Washington ? The Democrats are treading on dangerous political ground in questioning President Bush’s request for military and reconstruction aid to Iraq, but there is one big issue on which they are demonstrably right: If the $87 billion of assistance is as vitally needed as the administration rightly suggests, it should be paid for — not financed by borrowing still more from our children and grandchildren.

Going to war in Iraq was the decision by this generation of political leaders — the president and most members of the House and Senate. They acted with full knowledge that ousting Saddam Hussein and his cohorts would saddle us with responsibility for the future of that vital country, with its oil resources and its strategic location. As Tom Friedman of The New York Times kept reminding everyone before the fighting started, “You break it, you own it.”

The people who ordered up this war are the ones who ought to finance its aftermath. Yet when the Senate had a chance to vote on Oct. 2 for an amendment that would pay the postwar costs by temporarily reducing the tax cut for the wealthiest slice of Americans — the less than 1 percent who make more than $400,000 a year — it was rejected, 57-42. Only one Republican, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, stepped up to the challenge; seven Democrats joined all the other Republicans in saying no.

Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the principal sponsor of the move, took the responsible position. Biden had supported Bush’s decision to go after Saddam Hussein, knowing and publicly warning that it would mean a long and expensive postwar commitment. Rejecting the impulse of other Democrats to support the $66 billion Bush wants for next year’s military occupation but to question the $21 billion for civilian projects, Biden said, “I am one who believes you cannot bring security to Iraq without bringing basic services to Iraq. Those who say you can separate support for the military and reconstruction money either haven’t been to Iraq or don’t think we should be in Iraq or, with all due respect, don’t understand the dynamics.”

The lack of water and electricity, the continuing attacks on pro-American Iraqis and on oil pipelines all increase the danger to U.S. troops and extend the length of time they will have to be there, waiting for Iraq to be able to govern and protect itself.

Biden didn’t point fingers, but there are other Democrats who are prepared to seek short-term political advantage from the “sticker shock” many voters feel at the size of the bill the administration has handed them. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, for one, has an ad running for his presidential campaign saying, “$87 billion for Iraq with no plan in sight. … Well, I will not give this president a blank check.”

He is far from alone. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told me that some members of the Democratic caucus want to make it a loan, rather than a grant, to Iraq — which already faces staggering foreign debts — or to dole out the money in increments, which would defeat the purpose of jump-starting the stagnant Iraqi economy. Others are using that favorite anti-foreign-aid ploy, saying that needs at home should be addressed before Iraq is helped back onto its feet.

Biden blew all these arguments away — something the Bush administration officials have been struggling to do. But he coupled his argument for the urgency of the Iraq aid package with the contention that it should be paid for now, not added to the debt.

When Josh Bolten, Bush’s budget director, was asked at a Christian Science Monitor-sponsored breakfast last week about Biden’s effort, he replied that the administration rejected the notion that “the way to meet our obligations in Iraq is to undermine our own economy.” Undermine our economy by asking the most affluent citizens to accept a $600 billion tax cut over the next 10 years, rather than $689 billion! Give me a break.

This administration makes it inordinately hard for anyone outside its ranks of true believers to support it, even when it is advocating fundamentally responsible postwar action in Iraq. Bolten, speaking for the president, can sit there with a straight face and say he is optimistic that aid from other countries and future “surplus” Iraqi oil revenues will fill the estimated $50 billion to $75 billion gap between Iraq’s reconstruction needs and the current Bush proposal. Dream on.

The president has yet to present an honest accounting of Iraq’s needs and he has yet to propose a way — other than borrowing — to pay for them. His irresponsibility invites many Democrats less scrupulous than Biden to be equally cavalier about the nation’s obligations.

David Broder is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.