Pelosi Backs War Funds Only With Conditions

"Congress should make clear what the mission of our troops is," said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.). (By Manuel Balce Ceneta -- Associated Press)

The issue of Iraq roiled both sides of the Capitol yesterday. The House concluded three days of debate and prepared to vote this afternoon on a nonbinding resolution opposing the deployment of additional troops to Iraq, while affirming Congress's support for "the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq."

Senate Republican leaders said they would urge their members to oppose the Saturday vote, to protest Reid's refusal to allow a vote on a pro-administration resolution asserting that war funding would continue. Democratic leaders want to call the bluff of a group of Republican senators who oppose the deployment of additional troops but who voted with their party to block the earlier Democratic-led resolution from coming to the floor.

Both leaderships have refused to budge, not wanting to relent on what they agree is likely to become the year's running narrative. "I don't want this vote to occur. I think the timing is wrong, I think the process is wrong, and I think the substance is wrong," said Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.).

When the House floated its text, Senate Democratic leaders quickly latched on to it, believing Republicans would find it harder to block because of its relatively brief, straightforward language and strong support of U.S. troops.

"On the one hand they have their president, and on the other hand they have their constituencies," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). "They're diametrically opposed to one another. And now they can't duck it anymore."

But as those debates continued, senior Democrats were clearly looking to their next step in confronting Bush on the Iraq war.

Murtha, the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, outlined his plan for restricting the administration's use of war funds in an Internet interview released yesterday. Under that legislation, troops would be required to have one year's rest between deployments, combat tours could no longer be extended, and the Pentagon would have to halt its "stop-loss" program, which prohibits some officers from leaving the military when their tour of duty is complete.

The idea is to neutralize political charges that the Democrats plan to starve the war of funding. The party would still slow the war effort by other means, Murtha said in an interview aired on the new Web site MoveCongress.org.

"What we are saying will be very hard to find fault with," he said. "We're supporting the troops. We're protecting the troops. On the other hand, we're going to stop this surge."

Democrats were taking their case to the left flank of their party, imploring antiwar activists to allow them to slowly shift war policy through troop training requirements rather than by suddenly withholding war funds, as many activists have demanded.

In a video delivered to 1,200 "movie parties" that the liberal group MoveOn.org held last night, Murtha promised: "This country needs a dramatic change of course in Iraq, and it is the responsibility of this Congress to consummate that change."

Republicans are relishing the battle. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) labeled the emerging Democratic proposal "a plan to cut off funding for troops in harm's way by making sure the reinforcements they need to complete their mission in Iraq never arrive."

Staff writer Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.