from the Centre for American Progress …..

Yesterday, just two months after taking power, House and Senate leadership released binding plans to redeploy U.S. forces out of Iraq as soon as March 2008, refocusing America's security posture on international terrorist networks and the war in Afghanistan.

Within hours, White House officials issued a rare veto pledge aboard Air Force One, demonstrating President Bush's deep ideological commitment to his open-ended Iraq policy. But as the Los Angeles Times notes, "in one stroke" progressive leaders in Congress "have transformed a many-sided debate about the conflict into a sharp-edged argument about the endgame."

The new legislation offers Americans a clear choice: "Follow the president's plan to use U.S. combat troops indefinitely, or shift American soldiers to a secondary role and begin withdrawing them." The country's preference has long been clear. A USA Today/Gallup poll released this week again shows that most Americans (60 percent) favor setting a deadline for U.S. troops to leave by the end of next year. Another poll released yesterday shows that "a majority of Americans in competitive, conservative-leaning House districts" -- 70 percent of which were won by Bush in 2004 -- "approve of setting a date for troops to withdraw from Iraq." Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was dismissive of Bush's veto threat. "Never confine your best work, your hopes, your dreams, the aspirations of the American people to what will be signed by George W. Bush, because that is too limiting a factor."

Under the House plan, Congress would "institute the same tough benchmarks for the Iraqi government that Bush detailed in a national address in January." It works like this: in July and then again in October, Bush "will be asked to certify that the Iraqi government is showing progress and has met political and military benchmarks. If at either point Mr. Bush can't meet the certification requirements, the bill calls for withdrawal within 180 days.

If the requirements are met, more time is allowed, but in any case, withdrawal would begin next spring with the goal of having most forces out of Iraq by the end of August." Under all scenarios, U.S. troops will be redeployed out of Iraq by August 2008.

The additional funds in the $120-billion-plus House bill are "heavily tilted toward defense, veterans and homeland-security priorities." The plans provide full funding to U.S. forces in Iraq, including the resources they need to redeploy safely. The plan introduced by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) includes $3.5 billion for improving military hospitals and veterans hospitals, and provides additional funds for veterans suffering with traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, or severe burn scarring. It also forces Bush to acknowledge and justify the U.S. military's readiness crisis.

If Bush chooses to violate the military's basic guidelines and send U.S. soldiers into combat without proper training and equipment, he must sign a waiver and explain his actions to the country. In a speech yesterday at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) announced a new G.I. Bill to help returning service members adapt to civilian life, fix the process that determines medical compensation for injured troops, and increase aid to families and children who have lost a loved one. (Watch the video.) Clinton told The Progress Report that Bush has "in a very deliberative way created conditions that are straining our military."

Conservatives yesterday "remained remarkably united behind Bush and an open-ended Iraq commitment." Leading war supporters, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), have vowed to block the new effort, which they say amounts to "micromanaging" the war. In doing so, they are trying to hide their support of Bush's failing Iraq policy with arguments about procedure. But those arguments don't hold up. Just eight years ago, in fact, McConnell and Lieberman both co-sponsored legislation to authorize the deployment of U.S. forces for air strikes -- but not ground forces -- in Kosovo.

That bill is just one of many efforts by Congress -- enacted by majority Republican and Democratic Congresses and imposed on presidents of both parties -- to influence the president’s war policy by means other than simply cutting funds. (More details here.) This is not "micromanagement," it is exercising basic constitutional responsibilities.