Roguely Stated

House Democrats have been beating down the door on Iraq withdrawal in louder and stronger terms with every passing day. Their recent strategic push – “strings-attached” appropriations bills – pits the power of the purse against “support our troops.” It’s a battle the Dems may not win.

Democrats have already come a long way, cementing a majority of American public opinion against the war and picking up valuable seats in November 2006.

Right now, it seems like they will continue to insist on withdrawal, timetables, and strict benchmarks through bill after bill after bill. If they do, though, they may find themselves on the losing end of the “support our troops” debate and, even worse, missing out on critical allies among Republican moderates.

On Tuesday, 11 moderate Republicans visited the White House to deliver a strong show of concern on Iraq to Secretary of State Rice, National Security Advisor Hadley, Secretary of Defense Gates, Karl Rove, and the primary target, President Bush. The meeting was, in the words of participating Representative Ray LaHood (R-IL), a “no-holds barred meeting” in which Congressional Republicans explained their worries about Iraq and about mounting political pressure in their constituencies.

To be sure, the number of moderates who rally against an unchecked war will grow. One of the 11 representatives was Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA), co-chair of the ~30 moderate Republicans known as the Tuesday Group.

Moderate Republicans are expressing concern about Iraq, but their votes in support of “clean” appropriations bills also show support for the administration and, critically, for the troops.

Gates has been making a clear argument that funding restrictions will threaten Pentagon operations: “If we pulled out all the stops, used everything possible available to us, we could probably fund the war into July. But I would tell you the impact on the Department of Defense, in terms of disruption and canceled contracts and programs, would be huge if we had to do that.”

Even Senate Democrats agree that the short-term funding allocations suggested by many House Democrats are a bad idea: “it puts the troops on a very short leash in terms of funding,” said Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Levin (D-MI), “and I don’t think we should do that.”

With every strings-attached appropriations measure, House Democrats weaken their “support the troops” claim and make it harder for moderate Republicans to line up with them and make demands for real accountability from the White House. The second risk is that with every forced veto, Bush looks more and more like the resolute, strong leader so many Americans voted for in 2004.

House Minority Leader Boehner (R-OH) is already beating the drum: “Enough is enough. It is time to get a clean bill to the president’s desk and really support our troops.”

This week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) accused the president of choosing “confrontation over cooperation.” If House Democrats continue to punish Bush by restricting troop funding, they may soon find themselves on the receiving end of that charge.