Patience running short on Iraq

WASHINGTON
THERE IS A reason why President Bush's aides are scrambling to come up with fresh justifications for the violence in Iraq, which mocks the latest protestations from the top that all is well.

Bush has not just had a run of lousy polling results on his presidency, leadership, credibility, and his handling of the war. The political byproducts of three years of propaganda contradicted by the hard news of ceaseless insurgency are now coming as well from a Republican Congress that is beginning to stir.

Earlier this month, with virtually no notice, the final version of the legislation sending another $85 billion to support the continued fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan contained an intriguing instruction to the administration to report on a list of ''measurable objectives" that would produce the beginning of US troop withdrawal if they are met.

The instruction was noteworthy because it came from a proposal by a Democrat, Jim Moran of Virginia, but made it into the final report by House and Senate negotiators because it attracted considerable Republican support and there would have been a stink had it been dropped.

Since then, several other proposals have quietly surfaced from members of both parties, and one of them was approved on June 9 by the House's International Relations Committee, as an amendment to the annual measure authorizing the State Department's operations. Once again the author was a Democrat and onetime ''yes" vote on the 2002 bill authorizing war in Iraq -- Representative Joe Crowley of New York.

The Crowley proposal won in the committee in a 32-9 vote, with 13 Republicans aboard. Instead of Moran's measurable objectives, this one calls for a detailed ''plan for success" as a prelude to withdrawal.

Interestingly, the language that attracted this bipartisan support is not appreciably different from a proposal made last week by the House's Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi of California. Designed for inclusion in the Defense Department's appropriation bill, the major difference was the requirement that the administration's ''strategy for success" be unveiled in detail within 30 days of the legislation's passage. The criteria matched Moran's.

This time, however, the Pelosi name was enough to awaken the House's cheerleading leadership, which denied even a vote on the proposal. An attempt to open the measure up failed on a party-line vote, with only one Republican defection. The whip was clearly cracked.

Nonetheless, the same day that Pelosi's game attempt failed, a group of Republicans and Democrats introduced the toughest idea yet in legislative language. It would require Bush to set a date for the start of US withdrawal by the end of this year, with the first troops to leave no later than October of next year.

This one had four initial co-sponsors: two Democrats opposed to the nearly unilateral invasion from the outset, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii; an antiwar Republican and America Firster in the mold of Pat Buchanan, Rod Paul of Texas; and a GOP convert, Walter Jones of North Carolina.

Jones is worthy of the most attention, because he ''led" the movement before the invasion to replace french fries with Freedom Fries in Congress's eateries. Less attention, however, was paid to his reasons for switching. In addition to cost in lives and treasure, he is concerned about other priorities, namely Iran, North Korea, the rise of China, and illegal immigration from Mexico.

In a letter to constituents, Jones stressed that the four representatives' resolution did not demand a firm withdrawal date, and far from demanding immediate withdrawal, outlined a very gradual one beginning late next year.

This flurry of activity (there will be more) demonstrates several major points about the politics of this seemingly endless mess. The obvious one is that Congress won't and can't stop this; only Bush can bring it to an end.

However, Congress has already by implication shown that there is no more political will for escalation of troop strength, despite repeated reports from Iraq of stretched-out and stressed-out US forces. Without fanfare, Bush's top advisers have reached the same conclusion.

The flurry of activity also demonstrates the fallacy of one of the older canards about Iraq politics -- Republicans are only interested in covering up and cheerleading and Democrats wish for failure. The real interest is in one final effort, as Democratic Senator Joe Biden of Delaware puts it, to get this policy right.

What Congress is really after is the commodity in shortest supply -- truth, about the current situation and about Bush's intentions. It is also looking for an indication that the US commitment is not open-ended but will phase out at some point that needs definition if not a date.

The latest round of Polyanna statements from Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Bush himself over the weekend has fallen not on deaf ears, but on experienced ones. A little hard truth could still go a long way, but no one should hold his breath.

Thomas Oliphant's e-mail address is oliphant@globe.com.