Congressional Opponents of War Against Iraq Fight Uphill Battle

TBO ^ | 9/24/02 | Jim Abrams

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

A few Democratic lawmakers are raising their hands in protest as Congress prepares to give the president the go-ahead to "use all means" to end the threat from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "My constituents are shocked at seeing the direction America is going," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who is leading House opposition to the resolution on use of force that President Bush is asking Congress to endorse.

The administration, said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., "is asking for the moon without giving us serious information and then calling those who don't support them do-nothings."

Many Democrats have voiced reservations about the draft proposal Bush sent them last Thursday, uneasy about unilateral action if the United Nations doesn't require Iraq to disarm and wary about a provision to extend the president's authority to cover regional peace and security.

Most Democrats, including party leaders, express confidence they can work with the administration to produce a resolution on Iraq that will command wide support. The goal is to reach a compromise on language by the end of this week and complete votes in the House and Senate next week.

The second-ranking Democrat in the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, said she hopes the two parties can work together to put together a resolution almost everyone could accept. She said she didn't expect there would be a single Democratic substitute, although she said she and others wanted answers on how much a war against Iraq would cost in terms of the military operation, the occupation, the U.S. economy and the overall war on terrorism.

Appearing on NBC's "Today" program Tuesday, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said that despite some Democratic opposition, he thought Bush would get what he is seeking.

"I think you're going to see a vote on this resolution that is overwhelming," McCain said, calling Saddam "a clear and present danger."

Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, released a report Monday that put the cost at $93 billion, not including U.S. peacekeeping and rebuilding efforts that might follow. Lawrence Lindsey, Bush's top economic adviser, said last week that the price tag could reach $200 billion, although White House budget chief Mitchell Daniels said that figure seemed too high.

A small but vocal group of Democrats says the issue is too important to be resolved by tinkering with language in the Bush offering.

"If the president has any evidence that there is an imminent threat, he should come forward and seek a declaration of war," said Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas. "I'm less concerned about making it cosmetically more appealing."

Bush, speaking Monday in New Jersey, made his case again for moving against Saddam, saying the Iraqi president is a "man who would use weapons of mass destruction at the drop of a hat, a man who would be willing to team up with terrorist organizations with weapons of mass destruction to threaten America and our allies."

In New York, U.N. diplomats speaking on condition of anonymity said late Monday that France had put together a draft resolution that would leave open the door for authorizing force against Iraq should it fail to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors.

However, the Bush administration continued to encounter resistance elsewhere.

Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher, in Washington for talks, said, "It is a scary notion that the region can be rearranged to fit the United States."

Muasher, at a news conference, said, "I am not sure if the United States goes into Iraq it will be able to get out for years."

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., who represents a liberal constituency in Oakland and Berkeley, acknowledged that the resolution probably will pass with overwhelming support. But she has proposed her own resolution, saying the United States should work through the United Nations to resolve the Iraq issue through inspections, negotiations and other peaceful means.

Lee was the only House member to vote against the resolution passed last year after the Sept. 11 attacks that authorized the use of force against terrorists.

Several Republicans, including Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas, have urged caution in propelling the nation toward war with Iraq, but Republicans are likely to give near-unanimous support to the final resolution, as they did in 1991 when the first President Bush sought congressional endorsement for evicting Iraqi troops from Kuwait. House and Senate Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the 1991 resolution.

Feingold said he was encouraged when the administration agreed to negotiate the language of the Sept. 11 resolution last year but was not hopeful this time because Bush's proposal was so "breathtakingly broad."