"THE ADMINISTRATION," complained Representative Dave McCurdy (D-Okla.) recently of President Reagan's Nicaragua policy, "has been disingenuous in maintaining that the sole purpose of its covert assistance is to halt the flow of weapons."

The tone in which Democrats in Congress accuse Reagan of dishonesty in his Central America policies has lately been rising. The latest of accusations charges that he is violating the Boland Amendment, a law banning use of U.S. funds to overthrow the Nicaraguan government. "There are certainly a number of ways to interdict arms," dryly observed a House Intelligence Committee report last Friday, "but developing a sizable military force and deploying it in Nicaragua is one which strains credibility as an operation only to interdict arms."

The administration does indeed "strain credibility." Currently supporting nearly 7000 insurgents in Nicaragua at a cost of $30 million for 1983, and asking for more money for 1984, the Reagan Administration has all but announced that its adherence to the Boland Amendment is purely formality. While publicly denying any designs on the Nicaraguan government. Reagan, in a press conference two weeks ago, called the U.S.- backed insurgents "freedom fighters." Confessed one aide: "It was not a programmed response. That's what the man believes."

Ironically, our friends in Nicaragua have failed completely to accomplish their alleged aim of interdicting arms shipments. Noted the Committee report, "In 18 months, the committee has not seen any diminishment in arms flow to the Salvadoran guerrillas." Not that the insurgents have been idle. They have repeatedly battled Nicaraguan troops on and within the borders of Nicaragua, and have attacked, according to the report, "targets unrelated to arms interdiction."

REAGAN'S POSITION is obvious. He will say whatever Congress makes him say, so long as they keep funding his crusade against communism in Central America. But where do the Democrats stand? The Democrats have let themselves fall into a dilemma. They don't want to give up in E1 Salvador. "It would be a tragedy if we cut and run in E1 Salvador," declared Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del.); "No one on this side of the aisle has ever advocated a total abandonment of E1 Salvador," confirmed Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.).

At the same time, they estimate the prospects for a military victory are grim. Many liberal Democrats, moreover, have a strong aversion to military intervention anywhere, and so warn darkly about escalation, mumbling "Another Vietnam" periodically. This stance being inconsistent with funding such evil operations, Democrats have compromised by giving the President less money than he asks for and attaching strings like the Boland Amendment.

Hence, in E1 Salvador, the House Foreign Affairs Committee has urged political accomodation, as detailed in 11 pages of human rights demands, and a "dialogue in good faith and without preconditions" with the Cuban-backed rebels. And, to demonstrate its unhappiness, the Committee voted to cut in half Reagan's original request of $136 million in fiscal 1983 funding for E1 Salvador. Similarly, Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee approved a bill to eliminate all "covert" aid to insurgents in Nicaragua and to replace it with $30 million this year and $50 million next year in "overt" aid.

Cutting off military aid to E1 Salvador, or to the "interdiction" effort in Nicaragua, would expose Democrats to the charge of "losing" E1 Salvador. Neither Reagan nor the Democrats want to "lose" a country, but the Democrats won't let Reagan try to win it either, so they procrastinate, advocating a doomed, hopelessly inadequate military effort and demanding comforting lies from Reagan about human rights progress and "dialogue in good faith."

But military intervention is no game for the squeamish. If Democrats are scared to take a stand against interventionism in Central America, then they should give Reagan whatever he wants and let him accept the consequences. "Compromises" just prolong the violence, raising the death toll and possibly leaving a mess for a Democratic president to clean up. Sooner or later, someone has to take the heat for pulling out of E1 Salvador and Nicaragua, and Democrats should have learned by now that decisions like this cannot be postponed forever.