Bush Wins Key GOP Support on War Measure

Congressional resistance to a possible attack on Iraq eroded further Monday as two influential Republican skeptics fell in line behind President Bush’s push for a resolution authorizing the use of military force against the Baghdad regime.

House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas, who had been the highest-ranking GOP leader questioning Bush’s policy, announced Monday that he had been convinced by administration officials that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein justified backing the resolution. And Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, dropped plans to cosponsor a bipartisan alternative to the Bush-backed measure.

The dwindling ranks of GOP fence-sitters and critics of Bush’s policy marks a striking shift. Just a few weeks ago, it was mostly Republicans who were expressing qualms about the wisdom of military action against Iraq.

The quick closing of GOP ranks demonstrates, in part, the enormous pressure on members of Bush’s own party to swallow any reservations and rally behind the president. It also reflects Bush’s willingness to back a more narrowly focused resolution than he initially sought--one requiring him to certify that diplomatic means had been exhausted in confronting Iraq and to report to Congress if he resorts to military attack.

Meanwhile, a leading Democrat who has backed Bush’s get-tough stance toward Baghdad on Monday criticized aspects of Bush’s approach. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, a potential 2004 presidential candidate, said Bush’s failure to secure broader global backing for his Iraq policy amounted to “gratuitous unilateralism.”

“We seem determined to act alone for the sake of acting alone, which may be the easy way to achieve our short-term ends but will never result in long-term security,” Edwards said.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), another Iraq hawk and potential presidential candidate, on Monday urged Bush to do more to prepare for the aftermath of toppling Hussein.

“The ultimate measure of a war’s success is the quality of the peace that follows,” Lieberman said.

The two Democrats made their points in speeches to separate Washington think tanks.

Debate over how to deal with the perceived threat posed by Iraq will dominate Capitol Hill this week. The House takes up the Bush-backed resolution today, with a final vote expected Thursday. The Senate also could wrap up as early as Thursday.

The structure of the House debate took shape Monday as Republican leaders agreed to allow votes on two Democratic amendments. Neither is expected to pass.

The first, proposed by Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.) and eight other Democrats, would condition the use of force on passage of a new U.N. resolution authorizing the forcible disarmament of Iraq. Failing U.N. action, it would ask Bush to come back to Congress. Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento) was among its backers.

The second amendment was proposed by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), who was the only lawmaker last year to oppose a use-of-force resolution in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. Lee’s amendment would urge the U.S. to work for Iraqi disarmament through peaceful means using U.N. diplomacy.

Monday’s Senate debate was dominated by those supporting Bush’s aggressive stance, including Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.), one of several Democrats who face tight reelection contests in conservative states this fall. “I believe it is imperative that we now speak with one voice to Saddam Hussein, to the entire international community and to our servicemen and women,” Cleland said.

But Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), who has already announced his opposition to the president’s Iraq policy, said a preemptive military attack would strip the United States of “the moral legitimacy necessary to promote our values abroad.”

Armey, the House GOP leader, for weeks has expressed similar reservations, saying a preemptive strike would be a departure from long-standing U.S. policy.

In announcing his support for Bush on Monday, Armey said the administration had provided him with convincing evidence that Hussein posed an urgent threat to the U.S. and to Israel. He also concluded that an attack on Iraq would not be preemptive, but a justified reaction to Hussein’s flouting of U.N. resolutions for the last decade.

“In these extraordinary times, an extraordinary shift in national security is necessary,” Armey said.

Top administration officials also worked hard to bring Lugar back into the fold after he recently teamed up with Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) in proposing an alternative to the Bush-backed resolution. The Biden-Lugar proposal would put more emphasis on exhausting diplomatic options and seeking U.N. support before resorting to force. It also would allow the use of force only to disarm Iraq--not to change its regime.

White House officials worked hard to convince Lugar that many of his concerns had been addressed by the changes Bush agreed to last week in the resolution--changes that won support from House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) and other senior Democrats.

Lugar has not yet said how he will vote, but a Capitol Hill source close to him said the senator is likely to support the Bush-backed resolution.

Only a handful of Republicans in either the House or Senate remain uncommitted or are opposed to Bush’s policy.

One fence-sitter is Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who took to the Senate floor Monday to air his ambivalence. “If we do require U.N. multilateral action [before attacking Iraq], we do put ourselves subject to the veto of France, China and Russia, which is undesirable,” he said. “And if we authorize the use of force unilaterally, then we may well be setting a precedent, which could come back to haunt us with nations like China going after Taiwan.”

Although no Senate Republican has come out firmly against Bush, Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) is leaning toward supporting an alternative resolution that seeks to force the United States to act in concert with the United Nations, according to a Chafee spokesman.

Also undecided is Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), according to his spokeswoman, Amanda Flaig.

In the House, only two of the 223 House Republicans can be counted as firm opponents of Bush’s resolution: Reps. Ron Paul of Texas and James A. Leach of Iowa, who voted against it in the House International Relations Committee. Leach said he feared that a U.S. attack on Iraq could trigger a catastrophic sequence of events in the Middle East.

“Not only would we be the potential precipitating actor, but our troops could be caught in crosswinds and cross-fire,” Leach said. “This is a circumstance we should step back from.”

Rep. Constance A. Morella (R-Md.), who voted against the 1991 Persian Gulf War resolution, has “very serious concerns” about the administration’s strategy for a postwar Iraq if Hussein is toppled, said spokesman Jonathan Dean.

*

Times staff writers Nick Anderson and Richard Simon contributed to this report.