Bush prepares to ask for more troops

President Bush spent hours Tuesday practicing in front of cameras, preparing to make his case for increasing the U.S. military commitment in Iraq in a prime-time address to the nation tonight, even as congressional Democrats readied legislation to block any increase in the number of troops.

Members of Congress who met with Bush said he appeared to understand that, after years of upbeat rhetoric and positive assessments that belied a lack of progress inside the country, his credibility was on the line.

“He told us what he planned to say tomorrow,” said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), one of about a dozen House members who met with the president and his top advisors for more than an hour Tuesday afternoon. “In terms of tough moments in his presidency, this is it.”

Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Senate’s second-ranking Republican, said both Republicans and Democrats would be listening for a note of contrition in the president’s voice.

“As important as what he says is how he says it,” Lott told reporters.

Lawmakers who have met with Bush this week say he intends to ask for about 20,000 additional troops to shift the strategy in Iraq toward ending sectarian violence and increasing security on the ground for Iraqi civilians in restive areas. According to the lawmakers, the troubled Iraqi government has agreed to meet benchmarks of political progress as a condition of the troop increase.

Supporters of the strategy say a decrease in violence will foster political reconciliation between Iraqi factions. Detractors say a “surge” in troops is just another term for “escalation.”

“His speech is going to clearly show that he is calling for an escalation in Iraq,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters.

In the White House meeting, Bush gave a rundown of the speech to House Democrats, who gave him a tepid response. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said no lawmaker in his meeting supported the new policy.

“We were more in a question-and-answer mode, but a fair amount of skepticism was voiced,” Smith said.

“It was not a confrontational meeting,” said Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Alamo), who said she emphasized the importance of the Iraqi government making political progress. “I think he understands that, at some level, this is the last best chance.”

“I said a surge in troops was a good idea three years ago -- but not now,” Harman said. “Other strategies -- political and diplomatic -- right now are more critical.”

Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young of Florida, who joined other senior House Republicans at the White House on Tuesday, said he wanted to hear more from Bush.

“I’m anxious to hear the speech,” he said, “because I think there’s going to be a lot more in the speech than he told us today.”

Reid said he intended to bring at least a nonbinding resolution to the Senate floor next week to permit Democrats and Republicans to vote against a troop increase. A similar measure is planned in the House.

In addition, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) introduced legislation Tuesday to cut off funding for any troops above the current level of 132,000. It would also require the president to seek congressional approval before sending additional military forces to Iraq.

Kennedy said his legislation, which is being sponsored in the House by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), would “reclaim the rightful role of Congress and the people’s right to have a full voice in the president’s plan to send more troops to Iraq.”

Kennedy was careful Tuesday to insist that he and other Democrats did not plan to cut off funding for troops now in Iraq.

Reid did not commit to bringing Kennedy’s proposal to a Senate vote. “His is an idea,” Reid said, “and certainly we’ll look at it in an intelligent way. We’ll look at it giving everyone every right they have to be part of a solution to this problem.”

Kennedy detailed his proposal at the National Press Club in a speech rich with allusions to Vietnam.

“Echoes of that disaster are all around us today. Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam,” said Kennedy, who joined the Senate in 1962, three years before the major escalation of American military involvement in Southeast Asia. “As with Vietnam, the only rational solution to the crisis is political, not military.”

Kennedy helped lead the efforts to limit military aid to South Vietnam after U.S. forces withdrew following the 1973 peace accords. Since then, Congress has acted several times to put legislative limits on military operations.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has been a leading champion of sending more troops, said congressional limitations for Iraq would be a “devastating precedent.”

“I can’t think of a stronger signal to send to the extremists in the world, not just Iraq -- ‘Hang in there, you’re winning’ -- other than the United States Congress calling this war over,” he said.

P. Edward Haley, a political scientist at Claremont McKenna College and a former congressional staffer, said “the founders knew what they were doing when they gave the legislature the power of the purse.”

“The abuse of the power to make war was one of the worst forms of monarchical misrule, and the quickest road to tyranny, and the founders were determined to prevent both in the new constitution,” Haley said.

“Of course, having the power is one thing; finding the votes to exercise it is another,” Haley added. “It will be very difficult for the Democrats to refuse funding without falling into a political trap the administration has set in order to blame them for failure in Iraq.”

*

maura.reynolds@latimes.com

noam.levey@latimes.com

Times staff writers James Gerstenzang, Richard Simon and Janet Hook contributed to this report.

*

Speech tonight

President Bush will deliver his nationally televised address on his Iraq strategy today at 6 p.m.