Bush Gets Strong Backing on Iraq

President Bush on Wednesday reached agreement with a bipartisan phalanx of congressional leaders on a tough resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, a major breakthrough in his effort to unify lawmakers behind his challenge to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

The agreement fell short of Bush’s hopes that top U.S. officials would, as he has put it, “speak with one voice” on Iraq. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and some other key Senate Democrats refused to endorse the compromise and continued to push for more restrictions on Bush’s latitude to wage war.

But the breadth of support behind the compromise--those embracing it included House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), as well as GOP leaders--puts enormous pressure on Democratic holdouts to rally behind the president.

“The statement of support from the Congress will show to friend and enemy alike the resolve of the United States,” Bush said as he unveiled the compromise at a Rose Garden ceremony, flanked by Democratic and Republican supporters.

Although many in Congress hope Bush will not exercise the military option Congress is expected to authorize, he said it may become inevitable if Hussein does not disarm. “If he persists in his defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable,” Bush said.

The resolution, as reworked, would give Bush the essential elements of his initial request: the authority to wage a unilateral, preemptive war against Iraq, regardless whether the United Nations gives him the go-ahead.

“The resolution does not tie the president’s hands,” said House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). “It supports the president’s effort to work with the United Nations, but it doesn’t require him to seek U.N. approval first.”

But Bush did make some concessions to congressional critics by agreeing to certify to Congress that any military action came only after he had exhausted diplomatic options, and that an attack on Iraq would not set back ongoing efforts to combat terrorism.

The agreement clears the way for a broad bipartisan vote next week in the House in support of Bush’s initiative. The House International Relations Committee began debate on the compromise Wednesday; the session was briefly interrupted by antiwar protesters crying, “No war in Iraq!”

The panel was expected to vote today to send the bill to the full House for what is likely to be two or three days of debate.

The debate likely will be more divisive in the Senate, which was supposed to take up the issue Wednesday but postponed debate at least until today.

The Senate debate is expected to focus on two alternatives to the compromise announced at the White House. One, by Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), would authorize the use of force only to disarm Hussein, not depose him, as Bush has sought. A more dovish alternative by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) would authorize U.S. military action only in conjunction with U.N. approval.

But even Biden said the president was likely to get his way.

“I’m a realist,” said Biden. “The president is going to be saying: ‘Are you with me or against me?’ That’s a hard call.”

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), who backed the compromise, told Bush at the ceremony that whatever debate Congress may have about alternatives, the president’s proposal would be approved by margins wider than given the resolution that authorized military action against Iraq in 1991, when his father was president.

The Senate adopted that resolution, 52 to 47; the House vote was 250 to 183.

“Mr. President, we delivered for your father; we will deliver for you,” Warner said.

The compromise resolution authorizes Bush to use force “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the U.S. against the continuing threat posed by Iraq,” and to enforce U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq.

That narrows the focus to Iraq--not the region, as had been the case in Bush’s original proposal.

In other concessions to congressional critics, the resolution requires Bush to report to Congress every 60 days on the status of the face-off with Iraq. And it requires Bush to tell Congress--no later than 48 hours after he uses military force--that he did so only after determining that further diplomatic efforts would be fruitless and that the attack is “consistent” with the U.S. anti-terrorism campaign.

Those changes were enough to win the embrace of Gephardt, who for months has urged a hawkish posture toward Iraq. Gephardt’s endorsement gave the compromise powerful momentum that left Daschle and other Democratic skeptics increasingly isolated.

Gephardt has been prominently mentioned as a prospective Democratic presidential candidate in 2004, and joining him at the ceremony were two others on that list--Lieberman and Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.).

Daschle, meanwhile, kept a low profile through the day. He put out a statement saying the resolution’s new provisions “represent improvements” over Bush’s original proposal.

But Daschle added, “I continue to believe that the final resolution should include greater emphasis on eliminating Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction,” as well as a stronger statement about Bush’s plans for a post-Hussein Iraq and more assurances that an attack on the Baghdad regime would not undermine the war on terrorism.

Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) derided Daschle and other Democrats for isolating themselves in their opposition to giving Bush the power he needs. “I trust this president and I believe the American people do,” said Lott. “Only in the Senate Democratic caucus do you find that kind of reservation.”

Some Democrats who had expressed qualms about Bush’s Iraq policy appeared to be giving ground. “Unfortunately, this has moved way beyond our ability to put the brakes on it,” said Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Alamo). She had been urging congressional leaders to delay a vote on the resolution until after the November elections, but dropped her effort Wednesday.

Tauscher said she still had many questions about the rationale for and details of Bush’s plans in Iraq, but added that she was leaning toward supporting the compromise resolution.

The compromise also won the support of Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice). The new provisions, she said, address “many of my constituents’ concerns, while also allowing us to address the clear and present threat posed by Saddam Hussein.”

House Democratic leadership aides said they believed more than half of the chamber’s 208 Democrats would support the compromise resolution.

About 40 antiwar Democrats have made clear that they will oppose the resolution. Among them is Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who said Wednesday, “I remain strongly opposed to any military action by the U.S. absent an immediate threat.”

The key question remained how many Senate Democrats will be brought on board by the compromise.

It did not persuade Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who has been supporting the Biden-Lugar alternative and does not think that the compromise goes far enough to address her interest in working more through the U.N., said spokesman Howard Gantman.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) declined comment, but she has been working with Levin on the alternative--to authorize the use of force only in conjunction with the U.N.

Lugar called the compromise resolution a “substantial improvement” over Bush’s original proposal. Lugar also said he was inclined to work with the administration to further modify it, rather than push for the alternative he authored with Biden.

But Biden continued to argue for the alternative. He said he believed there were as many as 25 Senate Republicans who would support it in the absence of presidential pressure.

But he acknowledged, “At the end of the day, you’re not going to have that many Republicans” willing to stray from the White House’s position.

*

Times staff writers Nick Anderson, Faye Fiore and Maura Reynolds contributed to this report.