2 Critics of Bush Iraq Policy Say They'll Back Resolution
THE DEBATE
By DAVID FIRESTONE
The New York Times
nytimes.com
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 — As Congress pushed toward a vote on a resolution authorizing military action in Iraq, two of the Senate's most outspoken critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy — both prominent Vietnam War veterans — announced for the first time today their support for allowing the use of force.
In back-to-back speeches, the senators, John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said they had come to their decisions after the administration agreed to pursue diplomatic solutions and work with the United Nations to forestall a possible invasion.
"I will vote yes," said Mr. Kerry, a possible presidential candidate in 2004, "because on the question of how best to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, the administration, including the president, recognizes that war must be our last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we should be acting in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein."
Mr. Hagel said the administration should not interpret his support or that of others as an endorsement of the use of pre-emptive force to press ideological disagreements.
"Because the stakes are so high, America must be careful with her rhetoric and mindful of how others perceive her intentions," Mr. Hagel said. "Actions in Iraq must come in the context of an American-led, multilateral approach to disarmament, not as the first case for a new American doctrine involving the pre-emptive use of force."
Also today, Harry Reid of Nevada, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, announced his support for the White House resolution.
Despite the latest Democratic support, opponents of the White House resolution fought to keep the Senate from casting a vote this week. In the first dramatic moment of a thus-far lackluster debate, several Democratic senators joined Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in protesting what they said was a heedless rush toward bloodshed.
Citing the precedent of past debates and a host of unanswered questions from the administration, the Democrats — including Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barbara Boxer of California and Paul S. Sarbanes of Maryland — briefly prevented supporters of military action from speaking. They also demanded more debate on the nature of an invasion, its possible human and financial tolls and its aftermath.
Mr. Byrd, a master of Senate rules, had planned to use a series of devices to delay a vote on the resolution until next week. But Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the majority leader, said that the leadership would use its own parliamentary methods to hold the principal vote on a use-of-force resolution before the Senate left this week.
Depending on Mr. Byrd's persistence, and the degree of support he receives from colleagues, the vote could come as early as Thursday night or as late as Sunday.
As each side made its case in the House and Senate, the administration's supporters in Congress worked to minimize an assessment released by the Central Intelligence Agency on Tuesday that said a biological or chemical attack by Iraq on America was not imminent, but could be triggered by an invasion led by the United States.
Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia and the leading supporter of the resolution in the Senate, placed into the record a statement from the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, stating that the agency's assessment and the president's position were not inconsistent.
The C.I.A.'s analysis was raised by several opponents of military action, who said it justified their argument that the White House was rushing into war without exhausting other positions.
"This appears to suggest that an attack on Iraq could trigger the very thing that our president has said he is trying to prevent, the use of chemical or biological weapons by Saddam," said Representative Donald M. Payne, Democrat of New Jersey and a leader of the effort to defeat the war resolution. "In view of this report, the policy of a pre-emptive strike is troublesome. Haste in attacking Iraq would place untold numbers of people in harm's way."
Senator Lincoln D. Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island, also cited the C.I.A. report to explain why he would vote for an amendment that would limit action to a joint United Nations force, but he did not say whether he would become the sole Republican to vote against the president's resolution if the amendment fails.
The House was still on target to vote on the resolution on Thursday. In the Senate, leaders made a tiny change in the resolution's wording; under the arcane parliamentary rules of the Senate, this enabled them to reduce the number of hours that Mr. Byrd could tie up the Senate floor in opposition.
After a large huddle on the floor between Democratic and Republican leaders, Mr. Daschle said he hoped a vote could come on Friday, once the Senate, if events proceed as expected, votes to cut off Mr. Byrd's filibuster. Still, the debate is likely to go through Thursday night.
The Senate also began beating back amendments that would variously strengthen or narrow the president's military authority.
In its first vote on an Iraq-related issue, the Senate voted 88 to 10 against an amendment proposed by Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, that would extend the president's military authority to attack terrorist groups around the world, including Hezbollah and Hamas.
Beyond the parliamentary maneuvering, Vietnam War veterans dominated the day's debate in both chambers, rising to make passionate and deeply personal arguments both for and against invasion.
Representative Randy Cunningham of California, who was a decorated Navy pilot in Vietnam, lost his composure while speaking of the anguish of war and wept in his floor speech. Still, he urged his colleagues to give President Bush the authority he seeks. |
