Democrats step up battle over troops

WASHINGTON -- The showdown between President Bush and the new Democratic Congress over Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq reached a new level yesterday, with party leaders threatening to use their legislative majority -- and control of federal spending -- to halt any escalation of the war.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy led the Democrats' charge yesterday, challenging Congress to stop the troop escalation. He filed a bill that would require Bush to get permission for his plan from both the House and Senate, and would specifically ban the president from spending money for more troops in Iraq.

"We cannot simply speak out against an escalation of troops in Iraq. We must act to prevent it," Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in a speech at the National Press Club. "Congress must no longer follow [the president] deeper into the quagmire in Iraq."

Democrats in the House and Senate were more cautious, saying that Kennedy's bill is among several proposals Congress will consider in the coming weeks. But the bill would have to pass in both the House and Senate, then overcome a near-certain presidential veto by a two-thirds' margin in both houses -- a hurdle that seems insurmountable.

Still, the fiery rhetoric from Kennedy and other Democrats presage a major clash between the White House and Democrats, who took power, in part, on an anti war platform. The outcome could set the tone for the rest of Bush's presidency -- played out with the opposition party controlling Congress -- as well as the 2008 presidential elections.

Democrats have contended that Bush has ignored congressional input throughout his presidency and botched the war. But now that they have the power to do something about it, analysts say, voters will judge them by their handling of war policy.

"The battle lines are definitely drawn. It seems as though the president is really intent on testing this Congress," said Warren Haffar, director of Arcadia University's International Peace and Conflict Resolution program. "The Democrats are going to be put to the test early on."

Tonight, Bush is expected to call for sustained military operations in Iraq that would include up to 20,000 more troops sent to the region -- a decisive rejection of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's proposal that he draw Iran and Syria into negotiations for a regional peace effort. The president is also expected to announce benchmarks that Iraq's government has agreed to meet, such as taking more responsibility for its security.

Democrats have responded aggressively to Bush's proposal, even before it has become public. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he would introduce a nonbinding resolution expressing disapproval of the so-called troop surge and predicted some Republicans would join Democrats to vote for it.

If the resolution passes, Reid said, it probably would mark the "beginning of the end" of the war, sending Bush a message that he has lost the support of Congress.

Representative Martin T. Meehan, a Lowell Democrat, joined 10 co sponsors to file a similar non binding resolution in the House yesterday. Meehan contended that past troop increases haven't done much to quell the violence in Iraq.

"Rather than cooling tensions in Baghdad, the situation has descended further into chaos," said Meehan, a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has suggested that in the coming months Congress may use its control of federal spending to prevent any troop increase . But she and Reid have said they won't stop funding the war , a move that would affect troops already deployed in Iraq.

The new Democratic majority is confronting the reality that, when it comes to war, the executive branch holds most of the power. Several prominent Democrats -- including Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the Senate Foreign Relations chairman, and House majority leader Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland -- believe congressional attempts to dictate war policy may be unconstitutional.

"It's very difficult for the Legislature to shape the White House's efforts," said Senator Ben Nelson, a conservative Democrat from Nebraska. "It's my opinion versus his, but he's the president."

Still, Pelosi's suggestion has gained attention on Capitol Hill. The Pentagon is expected to submit its largest funding request yet, at least $100 billion, next month, money that would cover the war for 2007.

"We've got to establish that [Bush] doesn't just get to do this thing and then send the bill to Congress," said Representative Neil Abercrombie, a Hawaii Democrat.

Yet Kennedy vowed to push for a vote on his plan "at the earliest realistic date" before Bush asks for more money.

If Bush deploys more troops by the end of January, Kennedy said, the expanded force will be in place before Congress takes up the next war budget bill, in February or March.

"We have to take the action now," ahead of the president, "or it's going to be a lot of meaningless statements and comments," Kennedy said.

Kennedy's bill, sponsored in the House by Representative Edward J. Markey, a Malden Democrat, includes a proposal to cap the troop level at about 132,000, the number in Iraq yesterday.

If the bill becomes law, the president would need specific congressional approval to use more force in Iraq; Congress employed a similar mechanism to force the US withdrawal from Vietnam in 1974 and to prevent President Reagan from sending more troops to Lebanon in 1983.

In his speech, Kennedy likened Bush to Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon, both of whom sent more forces into the Vietnam War even though an American military victory was impossible. In Iraq, he said, an escalation "would be a policy of desperation built on denial and fantasy."

At a briefing yesterday, as reporters peppered him with questions about the Democrats' opposition, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said that withdrawing from Iraq would endanger Americans at home.

"I guarantee you the world is less safe if the United States withdraws and leaves a vacuum in Iraq ," Snow said.

Some Republicans called Kennedy's bill a back-door way to terminate funds for troops, even though Kennedy made clear that his bill would not affect troops already in the war zone.

"Politicians shouldn't be micromanaging the war on terror from Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., or anywhere else," said Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican.

Michael Kranish of the Globe staff contributed to this report.