Congress Passes Iraq War Resolution
URL: washingtonpost.com
By Jim Abrams
Associated Press Writer
Friday, October 11, 2002; 3:47 AM
WASHINGTON –– Congress approved the use of America's military might against Iraq, reinforcing President Bush's insistence that Saddam Hussein's government had no other option but to disarm. "The days of Iraq acting as an outlaw state are coming to an end," Bush said.
After days of solemn debate, both the House and Senate passed and sent to the White House a resolution authorizing the president to use military force, if necessary, to compel Iraq to get rid of its biological and chemical weapons and disband its nuclear weapons program.
The president, who has stressed that he has made no decision on launching a military strike against Baghdad, prevailed despite lingering Democratic concerns about the risks of a pre-emptive, unilateral strike on Iraq.
"The Congress has spoken clearly to the international community and the United Nations Security Council," Bush said Friday in a statement. "Saddam Hussein and his outlaw regime pose a grave threat to the region, the world and the United States. Inaction is not an option, disarmament is a must."
It was a major national security policy victory for Bush, and it occurred less than a month before midterm elections that will decide control of the House and Senate.
The House approved the resolution by a strong 296-133 margin Thursday. The Senate vote, coming early Friday, was 77-23.
The resolution emphasizes the need to work with the United Nations and exhaust diplomatic measures before resorting to force but allows the president to act with or without the United Nations. There was a sense that war was inevitable.
"Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war – on his terms, at a time of his choosing," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
Bush, speaking to reporters after the House vote, said it "sends a clear message to the Iraqi regime: It must disarm and comply with all U.N. resolutions or it will be forced to comply."
Bush is pressing the U.N. Security Council to adopt a new resolution requiring Iraq to submit to unconditional inspections and disarm or face military retaliation.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said "talks are progressing" at the Security Council on wording of a new resolution that all five-veto holding permanent members can support. The United States and Britain continue to encounter resistance from France, Russia and China.
All but six Republicans in the House and one in the Senate – Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island – backed the president, but Democrats were far more divided, with many voting for the resolution only after more restrictive alternatives were voted down.
Even House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt, who helped negotiate the language of the resolution with the White House, urged the president not to rush to war. "Completely bypassing the U.N. would set a dangerous precedent that would undoubtedly be used by other countries in the future to our and the world's detriment," he said.
Gephardt added that the resolution was "not an endorsement or acceptance of President Bush's new policy of pre-emption," or striking another nation because of a perceived threat to U.S. security.
Of 208 House Democrats, 126 voted against the resolution, and this significant number "does send a message that the support for this war is not what the administration asked for," said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas. In the Senate, 21 of the 50 Democrats voted against the measure. Vermont independent Sen. James Jeffords also opposed the measure.
Senate action on the resolution was slowed by 84-year-old Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., a master of parliamentary procedure and an implacable defender of the constitutional powers of Congress. "Let us not give this president, or any power, unchecked power," he said.
But his resistance was undercut Thursday morning when the Senate voted 75-25 to stop Byrd's delaying tactics and move the measure toward a final vote. At about the same time, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., who had objected to what he said was giving the president overly broad authority, announced he was supporting the resolution.
"I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice," said Daschle. "It is neither a Democratic resolution nor a Republican resolution. It is now a statement of American resolve and values."
Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., and Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., offered similar alternatives committing the United States to working with the United Nations in disarming Iraq and requiring the president to come back to Congress for a second vote if he decided that unilateral action was the only recourse. Those proposals went down, 270-155 in the House and 75-24 in the Senate.
The Iraqi vote came 11 years after Congress engaged in a similar debate over whether to grant the first President Bush the authority to use American troops to drive Iraq from occupied Kuwait. The votes in favor that time, when an international coalition was already in place in the Middle East, were less decisive: 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.
Meanwhile, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. Central Command, said Thursday the Bush administration seems unnecessarily rushed about taking on Iraq. Zinni, a former U.S. envoy to the Mideast for the Bush administration, said he considers Saddam "deterrable and containable at this point."
"I'm not convinced we need to do this now," Zinni said at a foreign-policy forum.
–––
On the Net:
Information on the House bill, H.J. Res. 114, and the Senate version, S.J. Res. 45, can be found at thomas.loc.gov
© 2002 The Associated Pr |
