Both the US Senate and the House of Representatives passed a war funding bill Thursday night without setting a timeline to withdraw troops, thus ending a standoff between Democrats and the Bush administration.

As the bill has now cleared Congress, President George W. Bush is expected to sign it into law Friday.

The measure passed through the House in two votes: the first approved a minimum wage increase, along with about US$20 billion in domestic spending.

The second appropriated nearly US$100 billion for funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept.30, the end of the 2007 fiscal year.

The first vote was 348-73; the second was 280-142, with 140 of more than 230 Democrats in the House voting against the war spending portion.

Among those voting "no" was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat who vowed that her party would continue to push for an end to the war when the Pentagon expenditure bills for 2008 come up later this year.

In the Senate, the bill was passed on a single 80-14 vote.

Notably, two leading Democratic presidential candidates -- Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, voted against the bill.

Ending a round of struggle

Thursday's votes ended a round of struggle between Democrats and Bush on Iraq policy.

Earlier this month, Bush vetoed the first war funding bill because it included a timetable to withdraw US troops from Iraq, a provision pushed by Democrats and some Republicans.

Faced with continued White House opposition after the veto, the Democratic leadership agreed to drop the withdrawal clause this week so the bill could move forward by the end of the month.

With timetable absent, the current bill contains a set of political benchmarks that the Iraqi government must meet to keep US reconstruction aid flowing.

It also requires Bush to submit reports in July and September indicating progress in meeting those goals.

Nevertheless, the bill for the first time explicitly states that US forces would leave Iraq if asked to by the Baghdad government.

Democrats' awkward position

In Thursday's votes, Democrats were placed in an awkward position.

Vote "yes," and they were certain to face the wrath of antiwar forces in their political base, who are vowing retaliation against any lawmaker who supports the bill.

Vote "no," and they could further delay funding for military operations, opening themselves up to the charge that they don't support the troops.

Antiwar groups are furious at the decision by Democratic leaders to remove the timetables, arguing that voters sent the message in November that they want the war to end by placing Congress in Democratic hands.

Time runs out for Bush

But there is no good news for Bush either.

As a growing majority of Americans oppose the war, his time is running out.

Democrats have vowed to continue their efforts to end the war after Thursday's votes, hoping to write anti-war language into defense appropriations and defense authorization bills over the summer.

Meanwhile, moderate Republicans are becoming more frustrated at Bush's unpopular policy, worrying it could dampen their chances in next year's elections.

It is unclear how long the president can count on the firm support from his fellow Republicans on Iraq policy.

Sen. John Warner, a Republican heavyweight, said if conditions in Iraq do not improve by mid-July, Bush should reconsider his strategy.

(Xinhua News Agency May 25, 2007)