“It was a tough meeting in terms of people being as frank as they possibly could about their districts and their feelings about where the American people are on the war,” said Representative Ray LaHood of Illinois, who took part in the session, which lasted more than an hour in the residential section of the White House. “It was a no-holds-barred meeting.”

Several of the Republican moderates who visited the White House have already come under political attack at home for their support of Mr. Bush and survived serious Democratic challenges in November.

Representative Charles W. Dent of Pennsylvania, a co-chairman of the Tuesday Group, an alliance of about 30 moderate Republican lawmakers, helped arrange the meeting. He said lawmakers wanted to convey the frustration and impatience with the war they are hearing from voters. “We had a very frank conversation about the situation in Iraq,” he said. Even so, the Republicans who attended the White House session indicated that they would maintain solidarity with Mr. Bush for now by opposing the latest Democratic proposal for two-stage financing of war, which is scheduled for a vote on Thursday in the House.

Lawmakers said Mr. Bush made no commitments, but seemed grateful for their support and said a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq could cause the sort of chaos that occurred in Southeast Asia after Americans left Vietnam. The lawmakers said that Mr. Bush and others at the meeting — including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the political adviser Karl Rove and National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley — appeared to appreciate the political reality facing Republicans who will be on the ballot next year.

“It was very healthy,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, who attended but let the moderates do most of the talking.

“I walked away from it feeling I got a chance to make my points,” Mr. Davis said.

The delegation included Representatives Mark Kirk of Illinois, another leader of the moderate coalition; Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania; James T. Walsh of New York; and Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri. Mr. Kirk, Mr. Walsh and Ms. Emerson declined to discuss the meeting.

White House officials said Mr. Bush welcomed the observations of the lawmakers. “The president encouraged the members to give unvarnished opinions and views,” said Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman. She also noted a “persistent push” by the administration in recent days to put new pressure on the Iraqi government via a secure video conference by Mr. Bush with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and the surprise visit to Iraq by Vice President Dick Cheney.

The White House on Wednesday promised a veto of the emerging House bill, which would essentially provide financing for combat operations through midsummer, but require the president to provide a series of reports on the state of the Iraqi military and the progress of the government in achieving political unity. Congress would then vote a second time in late July on releasing the rest of the money sought by the administration, or restricting its use to redeployment and more limited operations in Iraq.

Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, said White House officials, led by Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, would try to reach a compromise with Congress. Mr. Bolten met Wednesday with Senate leaders.

While the Pentagon awaits the money, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told a Senate committee on Wednesday that the military continued to shift funds, terminate contracts and slow spending so troops in Iraq and Afghanistan did not run out of money. The cost-cutting measures could sustain the troops until July, he said, “if we pulled out all the stops.”

Mr. Gates, who also attended the White House meeting on Tuesday, told lawmakers that the Pentagon would evaluate the violence in Iraq and the progress of the administration’s troop buildup plan by early September to determine the next phase of the military strategy.

“I think if we see some very positive progress and it looks like things are headed in the right direction,” Mr. Gates said, “then that’s the point at which I think we can begin to consider reducing some of these forces.”

Senators vigorously questioned Mr. Gates and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the Pentagon’s announcement on Tuesday of potentially mobilizing 35,000 more troops by December. Mr. Gates said the decision to send those forces to Iraq was not “foreordained,” adding that a decision would be made after the September review.

“There’s a sense here certainly by the Democrats and growing among Republicans that there has to be some progress, significant progress to sustain it beyond September,” said Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican. Lawmakers said there was strong emphasis that they would be formulating their future position on the war on the basis of what Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, says in a report this summer.

“I think people want to hear what the general says,” said Representative Gerlach, of Pennsylvania. “We will all go from there.”

Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting.

Bush said he would veto the measure. "We reject that idea. It won't work," the president said, speaking to reporters at the Pentagon after a briefing on Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bill being voted on Thursday is opposed by nearly all Republicans and unlikely to survive in the Senate. But House Democratic leaders say the measure shows they refuse to back down in challenging Bush on a deeply unpopular and costly war.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters he has felt a shift in the administration's approach to Democrats.

"It's very clear that the people around the president recognize there are some problems," said Reid, D-Nev. "And I think I have felt with my conversations with administration officials that there is a right admission that things are not going very well."

Senate Democrats said they anticipate a vote on a war bill by next week, although Reid said it remains unclear what the Senate bill might look like.

"There are 150 scenarios as to how this matter is going to be handled," said Reid. Finding a bill the Congress will pass and the president will sign is "extremely difficult," he added.

Bush pressured Iraqi leaders to move swiftly on a number of long-pending measures, including legislation to share Iraq's oil wealth, hold provincial elections and update the constitution.

"They have got to speed up their clock," the president said. Washington is unhappy that Iraq's parliament plans to take a two-month vacation this summer in the midst of the war.

Bush's willingness to put benchmarks in a war-funding bill represented a shift by the president.

"One message I have heard from people of both parties is that benchmarks make sense and I agree," Bush said. He said his chief of staff, Joshua Bolten, would talk with congressional leaders "to find common ground" on benchmarks.

White House officials decided Bush, after refusing to discuss his negotiating stand, should change course and declare what he is for since he been emphatic about what he is against.

The Democrats' bill in the House would provide the military with $42.8 billion to keep operations going through July, buy equipment and train Iraqi and Afghan security forces. Congress would decide shortly before its August recess whether to release an additional $52.8 billion for war spending through September.

A dozen or so members in Congress are attempting to strike a bipartisan compromise. Few have come forward with concrete plans _ perhaps out of reluctance to champion a proposal until they know it can succeed. None of the proposals put in plain view have picked up steam.

"We'll see what happens," said Rep. Bud Cramer, D-Ala. "A lot of us are coming together across the aisle. We're under the radar now, but we're meeting."

Many Republicans have grown nervous on the war.

Two Republicans _ Reps. Frank Wolf of Virginia and Michael McCaul of Texas _ circulated a letter along with Democrat Mark Udall of Colorado urging their colleagues to co-sponsor legislation that would put in place recommendations from the independent Iraq Study Group.

One of the 79 suggestions from the bipartisan group in December was reducing U.S. "political, military or economic support" for Iraq if the Baghdad government could not make substantial progress toward providing for the country's security. The report suggested an urgent diplomatic attempt to stabilize Iraq and allow the withdrawal of most U.S. combat troops by early 2008.

Bush said Congress should give his buildup of more than 20,000 troops a chance to work.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander, is to report to Bush in September on the effectiveness of the buildup.

"Why don't we wait and see what happens," the president said. "Let's give this plan a chance to work. Let's stop playing politics."

Bush said the House Democrats' plan to pay for the war only through July was "haphazard, piecemeal funding."

Of the five brigades of additional forces being sent to Iraq, Bush said three are already settled there, the fourth has just entered Baghdad and the fifth will arrive in mid-June.

"Al-Qaida is responding with their own surge. Al-Qaida is ratcheting up their own campaign of high-profile attacks," Bush said.

Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia was one of 11 GOP lawmakers who met with Bush and his top aides Tuesday afternoon.

"We asked them what's Plan B," Davis said. "We let them know that the status quo is not acceptable." Davis said the president responded that if he began discussing a new strategy, his current one never would have a chance to succeed.
© 2007 The Associated Press