Senators Wary About Action Against Iraq
By Helen Dewar and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 4, 2002; Page A01
President Bush has yet to make a compelling case for military action against Iraq, senators of both parties said yesterday as they returned to Washington with serious questions about the administration's war plans.
Several, including Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who earlier had questioned the need for congressional authorization of force against Iraq, said they believe the administration should seek Congress's approval before an attack is launched.
Some also said the United States should try again to get Iraq to accept United Nations weapons inspectors before resorting to military action. While Iraq would probably balk, senators said, the effort could help build international support for eventual U.S. action.
The assessments came as Bush invited congressional leaders to the White House this morning to discuss terrorism issues, including policy toward Iraq, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld planned a classified briefing for all senators later in the day. In an address to the United Nations on Sept. 12, Bush is expected to include a case for removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, administration officials said.
The officials said these events signaled a personal effort by Bush to convince lawmakers and the world that Hussein must be ousted, but they acknowledged the efforts may fall short of what lawmakers want. White House officials contend details would be premature, since Bush has made no final decisions.
"The president will make the case, whatever decision he ultimately makes," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters yesterday. "When he does, he's confident that people, as a result of the consultation, will listen and jump to good judgments."
Fleischer said Bush will plan his response to the "menace" of Hussein "in a consultative way, in a respective way, in a listening way." He said today's meeting with lawmakers "is the president reaching out and leading" and "reaching out and listening."
Until recently, most senators had kept to themselves misgivings about a possible military strike against Iraq. But, after a month of hearing constituents' concerns about the possibility of war during Congress's summer recess, they were unusually outspoken as the Senate reconvened yesterday. The House will return today.
Even some of the president's strongest supporters suggested that, while they might support military action, they cannot do so based on what they -- and the American public -- have been told so far.
"If I voted today [on a war authorization], I would vote 'no' because I don't believe the case has been made to the American people," said Sen. Larry E. Craig (Idaho), chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee. The administration is beginning to make its case but has farther to go, said Craig, a strong backer of the administration.
Sen. Susan M. Collins (Maine), a GOP moderate, made a similar assessment. "For the United States to launch a preemptive strike on Iraq requires the administration to present a compelling case," she said. "I am still waiting to hear that case."
Lott did not go that far but said, "I do think that we're going to have to get a more coherent message together" about the threat posed by Hussein and the administration's plans to deal with it. Asked if he was comfortable with the White House's message so far, Lott said, "I'd like to have a couple more days before I respond to that."
Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), speaking after the Democrats' weekly closed-door luncheon, said he thought "most Democrats believe that the president has yet to make the case for taking action in Iraq."
Specifically, he said, the administration needs to explain what new information it has about the threat posed by Iraq, the impact on other anti-terror efforts and on relations between the U.S. and its allies, the cost of a military invasion and plans for a post-Hussein regime. Unilateral action could have "very, very dire consequences for our country," he warned.
In briefing reporters at the Pentagon, Rumsfeld said Bush has long favored a resumption of U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq. But he questioned whether the Iraqi government would agree to the kind of inspections that would assure the world it was not making weapons of mass destruction in violation of U.N. mandates.
Asked about Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz's comment that Iraq would be willing to discuss a resumption of inspections, Rumsfeld dismissed the offer and said Aziz was clearly doing "the bidding of his master, Saddam Hussein."
"They have, over a good many years, demonstrated a wonderful talent and skill at manipulating the media and international organizations in other countries," Rumsfeld said.
He said Iraq is more of a threat now than it was a year ago.
"We know that they were a lot closer than any of the experts had estimated they would be with respect to [developing] a nuclear weapon," he said, referring to the post-1991 inspections. "To the extent that they have kept their nuclear scientists together and working on these efforts, one has to assume they've not been playing tiddlywinks."
In the Senate, some Democrats questioned the priority the administration attaches to Iraq. "The Israeli-Palestinian situation ought to be higher priority," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). "To leave it unresolved and to attack an Arab country . . . will unite the Arab world against us."
Others suggested the administration may be engaging in a rush to judgment. "Basically, I think they're pushing it too fast," said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a possible Democratic presidential contender for 2004.
One of the most supportive comments about the administration's Iraqi policy came from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has tangled repeatedly with Bush on other issues. McCain said Vice President Cheney has begun to make the administration's case for military action. He predicted both houses would easily pass a war authorization resolution if one is sought.
While Bush has not said whether he will seek a vote authorizing use of force if a decision is made to attack Iraq, numerous senators said they believed he would do so, as his father, President George H.W. Bush, did for the Persian Gulf War a decade ago.
"I think a case could be made that additional authority would not be required, but I think that the reality is -- and the political preference is -- that Congress be engaged and be a supportive and willing partner," Lott said.
Daschle took a tougher line. "We have a constitutional responsibility, and we intend to enforce that responsibility," he said.
___________________________________
Staff writer Vernon Loeb contributed to this report.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
washingtonpost.com |
