Bush War Vote Victory Expected : Congress: The President undertakes an energetic personal lobbying campaign to sway undecided legislators. Senate, House are scheduled to act today.

President Bush on Friday appeared to be moving toward victory in perhaps the most pivotal congressional vote of his presidency--the authorization for U.S. military troops to go to war with Iraq.

As both the House and Senate prepared for an expected vote today, Bush undertook an energetic personal lobbying campaign designed to convince undecided members of Congress that he needs a decisive congressional victory to force Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to withdraw his troops from Kuwait and avert war.

“The last best chance for Saddam Hussein to get the message is in your hands,” the President told more than 100 members of Congress who were summoned to the White House on the eve of the historic vote.

His message clearly had an impact on Capitol Hill. After privately polling members of both parties, Republican leaders assured the President that as a result of his last-minute lobbying, there is now a majority in both the House and Senate to enact the most explicit authorization for the use of U.S. military force in more than a quarter century.

Although the Democratic leadership in Congress has taken a strong stand against the President’s request, at least eight Senate Democrats were expected to defect from the party and an estimated 70 Democrats were ready to vote with Bush in the House. It also appeared that Bush had limited the number of GOP defectors to no more than three in the Senate and 10 in the House.

Moreover, some staunch opponents of the President’s request indicated that they might ultimately vote for the measure, but only after their own alternative proposal calling for continued economic sanctions against Iraq is defeated. Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), one of Bush’s chief opponents, signaled such a move, saying: “When the votes are over--and I expect that I will not be on the winning side--we’re going to be united.”

White House officials clearly were lobbying for something better than a narrow victory, which might undermine their plans to herald the authorization as a demonstration of the United States’ resolve to to go war, if necessary.

Although the President repeatedly told members of Congress that war with Iraq is still not a certainty, few--if any--seemed to believe him. “We are now joined in a conflict from which there can be no turning back,” warned Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.).

A sense of foreboding swept the Capitol as the vote grew nearer. Security was tightened to ward off the increased threat of a terrorist attack. In that tense atmosphere, Senators engaged in floor debate were clearly shaken when a group of anti-war protesters in the visitors gallery suddenly disrupted the Senate proceedings, chanting: “No blood for oil! No war for Bush!”

At the same time, protesters outside laid mock body bags on the Capitol’s snow-covered east lawn.

After 12 protesters were dragged kicking and screaming from the Senate gallery by the Capitol police, Sen. Donald W. Riegle Jr. (D-Mich.) warned his colleagues that the brief skirmish was only “a sign of things to come if war starts.”

In his effort to win the authorization, Bush and his White House staff made dozens of personal telephone calls to undecided members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans. They also dispatched CIA officials to the Capitol to explain to members of Congress why the intelligence agency has concluded that economic sanctions alone will not force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait.

Democrats opposing the President’s request for authorization have consistently argued that he should not intervene militarily until the sanctions have forced Hussein to capitulate or have thoroughly destroyed the Iraqi economy, rendering enemy defenses helpless to stave off an attack.

Nunn noted that the Iraq’s gross national product has plummeted 70% since the embargo began. “By the end of this summer,” he predicted, “the country will be an economic basket case, and Saddam Hussein may be in jeopardy with his own people.”

To counter the Democrats’ plea for continued reliance on sanctions, CIA officials told members of Congress that even though the embargo is working, there is no guarantee that it will persuade Hussein to withdraw. But Democrats were unconvinced, and the subject of sanctions dominated hours of testy debate in both chambers.

When Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), one of the President’s Democratic supporters, asserted that the sanctions have been useless, Rep. Stephen L. Neal (D-N.C.) shot back:

“Isn’t it true that he’s been stopped, unlike Hitler, who was appeased? Yes, he’s still in Kuwait, but he’s not able to enjoy any benefits. This is costing him. He has been stopped. Thanks to the leadership of George Bush, it’s an enormous success.”

To which Skelton replied, “He is enjoying the benefits of being in Kuwait. He has them under the rule of thumb. He must not just be stopped. He must be sent to the Pearly Gates.”

In the Senate, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) argued that sanctions will succeed only in starving innocent women and children but have no effect on the military. He asked the supporters of sanctions: “When will we feel that the sanctions have had enough time? One year? Two years? Five years?”

Rep. Doug Bereuter (R-Neb), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said he had classified evidence that the international sanctions against Iraq are leaking. He said private firms have been offering to sell Iraq industrial, agricultural and military items.

Bush’s Democratic opponents insisted they are not opposed to using force against Iraq but feel that Bush is too eager to abandon the sanctions policy. “There is a rush to war here,” complained Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). “There is a rush to get this thing over.”

There were also many Democrats who complained that the United States is taking on a disproportionate share of the burden in the Persian Gulf. They demanded to know why the Japanese and the Germans have not committed combat troops to the effort.

Riegle told of a woman in his hometown of Flint, Mich., who has three sons on the Saudi front. “If a Japanese family would send one of their sons, if a German family would send one of their sons, then two of her sons could come home,” he said.

Speaker after speaker detailed the horrors of war, appealing to Bush to reserve it as a last resort. Nunn cautioned that there is no way of anticipating what the toll of such a war would be, even if the United States succeeds in vanquishing Iraq.

“What guarantees do we have that a war will be brief and that American casualties will be light?” he asked. “No one can say whether war will last five days, five weeks or five months. We know we can win. There is no doubt about that. Our policy and our military planning, however, cannot be based on an expectation that the war will be concluded quickly and easily.”

And while many members talked about casualties, California Rep. Barbara Boxer (D-Greenbrae) put it most graphically.

“This is not about egg on our face,” she said. “It’s about blood on our kids! Have you ever seen a body shot apart, up close? Far away, it looks still and peaceful. Up close, you see suffering and pain. . . . There will be a huge price if we choose this route. The price is body bags, babies killed.”

Other members emphasized that a war would have even wider costs, sapping the nation of its economic strength. “Our national security is not just a matter of flexing our military muscle,” said Rep. Leon E. Panetta (D-Carmel Valley). “It relates to the strength of the economy.”

Panetta, chairman of the House Budget Committee, noted that the General Accounting Office recently estimated that Operation Desert Shield will cost $30 billion in fiscal 1991 even without a war. If fighting erupts, he said, the cost will be $1 billion per day.

These costs would come in a year when the budget deficit is expected to hit $330 billion, Panetta said. This compares to a deficit of only $3 billion when the country entered the Korean War and deficits ranging between $6 billion and $8 billion during the Vietnam War, he indicated .

But despite such vivid warnings, it appears that a majority of members in Congress has been persuaded by Bush’s argument that a vote for war would actually be a step toward peace.

“To have peace,” said Lieberman, “You have to prepare for war.”

BACKGROUND

The Gulf of Tonkin resolution, adopted by Congress in 1964, was used by President Lyndon B. Johnson as an open-ended authorization to send thousands of Americans to Vietnam. It was proposed after the reported attack of a Navy ship by North Vietnamese gunboats outside the territorial limit. The resolution passed the House 414-0 and the Senate 88-2. Sens. Wayne Morse (D-Ore.) and Ernest Gruening (D-Alaska) voted no.