| |
Congress falls into
line
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON -
War with Iraq and Saddam Hussein moved a big step closer
on Wednesday as Democratic leaders of the House of
Representatives and President George W Bush agreed on
the wording of a resolution authorizing the president to
take military action.
The new resolution, which
was introduced in both the House and the Senate on
Wednesday afternoon, enjoys the support of at least two
thirds of both houses, say Congressional aides, and
includes only a few modifications to a sweeping draft
submitted by Bush almost two weeks ago.
Most
important, the new resolution does not require Bush to
wait for the United Nations Security Council to approve
military action, but permits him to launch an attack "as
he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order
to defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and to
enforce all relevant past resolutions approved by the
Security Council.
"The resolution does not tie
the president's hands; it gives him flexibility he needs
to get the job done," declared the Republican Speaker of
the House, Dennis Hastert, at a White House Rose Garden
ceremony that featured Bush and most of the
Congressional leadership.
"It supports the
president's effort to work with the United Nations, but
it doesn't require him to seek UN approval first,"
Hastert added. Formal debate on the new resolution will
begin only next week. While the House may vote within
the same week, the Senate, which is governed by
different rules, may take much longer.
Missing
from Wednesday morning's ceremony were some leading
Senate Democrats, including Minority Leader Tom Daschle
and Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Joseph
Biden.
Biden has teamed up with fellow Democrats
and moderate Republicans who have expressed reservations
over the past week about giving Bush the authority to
proceed unilaterally. On Monday, Biden and his
Republican counterpart on the Foreign Relations
Committee, Richard Lugar, unveiled their own resolution
that would require Bush to certify that the Security
Council had authorized force or, if not, that the threat
"to the United States or allied nations posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program and prohibited
ballistic missile program is so grave" that force was
required to defend the United States or its allies.
Biden and Lugar had intended to introduce their
draft resolution at a committee meeting on Wednesday,
but are now likely to introduce it - or something
similar - on the Senate floor.
Biden told
reporters that Bush's efforts to line up Congress behind
him were gaining momentum, especially in light of a
split within the Democratic Party. "Democrats are
obviously in disagreement," he noted when asked about
Daschle's absence from Wednesday's ceremony.
The
House-Bush agreement essentially takes the steam out of
what looked to be a growing and potentially potent
effort last week by some senior Democrats - as well as a
few Republicans and a number of retired military
commanders - to slow the rush to war.
That
effort was launched in a major speech by former vice
president Al Gore 10 days ago. The man who actually
defeated Bush in the popular vote in the 2000 elections
assailed the president for ignoring US allies and
failing to follow through on both securing Afghanistan
and pursuing Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda.
Gore's
attack, which was all the more striking because he was
one of very few Democrats who voted in favor of the
resolution authorizing Bush's father to launch the Gulf
War 11 years ago, prompted several other Democrats to
speak out. Most notable was Senator Edward Kennedy, who
last Friday delivered a major policy address that came
out for stronger diplomatic efforts in dealing with
Iraq.
Similarly, in testimony before Congress
last week, former secretary of state Madeleine Albright
also called for a more deliberate and multilateral
approach and accused some of the administration's
leading hawks of an "irrational exuberance" for war with
Baghdad.
Late last week, two senior House
Democrats - the long-time Democratic whip David Bonior
and James McDermott - travelled to Baghdad and from
there urged Washington to accept Iraq's offer to permit
UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq before any further
action. McDermott, a Seattle Democrat, even suggested
that Bush was "mislead(ing)" the US public about the
threat allegedly posed by Iraq.
Many Democrats
from districts less liberal than McDermott's have wanted
to get a vote on an Iraq resolution - just about any
Iraq resolution - out of the way as early as possible so
they could direct the country's attention to the
faltering economy and plunging stock market, which they
feel are key to gaining Democratic majorities in both
houses in the November 5 elections.
As long as
Iraq dominates the headlines, in their view, the
advantage will remain with the Republicans. The new
resolution does include several modifications to Bush's
original draft, which was widely seen as a "blank
check".
Among other provisions, the draft gave
Bush authority to use force to "restore international
peace and security to the region", a phrase that
reminded many critics of the broad mandate in the 1964
Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which enabled two presidents
to both escalate and broaden US military intervention
throughout Indochina.
The new resolution deletes
that language and defines Iraq as the specific threat.
It also requires Bush to report to Congress every 60
days on US efforts to achieve its aims, and it offers
rhetorical support for UN efforts to disarm Baghdad,
even as it reiterates Washington's goal of achieving a
"regime change" in Iraq as well.
(Inter Press
Service)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
