GOP Backs Iraq Action; Commander Who Ordered It Doesn’t Fare So Well

After an initial blast of criticism accusing President Clinton of attacking Iraq just to ease impeachment pressure, Republicans generally fell into line Thursday behind U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf.

Although some Republicans shifted their focus to renewed criticism of Clinton’s anti-war activities two decades ago, they muted their questions about his motives in launching the strikes on Iraq.

“Once the decision is made and the operation is going forward, we all support it,” said Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.). He said he believes there is “no relationship” between the attack and Clinton’s political fight against impeachment.

Lott shocked the political establishment Wednesday by declaring that he would not support the military operation “at this time.” In a written statement, he added: “Both the timing and the policy are subject to question.”

Former Bush Official Also Backpedals

Interviewed on Cable News Network Thursday, Lott said: “I believe there is no relationship [between impeachment and the attack] but the fact that people ask that question is, itself, a question.”

Lawrence S. Eagleburger, secretary of State during the closing days of the Bush administration, said Wednesday that mounting the attack on the eve of impeachment debate in the House “smells to high heaven.” Eagleburger said he supports the attack, but, with impeachment hanging over his head, Clinton will face challenges to his motives “even when he does the right thing.”

But on Thursday, Eagleburger said he had been assured by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright that there was no connection between the attack and impeachment and that he took her at her word.

“I did actually speak to my predecessor Secretary Eagleburger last night,” Albright told a press conference. “And I am very sorry that I didn’t speak to him before he made those comments.”

Clinton Team Speaks With Republicans

Clinton, Albright, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and other Cabinet members contacted Republicans privately to defend the timing of the attack. Both Clinton and Cohen talked with Lott.

But the Republican retreat seems to have been prompted less by the persuasive powers of the administration than by concerns that the criticism was backfiring badly on GOP lawmakers, raising more questions about their judgment than Clinton’s.

The House voted, 417 to 5, on Thursday for a resolution endorsing the objectives of the administration’s Iraq policy: containment and eventual overthrow of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The resolution also expressed unequivocal support for the attack.

“Our nation is firmly behind our fighting forces,” said Rep. George P. Radanovich (R-Mariposa) after the vote. “Saddam must know, as all our potential enemies must know, that America stands united on this point.”

The Senate was not in session, but many of its members--including staunch Republican foes of Clinton--issued statements backing the strikes.

“There has been bipartisan support for this action,” Albright said, citing endorsements from Sens. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), Charles Hagel (R-Neb.), John W. Warner (R-Va.) and others. But, she conceded, “it is not complete support, obviously.”

Most of the Republican criticism--such as the initial comments of Lott and Eagleburger--contained a curious dichotomy, supporting Clinton’s objective of “degrading” Iraq’s weapons potential and ultimately ousting Hussein while questioning the operation because it was ordered by Clinton.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, senior Democrat on the House Foreign Relations Committee and an administration ally, said it is not uncommon for lawmakers to attack an administration’s foreign policy, citing the condemnation by liberal Democrats of the Vietnam War policies of Republican President Nixon. But, he said, it is unheard of for members of Congress to attack a policy they agree with just because they don’t like the president who mounted it.

“I don’t think there is a Republican out there who doesn’t think we should have bombed Saddam Hussein,” Biden said.

There is one. Former Rep. Jack Kemp of New York, the GOP’s 1996 vice presidential candidate, said in a statement: “This bombing is wrong, it’s unjustified and it must stop. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott is also right to question the timing of the bombing. . . . I’m proud of Trent for taking a courageous stand.”

Kemp said Iraq’s obstruction of United Nations weapons inspectors “does not justify dropping bombs on Iraq.”

‘I Do Not Trust This President’

But most other Republicans fell into line in support of the attacks, although some made it clear that their opinion of Clinton remains hard-edged.

“I believe Secretary Cohen,” said Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-San Diego), a former Navy flier who fought in Vietnam. “He is a good friend. I believe Gen. [Henry H.] Shelton [chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff]. But I do not trust this president.”

And Rep. Joseph R. Pitts (R-Pa.), an Air Force veteran, said Congress must “stand shoulder-to-shoulder” with men and women in uniform instead of acting like “Jane Fonda and Bill Clinton, who were protesting [against the Vietnam War] and not showing the support of the military troops.”