WASHINGTON – The Senate’s adoption of a statement calling on President Bush to detail America’s progress in Iraq and to create the conditions for withdrawal next year provides a glimpse into the campaign strategies of senators who are looking to succeed Mr. Bush in 2008.

The Senate yesterday easily defeated a proposed amendment by Senator Levin, a Democrat of Michigan, which would have required Mr. Bush to set a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

But the decision by the Senate’s Republican leadership to provide an alternative to Mr. Levin’s amendment that mirrored nearly all of its provisions except the withdrawal timetable was viewed as a victory by Democrats and by 13 of the Senate’s most hawkish Republicans, including Senator McCain, of Arizona, who is eyeing a presidential run in 2008.

Tweaking Democrats and Mr. Bush, Mr. McCain last week called for increasing troops in Iraq. Yesterday, he criticized the Republican leadership in the Senate for proposing an amendment that, he said, focused more on withdrawal than on victory. Senator Graham, a Republican of South Carolina whose name has surfaced as a possible running mate for Mr. McCain, also voted against the Levin amendment.

Mr. McCain’s call for a stronger commitment on Iraq from Republicans and Democrats establishes him as the most hawkish member of the Senate. And it sets him up for a presidential campaign rooted in a hard-nosed defense policy. Mr. McCain, 69, is a Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war.

“If we can reach victory in 2006, that would be wonderful,” Mr. McCain said. “But should 2006 not be the landmark year that these amendments anticipate, we will have once again unrealistically raised the expectations of the American people that can only cost domestic support for America’s role in this conflict, a war we must win.”

Democrats seized on the Republican amendment as a sign that recent attacks on Mr. Bush had taken root even among his allies in the war. The Senate’s minority leader, Senator Reid, of Nevada, called the vote a “victory for our troops and the American people.”

“If Democrats hadn’t acted, our Republican colleagues would have been fine going along with the administration’s no plan, no end approach,” Mr. Reid said.

The Republican leadership in the Senate rejected claims of victory by Democrats. Senator Cornyn, a Republican of Texas, countered that the bipartisan defeat of Mr. Levin’s amendment was a sign that the Senate is committed to staying in Iraq until the job is finished. The vote on the Levin amendment was 58-40, with no Republicans voting in favor.

“The bipartisan defeat of the Levin amendment calling for an artificial timetable to leave Iraq is a clear signal that Americans don’t cut and run,” Mr. Cornyn said.

Anticipating a vote on the defense bill, Mr. Bush on Monday denounced critics of the war. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld yesterday chided reporters who cast the passage of the Republican statement as a sign of growing unease about Mr. Bush’s policies.

“We must be careful not to give terrorists the false hope that if they can simply hold on long enough that they can outlast us,” Mr. Rumsfeld said.

Joining the Republican hawks who voted against the Republican amendment were six Democrats who have been intensely critical of the war, including Senator Harkin, of Iowa, and Senators Kennedy and Kerry, of Massachusetts. Senators Clinton and Schumer, both of New York, voted for both the Levin amendment and the Republican alternative.

Mr. Kerry, who is eyeing a presidential run in 2008, told his supporters in an e-mail yesterday that passage of the Republican amendment is a sign that support for Mr. Bush’s policy in Iraq is eroding.

“You can feel the ice breaking,” Mr. Kerry wrote. “For far too long, Republican leaders have refused to challenge the aimless Bush ‘stay as long as it takes’ approach to Iraq. But now, their unwillingness to act has started to crumble.”

Other Republican amendments to the defense bill prohibit the torture of detainees, limit interrogation techniques, and limit access to federal courts by inmates at Guantanamo Bay. President Bush has threatened to veto a bill that contains the detainee amendments, making it likely they will be stripped in committee.