WASHINGTON -- House Democrats struggled yesterday to reach consensus on Iraq policy, while a proposal for strict troop training and equipment standards put forward by U.S. Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania seemed unlikely to survive without significant changes.
The party swept into power last November promising to redirect the nation's course in Iraq. But members now are splitting into liberal, moderate and conservative corners as they try to respond to President Bush's request for nearly $100 billion in extra spending for the war.
"Nobody knows what the plan is yet," Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Forest Hills, said after a closed-door meeting of Democrats. "Everyone says they want to see something in writing, but nobody wants anything in writing until everyone's opinion is expressed."
Still, Mr. Doyle predicted that the full House would be able to vote on a bill as soon as next week. He's a strong supporter of Mr. Murtha, who wants the military funding bill to mandate firm readiness levels for American units before they head overseas. Mr. Murtha, a Vietnam veteran and chairman of the House's panel on defense spending, also wants at least one year of rest for troops between deployments and an end to the military's "stop-loss" policies that prevent soldiers from leaving the service when their enlistment periods end.
Such requirements would force the president to reconsider his "surge" of more than 20,000 additional troops in Iraq, Mr. Murtha has argued.
But the former Marine alienated many conservative Democrats last month when he unveiled details of his proposal on an anti-war group's Web site. Party leaders have since been trying to find a middle ground, while Republicans accuse them of trying to cut funding for the troops and undermine the president.
"Some members of Congress say that we can succeed in Iraq without providing the reinforcements that our forces have been promised and are expecting. I disagree," Mr. Bush said in a speech before the American Legion yesterday. "Now that the battle for Baghdad is under way, our country is best served by standing behind our troops and doing everything we can to aid in their success."
Last week, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, called Mr. Murtha's proposals "a backhanded way of trying to tie the president's hands and make it difficult for us to win this war."
"If they want to cut the funding," he said, "they ought to have the courage to stand up and do it forthright."
Indeed, Mr. Murtha has been a proponent of a withdrawal from Iraq since late 2005, when he first emerged as one of the nation's loudest critics of the war. In recent weeks, he has turned down most interview requests from the media, although Sunday he told NBC's Tim Russert there weren't enough votes in the House to end funding.
Democrats now are discussing a number of alternative proposals, including the possibility of allowing "waivers" for the president once he acknowledges that some military units don't meet training and equipment levels and the setting of a withdrawal deadline if the Iraqi government doesn't take a larger role in controlling violence.
Rep. Jason Altmire, D-McCandless, said the waiver proposal hasn't pleased some of the party's liberal members, nor has it won support from conservatives.
"The president could just ignore it," he said. "At that point, you're not making anybody happy."
Also, many members want to commit more funds for Afghanistan, citing reports that al-Qaida terrorists are regrouping in remote regions along the country's border with Pakistan.
Some Democrats also are eager to add funds for veterans' health care and programs unrelated to the war, including a health insurance plan for children and aid for drought-stricken farms.
"We're trying to come to consensus, and the way you do that is you talk. In part, we discuss it in the caucus, we discuss it in the leadership, we discuss it member to member, we discuss it in our committees," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said yesterday. "All of that is going on at this point."
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois pointed to three areas of agreement: a larger focus on Afghanistan, benchmarks for Iraqi performance, and firm funding and equipment commitments for the troops.
Yet, as of yesterday, the party didn't seem any closer to forging an actual bill.
Mr. Doyle and Mr. Altmire aren't members of either of the party's main competing factions, the Out of Iraq Caucus or the conservative Blue Dog Coalition. But their positions do resemble that split.
Mr. Doyle supports a withdrawal from Iraq as soon as possible. He wants to see legislation on the war that has "teeth" and forces the president to change direction.
Mr. Altmire is a critic of the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq war. Nevertheless, he is reluctant to put limits in place when troops are already on the battlefield.
"I don't think it's our role to micromanage the war," he said. "I can't support anything that's going to cut funds or anything that's going to hamstring the troop leaders on the ground."
First Published: March 7, 2007, 5:00 a.m.