With President Bush poised to announce a surge in US troops in Iraq this week, antiwar activists in the Democratic Party are stepping up demands that their party"s leaders cut off funding for the war -- a dramatic step that would force the president to quickly end American involvement in the war.


Antiwar activists held banners last week and set up paper lanterns in front of the White House with photographs and names of some of the US service members killed in Iraq. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Calls for Congress to use the power of the purse to shape war policy are coming from the party"s base of vocal war opponents, as well as a growing number of rank-and-file Democratic lawmakers who view November"s midterm congressional elections as a demand from the public for Democrats to force the president to end the war.

Today, Representative Dennis Kucinich, a liberal Ohio Democrat, plans to outline a proposal for Congress to deny Bush any more funds for the war and have the United Nations lead a security force to stabilize Iraq.

"Our very majority was created through a determination by the people of this country that they wanted a new direction in Iraq," said Kucinich, who ran for president in 2004 on an antiwar platform and has announced a 2008 candidacy as well.

The push by liberals underscores a split within the Democratic Party that winning the majority in Congress hasn"t healed. Democrats are caught between a desire to support US troops and appear strong on national security and a sometimes competing push to end an increasingly unpopular war.

"It"ll be an interesting leadership challenge to manage these different pieces," said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who has written extensively on the war. "But Iraq is not going away."

The intra party tension was on display yesterday, with new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi again rejecting suggestions that Democrats cut off funding for forces now in Iraq.

Pelosi held out the possibility that Democrats would pare down the president"s future funding requests to try to prevent a troop increase but said Democrats" efforts to influence war policies would never extend to cutting funds for troops already in the field.

"We will always be there to protect our troops and support our troops," Pelosi, a California Democrat, said on CBS"s "Face the Nation."

Since winning the November elections, Democratic leaders in Congress have taken a cautious approach to the war. The issue of Iraq was omitted entirely from House Democrats" agenda for their first 100 legislative hours in power, as Democrats focus on domestic issues such as raising the minimum wage and expanding stem cell research.

House and Senate leaders are urging a "phased redeployment" of troops that is not tied to a timeline, and some have signaled a willingness to accept a temporary increase in troop levels as part of a broader plan for ending the war.

Pelosi made clear in her first speech as speaker that she will look to the president to chart a new course in Iraq before Democrats try to influence policy. Bush is scheduled to address the nation on his plan for Iraq as early as Wednesday evening.

But even before the new Congress began, some peace activists began expressing dismay that Democrats aren"t doing more to end the war. A group of antiwar protesters led by Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a slain soldier who gained fame during her summer 2005 vigil outside Bush"s Texas ranch, disrupted a press conference Democrats were holding Wednesday in Washington on their ethics and lobbying measures.

"We didn"t put you in power to work with the people that have been murdering hundreds of thousands of people since they have been in power," Sheehan said after Democratic leaders were forced to cut short the news conference.

Liberal activists are likely to become even more agitated if Congress stands by while Bush sends more troops to Iraq. With that in mind, House and Senate Democratic leaders took the unusual step Friday of preemptively opposing a major increase in troop levels in Iraq -- something Bush is expected to call for this week.

But it remains unclear whether Democrats will be able to stop a troop surge -- much less hasten the end of the war itself -- without withholding funding. Leading Democrats, including Pelosi and Senate majority leader Harry Reid, have been nearly unanimous in rejecting a move to cut off funds, and some who want to end the war now are hesitant to take such a step.

Representative William D. Delahunt, a Quincy Democrat who serves on the US House International Relations Committee, said Democrats should use congressional hearings to establish the best course and to inform the public about the options that exist.

"You don"t want to make the same kind of mistakes getting out that this administration did getting in," Delahunt said. "I"m satisfied that withdrawal as soon as practically possible is the best solution. But it is very important to educate not just the American people, but members of Congress and policy makers about this war and how we can end it."

Yet Kucinich cautions that approving the administration"s next war budget request -- the Pentagon is expected to ask for at least $100 billion more in the new federal budget -- could give the president all the money he needs to continue the war through the end of his term.

"You can"t say you"re opposed to the war and keep funding it," he said.

Representative Gregory W. Meeks, a New York Democrat, said Congress would be wrong to give up its most powerful tool by giving the administration all the money it wants for the war.

"The American people were clear in the election that they don"t want more troops in Iraq," said. "We have to -- and we will -- stand up and go in a different direction."