Democrats in D.C. seem generally united in their opposition to President Bush's expected call tonight for more troops in Iraq. But they're not sure what to do about it. Some say Congress should cut off funding to stop the president from sending any additional troops. But others, including Reps. Adam Smith and Norm Dicks and Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell say it could be difficult to selectively withhold money just for new troops.

Congressman Jay Inslee is clear he wants to stop funding for the president's plan. He spoke on the House floor earlier this morning to say Congress needs to "stop George Bush's disastrous policy in Iraq."

"The president has refused to listen to the bipartisan panel calling for a chance in Iraq. He has refused to listen to the American people. But he cannot refuse to listen to a Congress that fulfills its obligation under the Constitution to exercise the power of the purse to stop this misguided escalation.

"The U.S. House should vote in clear and no uncertain terms to fund the troops that are there and to cut off funding for any escalation. It is our constitutional obligation. It is a commonsense policy to insist on Iraqis standing up. That is the direction of change we need in this country."

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Veteran activist Jon Soltz, right, speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington Wednesday to discuss President Bush's Iraq policy. From left are, retired Gen. Wesley Clark, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Soltz.

UPDATE: Murray is taking a high profile in the Democratic opposition to Bush's plan. She one of three senators who appeared at a pre-speech Capitol press conference with Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark and an Iraq war veteran, John Stoltz.

In remarks prepared for the event, Murray said:

For far too long, this president has ignored the American people, the realities on the ground, and even his own generals. Unfortunately, we didn't have a Congress willing to stand up and hold him accountable. But the days of congressional blank checks for a failed policy are over. Our country and our troops deserve better.

Unfortunately, all we're hearing from the White House is talk of escalation. Many of our generals have said escalation is not the answer, and the American people have rejected it. Our troops are working hard and sacrificing for us. They deserve a new direction — not an escalation that will put more brave Americans in harms' way.

Clark, a once and maybe future Democratic presidential candidate, is taking some heat for recent comments he made to Arianna Huffington about "New York money people" lobbying for a U.S. attack on Iran.

Huffington ran into Clark at last week's opening of Congress. The retired general has been vocal about his opposition to a troop increase in Iraq. But he told Huffington that he was even more concerned about what he thinks are likely U.S. air strikes against Iran.

When we asked him what made him so sure the Bush administration was headed in this direction, he replied: "You just have to read what's in the Israeli press. The Jewish community is divided but there is so much pressure being channeled from the New York money people to the office seekers."

The Wall Street Journal's on-line Opinion Journal said Friday that Clark obviously meant "rich Jews."

As we've frequently observed, there is an element of hatred on the Angry Left that goes beyond mere partisanship. Now that the Democrats are the majority party in Congress, one can only hope that the rigors of responsibility will help to temper it.

UPDATE: If you want to gauge liberal's reaction to Democrats' dilemma over how best to stop Bush, watch the comment thread on Rep. Smith's guest post at horsesass.org. Smith sums it up this way:

I don't want to put the troops in a political fight between Congress and the president, and Congress should carefully consider the consequences of any attempts to block funds for a surge. We cannot put our forces in Iraq at greater risk. But a troop surge is not the answer in Iraq.