Reid opens new war front

WASHINGTON —  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Monday that he was backing legislation to cut off almost all money for the war in Iraq by next March, further escalating the Democratic confrontation with President Bush over the 4-year-old conflict.

The move comes after the Senate and House narrowly passed emergency war spending bills last month that set timelines for withdrawing U.S. troops. Neither measure proposed to cut funding for the war.

Reid, who will co-sponsor the bill with outspoken war critic Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), has never backed legislation that would use congressional control of the budget to stop paying for the war.

He almost certainly will have a difficult time rounding up a majority of votes for a bill that could leave Democrats open to charges of abandoning the troops.

But it means that Reid, who has endorsed increasingly bold steps to end the war, will be able to steer the Senate into another debate that highlights Republican support for the president’s unpopular war.

“Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security,” Feingold said. “By ending funding for the president’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the president to safely redeploy our troops from Iraq.”

Democrats say that even with funding cut off, troops in Iraq would continue to receive the equipment they needed.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino criticized Democrats for their escalating number of proposals on the war.

“There’s just these shifting sands when it comes to the Democrats and their decisions,” she said. “It’s like a sandstorm.”

Bush has promised to veto any legislation that puts limits on how his administration conducts the war. He has repeatedly said he will not sign the war funding bill if it includes a timeline for withdrawing troops.

Democratic leaders in the Senate and House are in negotiations to write a single compromise bill from their two spending measures, which set different timelines for withdrawing troops.

With slim majorities in both chambers, Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) stand little chance of overriding a presidential veto. On Monday, 154 House Republicans sent a letter to the White House that reiterated their pledge to stand with the president.

Vice President Dick Cheney continued the administration’s attacks on Democrats on Capitol Hill, calling their attempt to force an end to the war pointless.

“The Democrats believe they can make the president accept unwise and inappropriate restrictions on our commanders,” Cheney said at a reception for Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions in Birmingham. “They’re going to find out that they’ve misread George W. Bush.”

But the Reid-Feingold proposal underscores the commitment of Democratic leaders to continue their showdown with the White House.

Not long ago, only the most liberal members of the Democratic caucus supported legislation to cut off funding for the war, the most potent tool Congress has to force a president’s hand.

Last summer, Feingold and Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) pushed a resolution that would have required a withdrawal -- though not an end to funding -- by this July. Only 13 Democrats backed the measure, and Reid voted against it.

Last month, 96 senators voted for a nonbinding resolution opposing any funding cuts for troops in Iraq.

Now, Reid is pushing further than any congressional leader.

The Reid-Feingold proposal would compel the president to begin withdrawing troops within 120 days of the bill’s enactment, mirroring language in the war spending legislation the Senate approved last week. It would also end funding for combat operations after March 31, 2008, unlike the spending bill, which sets that date as a goal for a withdrawal.

The Reid-Feingold proposal would allow funds to be spent on troops in Iraq to protect U.S. personnel and facilities, train Iraqi forces, and target Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups.

The March deadline is nearly as aggressive as a bill supported by the most fervent war critics in the House, who would allow money to be spent only to withdraw U.S. forces by the end of this year.

Republicans, who say Democratic attempts to set timelines would embolden insurgents and terrorists, criticized the latest proposal.

“Announcing a surrender date to Al Qaeda is a dangerous military policy, cedes the initiative to the enemy and directly contradicts the 96 senators who just last month voted against funding cuts for troops in the field,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “The terrorists have already marked it on their calendars.”

With several centrist Democratic lawmakers skeptical of setting firm dates for ending the war, it is unlikely that Reid could muster enough votes to pass his latest legislative gambit. The less-restrictive timeline in the Senate war spending bill garnered 51 votes last week.

But Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the majority leader’s proposal was part of his long-term strategy to keep pressure on the White House and its GOP allies in Congress.

“He’s become absolutely convinced that this administration has no intention of changing its status quo policy,” Manley said.

*

noam.levey@latimes.com