Senate rejects Iraq withdrawal

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Senate on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly against withdrawing all combat troops from Iraq by March 31 as a majority of senators embraced an alternative plan tying U.S. reconstruction funds to Baghdad's progress in stabilizing the country.

The Senate's votes, while nonbinding, were orchestrated to ease passage on Thursday of a war-funding bill so that House of Representatives and Senate negotiators can get to work on a compromise that President George W. Bush could sign by the end of May.

By a vote of 67-29, the Senate rejected an amendment by Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin to cut off all funds for combat by March 31.

"It is time to end a war that is draining our resources, straining our military and undermining our national security," Feingold said before the amendment was defeated.

The anti-war tally was slightly higher than a 2002 vote in which 23 senators tried to block Congress' authorization of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

But emboldened by public opinion polls showing deep and growing opposition to the war that has killed 3,400 U.S. soldiers and wounded 34,000, all four Senate Democrats running for president in 2008 voted to end the war.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the Feingold vote showed "an overwhelming bipartisan majority rejected giving our enemy a timeline for withdrawal."

The House defeated a similar measure last week, but supporters were heartened by the 171 votes it attracted.

By a vote of 52-44, the Senate embraced a Republican plan that would condition new U.S. aid for rebuilding Iraq on Baghdad's progress in bringing political stability and military security to a country rocked by daily bombings.

REPORTS IN JULY AND SEPTEMBER

Sen. John Warner of Virginia said his measure also would help "keep the Congress well informed" of the situation in Iraq by requiring Bush to deliver reports in mid-July and mid-September and with independent studies of the political and military situation.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said Warner's plan "really is very tepid. The situation in Iraq is grave, requires actions, certainly not more reports."

But even Warner, who has consistently supported the war, characterized the war as "a deteriorating problem of sectarian and intrasectarian violence."

The Democratic-led Congress has been tangling with Bush all year over the Iraq war. On May 1, Bush vetoed a $124 billion bill, mostly to pay for combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, because Democrats included timetables for withdrawing troops.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, had hoped to craft a compromise that would have given Bush all the war funds he wanted, while setting an October deadline, that Bush could waive, for starting to withdraw troops.

Levin said he abandoned his amendment in the face of new White House veto threats.

"A date for retreat is a date for retreat," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto, even with the waiver.

The White House also dislikes the proposal to cut aid to the Iraqis if goals are not met, viewing that as "counterproductive," Fratto said.

Assuming Bush and Congress resolve their fight over $100 billion in funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, possibly by including "benchmarks" for measuring progress in Iraq, the war debate will not end there.

Congress is beginning to write next year's military budget bills that are certain to be targets for Democrats' end-the-war efforts.

(Additional reporting by Caren Bohan and Susan Cornwell)