Detroit Free Press August 29, 2002
Congress' unease grows over Bush plan for Iraq
By JAMES KUHNHENN
Key lawmakers from both political parties are increasingly uneasy about the prospect of war with Iraq, joining a chorus of allies who want President George W. Bush to defend his push for military action.
The latest sign that Congress wants a major say, indeed approval, of an attack on Iraq, came Wednesday when the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee said that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should explain Bush's rationale for attacking Iraq publicly before that panel.
The call from Sen. John Warner, R-Va., came two days after Vice President Dick Cheney laid out the administration's most forceful case yet for ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, triggering alarm around the world.
Cheney argued that the Iraqi dictator presents a danger of using weapons of mass destruction against the United States and its allies. Independent experts and most world governments -- including U.S. allies -- question whether there is evidence to back up those assertions, and implicitly, so did Warner. "There appears to be a 'gap' in the facts possessed by the executive branch and the facts possessed by the legislative branch," Warner said in a letter to committee chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asking him to seek Rumsfeld's testimony.
Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said Rumsfeld looks forward to a possible summons to testify before Congress.
Warner said Congress should vote before the president launches any military mission against Iraq -- although he conceded that Bush probably can proceed without legislative approval if he chooses.
"The Constitution is clear: The president has the right to act with or without the Congress," Warner said, referring to the president's powers as commander in chief.
The White House repeatedly has promised to "consult" Congress and U.S. allies before taking military action against Iraq, but has not said whether it wants lawmakers to vote on the question. White House lawyers maintain that Bush already possesses legal authority to attack Iraq.
Levin issued a statement saying he had not yet decided whether to hold hearings on Iraq.
Much of the skepticism on Capitol Hill about invading Iraq comes from the president's fellow Republicans. Indeed, some of the strongest dissents have come from top former aides to his father, the first President Bush, including his former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and former Secretary of State James Baker.
Scowcroft warned that attacking Iraq now would jeopardize the more-important global war on terrorism by angering needed allies, and both he and Baker called for Bush to work instead with the United Nations and send new weapons inspectors into Iraq.
As more Republican voices challenged Bush's Iraq position, U.S. allies have called on Washington to give the United Nations and other international bodies a chance to try diplomacy before any military action is taken.
On Wednesday, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan urged the United States to resist attacking Iraq. So did leaders in Germany, China, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Germany has been staunch in opposition to a U.S. attack to unseat Hussein. Other nations that have said recently they were opposed include France and Egypt, a major ally in the Mideast and the largest Arab-populated country in the world.
Opposition to a military strike against Iraq escalated after Cheney warned in a speech to U.S. veterans that the United States could face devastating consequences from any delay in acting to remove Iraq's government, which Washington accuses of trying to rebuild its banned weapons programs.
With key allies balking at a possible U.S. attack on Iraq, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage stumped for support Wednesday in Japan and indicated Washington was just getting started on building a coalition against Baghdad.
Armitage declined to say how many nations back Washington's push for toppling Hussein. "When the U.S. lays out a public case against Iraq, we expect to have a fair amount of international support," Armitage said.
On Monday, Cheney argued that a preemptive strike to stop Hussein from developing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons was necessary.
In a lively exchange with Marines at Camp Pendleton, Calif., Rumsfeld predicted late Tuesday that most U.S. allies would support U.S. military action.
"Leadership in the right direction finds followers and supporters," Rumsfeld told members of the 1st Marine Division.
Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, said earlier this month that the United Nations has no evidence that Iraq actually has weapons of mass destruction.
But many defense specialists say the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that Iraq has such weapons. The three chemical plants outside the Iraqi town of Fallujah were bombed by U. S. planes during the Persian Gulf War because they were part of the country's chemical weapons program. The Iraqi government took reporters on a tour Wednesday of one of the Fallujah sites, which a plant manager said produced insecticides and pesticides. "There's significant enough activity at the Fallujah facilities alone to create a presumption that they have an active chemical weapons program," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a research group based in Alexandria, Va. "The Fallujahs would have to be considered guilty until proven innocent."
© Copyright 2002 Detroit Free Press
