The vote was a GOP protest against the tactics of Democrats, who added hard-to-veto domestic spending to the measure and bypassed the committee process. Instead of voting “yes” or “no” on the funding measure, 132 Republicans instead voted “present.”

Because of that, the measure failed by eight votes. In the final tally, 141 members voted yes, 149 voted no, 132 voted present and 12 did not vote.

House Republican leaders said they were seeking to demonstrate that Democrats could not pass the spending bill on their own.

“What you saw is certainly an aggressive, imaginative floor tactic,” said House Republican Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (Fla.). “What you see is that a majority of the majority doesn’t support this spending bill for the troops.”

Puzzled Democrats said Republicans had committed an offense most often pinned on Democrats — failure to support the troops.

“There’s no money for the troops right now — no money for the troops,” said House Defense Appropriations Chairman John Murtha (D-Pa.). “And that’s their problem.”

Murtha said it was ironic that the Republicans — who have complained loudly that troop funding will run out in mid-June — blocked war funding.

But in the meantime Murtha, who voted for the bill, said Democrats were “coming up to me and congratulating me for ending the war.”

Two other measures did pass. One called for immediate withdrawal with a goal of removing all combat troops by December 2009. The other was a domestic spending package with money for expanded unemployment benefits and a new college tuition benefit for veterans.

That created the odd legislative scenario of a spending bill that places restrictions on how money can be spent for the war, but has no money for the war.

Surprised Democratic aides said the confusion can be straightened out in the Senate, where the bill goes next. The money could be added there and then the bill can be sent back to the House for a final vote. It is not clear whether Republicans would again block funding.

“They were for the war before they voted present,” quipped Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). “The Senate will decide what they want to do.”

Pelosi had tried to carefully craft a unique Iraq supplemental spending package in an attempt to pass it with a minimum of Democratic infighting. Rather than fighting for enough votes to pass a war funding bill that would pass the House and Senate and avoid a presidential veto, she cut the bill into three pieces.

The idea was to have the war funding piece pass with Republican votes, augmented by enough conservative Democratic votes to put it over a majority. Ardent war opponents in the Democratic caucus could vote their conscience without stopping the bill.

By voting “present” Republicans indicated they did not want to dance to Pelosi’s tune.

“They wanted to use us before they abused us,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters after the vote. “They wanted to use the troops before they abused the troops ... by doing everything that they could to prevent them from succeeding and adding all of these domestic items to the bill.”

But the basic legislative meaning of those 132 “present” votes is that those members did not support funding that Republicans often term as “support for the troops.”

Putnam said Republicans will be insulated from attacks that they are not supporting the troops because of the party’s strong pro-military record. But aides said leaders know the plan could backfire. If Republican voters complain about lack of support for war funding over the weekend, GOP leaders likely will change tactics next week.

If they do not, House Republicans and Democrats could engage in a game of political chicken over the spending bill leading up to the Memorial Day recess.

Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.), a moderate who has been critical of the hard conservative tilt of the Republican leadership and who is retiring after this year, said the decision to vote present was spontaneous, and driven by fact that the GOP was shut out of process.

Asked if he was worried about how it would play out, he said, “I’m not worried. I’m retiring.”

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said Democrats specifically gave Republicans an opportunity for a clean vote on the funding of the war. He accused the Republicans of panicking because of the losses they have suffered in special elections and because of worries about being continually tied to a war associated with President Bush.

“What they did just demonstrates what happens when panic sets in after a Mississippi loss,” Obey said. “They can’t get rid of George Bush fast enough.”

Pelosi voted against the war funding portion of the bill. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) voted for it. All told, 85 Democrats voted for it, 85 voted against it, and no Democrats voted “present.”

Among Republicans, 56 voted for the war funding and two voted “no.”

The White House had issued a veto threat earlier in the day, criticizing the unemployment insurance extension, the new veterans benefits and the “millionaire’s tax” that would pay for the tuition program.

But Democrats are spoiling for the veto fight. They think it will damage Republicans’ political chances in the fall if Bush vetoes legislation that pays for the war and helps veterans and the unemployed.

The free college tuition for veterans has been dubbed the “new GI Bill.” It would pay tuition for a veteran up to the highest in-state tuition in his or her state. To pay for it, Democrats included a surtax on income of more than $500,000 for individuals, or $1 million for married couples. But that tax is widely expected to be stripped out in the Senate.