> Arguably the most important floor action that occurred Thursday was a vote to use the appropriation power of Congress to fully fund an expedited withdrawal from Iraq.

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) and the Out of Iraq Caucus (OOIC) secured a vote on the withdrawal measure after "months of behind the scenes wrangling." The withdrawal bill was defeated 171-255, but, according to a press release from the CPC, "strongly defied expectations." After the vote was taken, CPC Co-Chair Barbara Lee (D-California) said, "This was an historic vote, and the strong showing in favor of redeploying our troops was a turning point," adding, "while this measure was defeated today, it will prevail."

The vote to cut off funding for the war in Iraq comes at a pivotal moment. President Bush's popularity is at an all-time low and Republicans in Congress have hinted that time is short for the Baghdad security plan to succeed. Wednesday, 11 Republican congressmen met with Bush and members of his cabinet to explain that their commitment to his strategy in Iraq is not open-ended.

The resolution calling for a complete troop withdrawal from Iraq comes on the heels of a report that says the Pentagon intends to send 35,000 additional US troops to Iraq in September.

An editorial that appeared in the Los Angeles Times on Sunday said it has become clear that sending additional US forces to Baghdad will do little to quell the violence between Sunni and Shi'ite factions.

"After four years of war, more than $350 billion spent, 3,363 US soldiers killed and 24,310 wounded, it seems increasingly obvious that an Iraqi political settlement cannot be achieved in the shadow of an indefinite foreign occupation," said the Times editorial, appearing under the headline "Bring Them Home." "The US military presence - opposed by more than three-quarters of Iraqis - inflames terrorism and delays what should be the primary and most pressing goal: meaningful reconciliation among the Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds.... The mire deepens against a backdrop of domestic US politics in which support for the ill-defined mission wanes by the week. Better to begin planning a careful, strategic withdrawal from Iraq now, based on the strategies laid out by the Iraq Study Group, than allow for the 2008 campaign season to create a precipitous pullout."

Speaking on the House floor in favor of the withdrawal bill, Lee said: "The goal of this bill ... is an effort to fully fund the safe and timely redeployment of our troops from Iraq. It is responsible, it is practical, it does not cut the funding, but it designates what the supplemental can be used for, and that is to fully fund a safe withdrawal and redeployment, and help the Iraqis stabilize their country with a diplomatic, social and reconstruction effort."

"This war is a terrible tragedy and it is time to bring it to an end," said Congressman James McGovern (D-Massachusetts), a major backer of the withdrawal measure. "For four long, deadly years, this administration and their allies in Congress have been flat wrong about Iraq."

Previous legislation introduced in Congress calling for a specific timetable for withdrawal has not been able to receive majority. But the Democratic leaders allowed the CPC's controversial bill to come to the floor of the House in order to secure their support for the short-term funding bill that would earmark $43 billion to pay for the war until September.

The temporary funding bill passed by Democrats on Thursday defied a veto warning from the president. The temporary funding bill guarantees money for the war in Iraq only until September 30, at which point a new appropriation would be needed. Bush previously vetoed a funding bill that set a suggested withdrawal date and contained benchmarks for the Iraqi government. After hours of wrangling and attempts by Republicans to go into closed session and stall the vote, the temporary funding bill passed 211-205, with members voting largely along party lines.

The passage of the temporary funding bill in the House follows a proposal earlier this week by Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) who said he intends to introduce legislation later this month that will cut off funding for major combat operations in the region by March 2008.

Feingold's proposed legislation is backed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and eight other Democrats in the Senate, notably Pat Leahy (D-Vermont), Barbara Boxer (D-California) and John Kerry (D-Massachusetts), all of whom are co-sponsors of the bill.

With more than a dozen US soldiers and hundreds of Iraqi civilians killed in combat during the past week alone, Feingold said it's crucial that he and his colleagues take action immediately.

"With brave Americans fighting and dying for a failed policy in Iraq, members of Congress shouldn't delay action to end this misguided war for weeks or even months just for the sake of political comfort," Feingold said in a prepared statement on Tuesday. "That is why, when the Senate takes up the Iraq supplemental, I plan to offer the Feingold-Reid bill as an amendment to force the president to safely redeploy our troops by March 31, 2008, at which point funding for the war would be cut off."

Reid said he would ensure that Feingold's proposal is voted on before the Senate adjourns for an extended Memorial Day break.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matt Renner is a reporter for Truthout.