Bush's Iraq Plan Gains More Support
Wed Oct 9, 9:15 PM ET
By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer
URL: story.news.yahoo.com
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush (news - web sites) gained important new Democratic support for his war resolution Wednesday, bolstering his expected margin of victory in Congress for broad authority to use force against Iraq. But the administration was having less success on the international front.
A 25-minute phone call between Bush and French President Jacques Chirac failed to produce a breakthrough over wording of a new U.N. Security Council resolution to disarm Saddam Hussein (news - web sites). "This is intricate diplomacy and we are continuing our consultations," said White House spokesman Sean McCormack. He cited a "mutual desire" to find common ground.
Both the Republican-led House and the Democratic-ruled Senate forged ahead with debate on a resolution giving Bush authority to use U.S. force against Iraq — with or without U.N. participation.
The White House cited a new CIA (news - web sites) assessment — suggesting Saddam might launch terrorist attacks if he concluded a U.S. military attack was inevitable — as further justification for strengthening the president's hand. Opponents used the same document to argue against a U.S. first strike.
But more Democrats closed ranks with the president and leaders of both parties predicting congressional passage by wide margins by week's end. Both houses of Congress debated the measure late into the night. A final vote in the House was expected Thursday.
Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, announced he would vote with the president, while cautioning Bush to use the power with discretion. "As president of the United States, you are the leader of the free world, not its ruler," Reid said.
Also voicing their support were Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and John Kerry, D-Mass. Dodd said he hoped the show of unity "will reduce the likelihood that force will be necessary." Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran who had been in the go-slow camp, said Saddam's arsenal posed "a real and grave threat" to the United States and its allies.
In what may have been a sign of votes to come, the Senate turned back, 88-10, an amendment by Sen. Bob Graham (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla., to expand Bush's authority for pre-emptive military action to include five terror organizations.
Graham, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said focusing solely on Iraq could distract from the war on terrorism and "increase the risk at home." But administration allies said it would complicate matters.
All 10 votes for Graham's proposal came from Democrats, while 39 Democrats joined Republicans in voting to block it.
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., told reporters the war resolution has support from possibly all of the Senate's 49 Republicans and was gaining substantial Democratic backing. A Senate vote Thursday morning to stifle delaying tactics "will pass overwhelmingly," Lott predicted.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said despite continuing divisions among Democrats, "my determination is to finish debate before the end of this week." Daschle has not said whether he will vote for the resolution.
Senate Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., a foe, pressed his effort to block or delay the final vote. "This is a question that involves peace and war, a question that involves great sacrifice to this country," Byrd said. Still, he all but conceded defeat.
"The wheels have been greased," said Byrd.
Despite Bush's call for a quick U.N. resolution, the five veto-wielding members of the Security Council remained divided on whether to authorize military action if Iraq does not comply with U.N. weapons inspectors.
The United States and Britain have demanded a green light to attack Iraq in case it blocks inspectors again. France, Russia and China insist Saddam should first be given a chance to cooperate.
McCormack, the White House spokesman, said that Bush stressed in his phone call with Chirac that the stronger the U.N. resolution, "the more likely this matter can be resolved peacefully."
In Paris, Chirac spokeswoman Catherine Colonna said the French president was open to strengthening the powers of U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq — but still could not accept making military recourse an automatic response should they be hampered.
Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) stood fast by the administration's position. "There must be consequences for failure to comply," he told CNN's Larry King. "And if those consequences include going to war, then I hope the international community will understand the importance of us doing this as an international community."
Powell has expressed some recent optimism and State Department spokesman Richard Boucher on Wednesday cited "some convergence on the concepts" on what the Security Council should do.
But Boucher added, "We haven't started on words or a text." Two other U.S. officials said neither France nor Russia had swung over to the U.S. approach.
In Moscow, Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov told reporters his country could accept a new U.N. resolution if it did not entail an automatic use of force should Baghdad fail to comply.
A letter to lawmakers from CIA Director George Tenet became a factor in congressional debate.
Tenet suggested a chemical or biological attack by Saddam on U.S. interests did not seem imminent. But he also warned that Saddam might use those weapons for terrorist purposes if provoked by an imminent U.S.-led attack.
"The fact that people say he has these weapons, he may use these weapons, despite the fact he denies he has them," said White House spokesman Ari Fleischer (news - web sites). "Blackmail is something the United States has to consider."
But Rep. Donald Payne (news, bio, voting record), D-N.J., said Tenet's report suggested that an attack on Iraq "could trigger the very things that our president has said that he is trying to prevent: the use of chemical or biological weapons." |
