Posted on 09/27/2002 7:40:00 PM PDT by GeneD
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 - Liberal Democrats, led by Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, voiced reservations today about giving President Bush a free hand to attack Iraq before a new, tougher set of United Nations inspections is put into effect.
While their objections could influence the wording, scope and timing of a Congressional resolution, those reservations are not likely to affect the outcome of any Congressional vote. It still appears likely that there will be at least 75 or 80 votes in the Senate to give the president the authority to attack Iraq.
At least one high-ranking Democrat, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, said he planned to offer an amendment to the administration's proposed resolution on Iraq that would support military action only in conjunction with a United Nations force. But Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the minority leader, said such a provision would never be acceptable to the Republicans.
The four highest-ranking leaders of Congress plan to meet by Monday afternoon to map out the resolution's course through the House and Senate over the next two weeks. A spokesman for Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Senate Democratic leader, said the Senate would probably put aside the stalled legislation on a domestic security department - which is now essentially under a Republican filibuster - until the resolution on Iraq is settled.
In a speech at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, Senator Kennedy, still his party's most prominent liberal standard-bearer, said the White House had not made the case for a pre-emptive war.
``I do not accept the idea that trying other alternatives is either futile or perilous, that the risks of waiting are greater than the risk of war,'' Mr. Kennedy said, invoking his brother's restraint during the Cuban missile crisis. ``Indeed, in launching a war against Iraq now, the United States may precipitate the very threat that we are intent on preventing - weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists.''
Mr. Kennedy's position, in which he is joined by colleagues like Mr. Levin, Dianne Feinstein of California and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, complicates the task of Mr. Daschle. He and other Democratic leaders had hoped to move the resolution quickly through the Senate to focus on his party's core message highlighting economic distress before the November midterm elections. But now Mr. Daschle's office expects more than 50 speeches on the resolution after it is formally introduced early next week, meaning that a vote may not take place until late in the week of Oct. 7. Many of those speeches will probably come from dissenting Democrats, and several of the most vocal opponents may introduce amendments to change or narrow the wording that the White House wants in the resolution.
The ultimate outcome of a resolution in the Senate is not in doubt, and the White House's language will be easily approved in the Republican-controlled House. But Mr. Daschle's stated desire to include as many Democrats as possible in the final vote means continued tinkering with the draft resolution issued by the White House late on Thursday, which itself has been changed to limit action to Iraq after complaints that an earlier draft was too broad.
During political appearances today, President Bush said he hoped the United Nations would force Saddam Hussein to comply with its resolutions, but he used tough language condemning him. ``I'm willing to give peace a chance to work,'' Mr. Bush said at a political fund-raiser today in downtown Denver. ``I want the United Nations to work. I want him to do what he said he would do.
``But for the sake of our future,'' Mr. Bush continued, ``now's the time, now's the time. For the sake of your children's future, we must make sure this madman never has the capacity to hurt us with a nuclear weapon, or to use the stockpiles of anthrax that we know he has, or V-X, the biological weapons which he possesses.''
Republicans, meanwhile, warned that there was a limit to their patience if Democrats dragged out the resolution process.
``The Senate would look very bad if we wind up with a long amendment process that maybe leads to no conclusion and once again the Senate collapses in a pool of inability to produce anything,'' Mr. Lott said. ``That is a danger. And there are those right now - from what I hear from some of the Democrats, that would be fine with them. You know, they're willing to do anything to try to prevent the president of the United States having the basic authority he needs to deal with a dangerous threat to the American people.''
Mr. Lott has said he was not willing to change the resolution much beyond the new language issued by the White House this week. But several senators said they were still unhappy with the draft, particularly because it would authorize unilateral action if the United Nations does not join an attack. Such an approach gives the United Nations an incentive not to join, Mr. Levin said, because other nations know the United States will do the job if they stand back.
``It's still a go-it-alone approach that lets the U.N. off the hook,'' said Mr. Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. ``We want the U.N. to be credible, so we should tell the world why it is so important that we act in concert.'' Having done so, he said, the United States could then come back and authorize unilateral action if the United Nations still fails to act.
Mr. Levin is planning to introduce language in the Senate that would authorize military action as part of a broader United Nations force. Mr. Kennedy's aides say he is not planning to write an amendment, but his speech today shored up the left wing of a party that has been reluctant to challenge Mr. Bush on national security policy.
Senate officials say there are probably 8 to 10 other Democratic senators who feel as Mr. Levin and Mr. Kennedy do, and who would probably vote against a resolution unless it is substantially changed. Another group of Democrats will probably vote for the resolution after some minor changes, and a third group, including many Southern Democrats, would be willing to support the president's language. Almost all Republicans are considered likely to support the president's draft, although a handful of moderates may want some wording changes.
Republicans made it clear today that they would strongly oppose the kinds of changes being asked by the liberals, in either the Senate or the House.
``Senator Kennedy offered the most thorough and cohesive argument for complacency so far,'' said Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the Republican whip. ``The U.S. seeks broad support in the war on terror, but subcontracting our national security to the United Nations, as Senator Kennedy recommends, would be a foolish blunder.''
Mr. Levin, are you a U.N. senator or a U.S. senator?
There has been some talk about Bush demanding resolutions all over the place requiring 7 days limits for Iraqi compliance to...to...what? This war is about to heat up in a large way, and if the boys in the Congress and the Divided Nations don't climb aboard right quick, it will be over before they have time to blink.
The UN is highly unlikely to make such a demand of Hussein. And if they did, he is almost certain to refuse. Multiply one chance in a thousand times one chance in a thousand, and you get one in ten million. Bush is just laying the groundwork for PROMPT action by the US, semi-unilaterally. We will have a few friends on board, on paper, but this will be a US operation.
Congressman Billybob
Click for "Til Death Do Us Part."
Qatar runway complete.
U.S. forces in Kuwait, Djibouti, Yemen.
Call ups, and air strikes.
The Irish toast is:
May ye be in Heaven a half hour before the Devil know's you're dead.
For Bush, it may very well be:
May the B-2's be over Baghdad a half hour before Teddy finishes his morning heaves.
The last chance for the liberal quislings to get on board will be to saddle up a BLU-118 for Daschlevinkennedy.
Saddam leaves his doubles and hightails it for Moskva.
Bush will have a fait accompli for Jiang at the Crawford barbecue on the 28th.
Kofi and the winged monkeys will vacate their current digs for its renovation--
Give it to Donald Trump, and send the UN-cooperatives to wander in the wilderness.
I can't imagine that Bush would heat up the debate this much, if he didn't plan on delivering, certainly before the election. While Bush is waging war to defend America and freedom, not to burnish his legacy, still he doesn't need to, and won't, be politically stupid about it.
And attacking in the last couple of weeks before the election would seem too "wag the doggish", to disrespectful of our free elections. So I doubt he would plan ahead of time to go then, unless something unexpected and serious came up that required an immediate attack.
And it won't be next week, because he's allowed the Congress that much space to pass a resolution in support.
That leaves about a two week window, in the middle of October.
Usually only Conservatives require such a product safety label.
I can't remember when last I saw the NYT call name ANY Democrats as Liberal.
My definition of Liberal Democrat = Any Democrat not up for election or residing in a safe district.
Article is good at enemy identification though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.