“The president is taking a wise and balanced approach in Afghanistan, and it deserves our support,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer, the Maryland Democrat and majority leader.

Photo

In the House vote, 148 Democrats and 160 Republicans backed the war spending, but 102 Democrats joined 12 Republicans in opposing the measure. Last year, 32 Democrats opposed a similar midyear spending bill. Among those voting against the bill on Tuesday was Representative David R. Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the panel responsible for the measure.

Some of the Democratic opposition stemmed from the decision by party leaders to strip from the bill money that had been included in the original House version to help address the weak economy at home, including funds to help preserve teachers’ jobs. But some of those voting against it said they were influenced by the leaked documents, which highlight the American military’s struggles in Afghanistan and support claims that elements of Pakistan’s intelligence service were helping the Taliban.

“All of the puzzle has been put together and it is not a pretty picture,” said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts. “Things are really ugly over there. I think the White House continues to underestimate the depth of antiwar sentiment here.”

On another part of Capitol Hill, at a confirmation hearing for Gen. James N. Mattis to lead the military’s Central Command and oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee pressed General Mattis about the course of the war.

Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, pointedly asked General Mattis whether he agreed that a July 2011 deadline for the start of American withdrawals from Afghanistan would mean shifting from the current troop-intensive counterinsurgency strategy to an “increasingly important emphasis” on counterterrorism. In other words, should not the United States use the date to begin moving toward a more limited strategy of hunting down insurgents without trying to rebuild Afghanistan? General Mattis quickly agreed.

“I think that is the approach, Senator,” he said.

General Mattis and two Republicans on the panel, Senator John McCain of Arizona and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, used the occasion to denounce the leaks, which Mr. McCain said were “simply an extended footnote to a well-known reading of recent history.”

Advertisement Continue reading the main story

General Mattis agreed with Mr. McCain. “One of the newspaper headlines was that war is a tense and dangerous thing,” he said. “Well, if that is news, I don’t know who it’s news to that’s on this planet.”

Photo

In his opening statement, General Mattis declared, “Despite any recent papers leaked to the media, we are remaining in the region; we are not leaving.”

General Mattis, who is expected to be confirmed by the committee and the full Senate, is to replace Gen. David H. Petraeus, whose tour at Central Command was cut short when Mr. Obama asked him to take command of the allied mission in Afghanistan after Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal was relieved.

At the White House, Mr. Obama echoed recent statements from his advisers and said that the problems that came to light in the leaked documents had long been known and that he was addressing them with a new strategy he put in place last year. “Indeed, they point to the same challenges that led me to conduct an extensive review of our policy last fall,” he said.

Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.

Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, made a similar argument on Tuesday in Baghdad. “I think it’s important to recognize, or emphasize, that these are documents that cover the period 2004 to 2009,” Admiral Mullen said. “Much has changed since 2009, particularly with respect to our focus, our new strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

At the Pentagon, officials declined to say whether Private Manning was a prime suspect in the investigation, but they did say that an Army criminal investigation into the leaks that Private Manning had been charged with — the diplomatic cables and the video — had now broadened to include an inquiry into the source of the leak of the classified battlefield reports.

In April, WikiLeaks posted the video, an explosive tape of an American helicopter attack in Baghdad that left 12 people dead, including two employees of the Reuters news agency. Adrian Lamo, a computer hacker who traded instant messages with Private Manning, has said the soldier claimed that he had leaked the cables and video to WikiLeaks and that he turned him into the authorities for national security reasons.

WikiLeaks, in keeping with its policy to protect the anonymity of its sources, has not acknowledged receiving the cables or video from Private Manning. Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has refused to say whether the reports came from Private Manning, but he has said that WikiLeaks had offered to help with the private’s legal defense.