn’t matter if the troops come home in one year or ten. You might say, of course they want the security we have to offer (potentially with way more military in place.) But then they can get (comparative) security by just having the fundamentalists have their way. If we don’t get the people of Iraq to fight against that of their volition, we have already lost.
And I don’t want to hear any of that “but the muslim doctrine means they will always want to fight us.” Let me give you an example:
Just a few days ago, in Germany a judge deemed a muslim man who severely abused his wife innocent because of a right of the husband of coporal punishment of the wife according to the Sharia. Now, that judgement is a complete scandal and will, of course, never become legally binding, because a German judge is not bound to the Sharia but only the German constitution, and according to that the husband was, of course, guilty. But who was among the first ones to protest against the judgement? The Central Consistory of Muslims in Germany. Of course, there is a body of fundamentalists there, too (and perhaps Germany organizations weren’t really prepared for dealing with them in the past), but there are bodies of fundamentalists of other religions in other places, too. So, a moderate, democratic muslim is not something that cannot exist.
Now, I don’t claim to know how to make the people of Iraq think that way in any considerable number. But I also, don’t hear people asking that question enough, and I think we should.
But I don’t think the people of Iraq will learn that democracy is a value itself that they should defend against those of their own who would nip it in the bud just through MILITARY ACTIONS
I meant to say
This is great progress! Go Democrats!