|
Bush Delivers Iraq Resolution
President Asks Unlimited Power To Act Without Further Requests By Karen DeYoung
and Jim VandeHei President Bush asked Congress yesterday for unlimited authority to take whatever action he sees fit against Iraq, including the use of military force, without any further congressional consultation or approval. In a White House-drafted resolution, Bush cited for the first time "the high risk that the current Iraqi regime" would use weapons of mass destruction to "launch a surprise attack against the United States or its armed forces," in addition to the possibility it would turn such weapons over to international terrorists. The proposal was favorably received by most members of both parties on Capitol Hill. Although Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) said, "We don't want to be a rubber stamp," there were widespread predictions that the resolution will be adopted by a wide majority in the House and Senate after a lengthy debate. The president has said he would like the resolution approved by early October. "It's time to quit waffling and weaseling around," said Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss). In a series of introductory clauses that make up the bulk of the lengthy resolution, the Bush administration asserts an "inherent right" under international law to launch a unilateral, preemptive attack against Iraq based on its "material breach" of a decade of U.N. resolutions, as well as the United States' right to defend itself against the risk that Baghdad will attack this country first. The document says that Saddam Hussein's government has "demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack the United States," citing a 1993 plot to assassinate former president George H.W. Bush during a visit to Kuwait and firing on U.S. planes enforcing "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq. The resolution backs off previous allegations by the administration of possible involvement by Baghdad in the Sept. 11 attacks. But it notes that "members of al Qaeda . . . are known to be in Iraq" and, without further explanation, says the attacks "underscored the gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to international terrorist organizations." The possible nexus between anti-U.S. terrorists and countries possessing or seeking biological, chemical and nuclear weapons has long been the keystone of the case for preemptive action. The new expansion of the threat assessment to include a "high risk" that Hussein would launch a direct attack on this country appeared designed to bolster the case that the United States is justified in acting outside the United Nations. Several Democrats complained that the proposed wording provides the president far too much freedom to wage war in the Persian Gulf region and vowed to fight to restrict the president's ability to deploy troops without coming back to Congress for permission. "We should not approve such a sweeping resolution, which would commit thousands to death and extract billions from the pockets of American taxpayers," said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex). "This open-ended resolution seeks broader authority than the Gulf of Tonkin resolution upon which reliance was made to wage the Vietnam War." Others noted that Bush's proposed wording would conceivably authorize military force anywhere in the Middle East and Persian Gulf region. The key concluding section of the resolution authorizes the president "to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce . . . United Nations Security Council resolutions . . . defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security to the region." Daschle said after a closed-door meeting of Senate Democrats last night that they want the sentence to clarify that the authorization is for action against Iraq only, and to ensure that Iran and other nations would not be potential targets as well. In a White House briefing for reporters, a senior administration official said, "The president constitutionally has the authority to react to any threat to the United States and the people" without asking Congress. But the objective, the official said, "is to provide to the president the maximum flexibility to deal with the threat posed by Iraq." The official described the resolution as "an initial draft by the White House. We're going to be meeting with Congress to debate these kinds of points." Democrats also said they want the resolution to spell out a U.S. commitment to work within the United Nations before taking unilateral steps. The draft lists the U.N. resolutions defied by Iraq, from barring U.N.-mandated weapons inspectors to brutally abusing minorities inside the country, and treats the case against Baghdad as closed. It contains no reference to the possibility of future compliance. Nor does it mention ongoing efforts in the U.N. Security Council to resume international weapons inspections in Iraq, or administration promotion of a U.N. resolution authorizing use of international force if Baghdad does not submit to U.N. demands. The resolution submitted to Congress "is not in any way tied or conditioned on what happens in the U.N.," a senior administration official said. Bush began his day meeting with key Democrats to head off opposition to the resolution. After a midmorning Oval Office briefing by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Bush told reporters, "I don't trust Iraq, and neither should the free world. . . . I've asked for Congress's support to enable the administration to keep the peace." Some members of Congress referred to Bush's U.N. speech last week warning that the world body would become "irrelevant" if it failed to act in Iraq. The lawmakers asked how the administration could simultaneously urge aggressive U.N. action in Iraq while pursuing a unilateral strategy that does not take the United Nations into account as part of the solution.. "I believe if we really mean it when we say that we want the U.N. to be relevant, that we should not act in a manner that treats them as irrelevant," Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich) told Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Levin, who has said he prefers a congressional resolution focusing on U.N. action, said "it's a lot different for Saddam Hussein to be looking down the barrel of a gun that is held by the world." Bush's staunchest opposition came from liberal Democrats who oppose any precipitative military action in Iraq. House Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif), who is emerging as this faction's leader, said "the case of using force in Iraq has not been made." Pelosi, the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee, voiced concern that a war with Iraq will undercut the broader war against terrorism. "I don't like this resolution," she said. Rumsfeld, in his testimony, presented the administration's starkest version yet of the difficulty of waging war against Iraq. Although a number of proponents of a U.S. assault outside the administration have suggested that Iraq could easily be defeated by a brief but massive air assault, Rumsfeld said that "the Iraq problem cannot be solved by airstrikes alone." Ground troops would be needed, Rumsfeld said, and there was no guarantee they would not come under chemical or biological attack. "We simply do not know where all, or even a large portion, of Iraq's weapons of mass destructions facilities are," he said. |
Bush Delivers Iraq Resolution (washingtonpost.com).url
Description: Binary data
