Congress Backs War on Iraq

A measure to authorize the use of military force against Iraq won final congressional approval early today, giving President Bush a strong bipartisan mandate and broad power to challenge an adversary who has bedeviled the United States for more than a decade.

Ending a somber debate that pushed past midnight, the Senate voted, 77 to 23, for the resolution. The action came hours after the House gave its approval on a 296-133 vote.

The votes gave Bush a decisive victory as he attempts to build international support for a concerted effort to disarm Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of his regime’s suspected weapons of mass destruction. It was the second time in his presidency that Bush has won congressional authorization to use force, a development that could lead to a major new phase of military action for a nation already at war against terrorism.

In a statement after the House vote, Bush said:

“The House of Representatives has spoken clearly to the world and to the United Nations Security Council,” Bush said. “The gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally.”

If diplomacy fails, the congressional resolution clears the way for Bush to launch a military strike in one of the most volatile regions of the world. The measure is a foreign policy milestone that could mark the beginning of a long, potentially costly U.S. commitment in the Middle East.

With that in mind, many lawmakers expressed the hope that the resolution will make it less likely that force will actually need to be used.

“I strongly believe that our diplomacy will achieve its purpose only if the Iraqi regime knows that a sword of Damocles hangs over its head,” said Rep. Tom Lantos (D-San Mateo) on Thursday.

But opponents warned that, by allowing Bush to launch a unilateral first strike if he chooses, the resolution represents a troubling shift away from long-standing U.S. strategy of eschewing preemptive attacks.

The resolution gives Bush the power to use any means he determines necessary and appropriate--including military force--to respond to the perceived threat posed by Iraq.

Bush has said repeatedly that he has not decided whether to resort to war. If he does, the resolution requires Bush to certify to Congress, within 48 hours after the launch of a military strike, that diplomatic avenues had proved fruitless and that an attack was “consistent” with ongoing efforts to fight terrorism. In the Senate, key lawmakers who voted for the resolution included Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) voted against the measure.

The Senate debate stretched deep into the night as senators rose, one after another, to go on the record in one of the most significant votes of the last dozen years. Shortly before midnight, for instance, Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) declared that the time had come to face down Hussein.

“The longer we wait, the stronger he becomes and the harder he will be to defeat,” Ensign said.

But Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, blasted the resolution as “too timid,” arguing that Congress should have broadened the resolution to give Bush even greater authority to attack international terrorists.

In the final Senate roll call, 29 Democrats joined 48 Republicans in backing Bush. Twenty-one Democrats, Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) and independent Sen. James M. Jeffords of Vermont were opposed.

In an earlier vote that signaled a big Bush victory, the Senate early Thursday voted, 75 to 25, to end delaying tactics and bring debate to a close. That was a defeat for impassioned critics of Bush’s Iraqi policy, who complained that Congress was being buffaloed into authorizing war even before the White House has decided to prosecute one.

“I’m in my 50th year in Congress and I never thought I would find a Senate which lacks the backbone to stand up against this stampede, this rush to war,” said Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.). “I think we are making one horrible mistake.”

GOP Skeptics

Just a month ago, as Bush pressed his case for confronting Iraq, he had faced a phalanx of such skeptics, who included members of his own party. Although he made some concessions to congressional concerns, the final resolution gave him most of the broad powers he sought. In the House vote, only six Republicans voted against him.

Bush’s ability to sway Democrats proved more limited--81 of the party’s House members supported the resolution, with 126 opposing it. Also voting against the measure was independent Rep. Bernard Sanders of Vermont.

It was a stronger showing of opposition than expected by anti-war Democrats, who had predicted about 100 votes for their side.

“This represents a great accomplishment for the Americans who have expressed their concern with this rush to war,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas).

But Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Mission Hills), a leading Bush ally on the Iraq issue, said the overall House vote was lopsided enough to send a message of strong U.S. resolve behind Bush’s policy.

“It gives him the tools to go to the U.N. and produce a very strong inspection resolution,” said Berman.

The administration has been trying to build support for a U.N. resolution that would establish a strict new regimen of weapons inspection inside Iraq, and threaten “consequences” if Hussein refuses to comply.

The House vote also amounted to a more resounding show of support than Bush’s father received in 1991, when a Democratic-controlled House authorized the Persian Gulf War, 250 to 183.

The Senate vote was far more decisive than the 52-47 vote for the 1991 resolution.

The House vote climaxed three days of debate that, while lacking the drama of uncertainty about the outcome, was rife with sober expressions of the gravity of the matter facing Congress.

“Many watch what we say and do here,” Rep. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said Thursday. “We’ll either be stronger or we’ll be weaker in our ability to negotiate and to make the world safer.... Our enemies are watching.”

Lawmakers briefly heard from anti-war forces in the public when, as the House was winding up debate, two protesters in the gallery disrupted the proceedings with shouts of, “No war,” and, “Blood for oil.”

Both the House and Senate on Thursday soundly defeated efforts to revise the resolution to put more emphasis on diplomacy and on working through the United Nations.

In the House, the most serious challenge to Bush came from an alternative offered by Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (D-S.C.), which would have authorized military force only in conjunction with passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution backing such a strike. Bush would have had to come back to Congress if the U.N. failed to act.

That amendment was rejected, 270 to 155.

The House also rejected, 355 to 72, an alternative proposed by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) that urged the United States to work for Iraqi disarmament through peaceful means, such as U.N. diplomatic efforts.

In opposing the alternatives, Bush’s allies argued that Iraq has failed to comply with more than a dozen U.N. resolutions that have passed over the last decade. They said there is little reason to think another effort would be any more successful.

“If the U.N. was going to act, they would have done it already,” said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). “The time to act is now, not waiting on the U.N.”

Critics of Bush’s policy warned that an attack on Iraq would undermine the ongoing effort to root out terrorism around the world.

“The clear and present danger our country faces is terrorism,” said Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco). “Our work is not done.”

But hawks said confronting Hussein is part and parcel of the war on terrorists, warning that he might arm them with weapons of mass destruction.

“A nuclear-armed Iraq would soon become the world’s largest safe haven and refuge for the world’s terrorist organizations,” said House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

In the Senate, the weeklong debate on the resolution entered its home stretch early Thursday when Daschle embraced the measure. He had been the only top congressional leader who did not embrace it last week after Bush agreed to various changes, such as limiting its scope to Iraq instead of the entire region.

Abandoning efforts to make the measure even more to his liking, Daschle took to the Senate floor to praise Bush for making the resolution “more in keeping with our strong belief that force must be a last resort, not a first response.”

Nonpartisan View

“It is neither a Democratic resolution nor a Republican resolution,” said Daschle. “Because I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice at this critical moment, I will vote to give the president the authority he needs.”

Feinstein said she would support the Bush resolution despite reservations that it would allow the United States to launch a unilateral, preemptive attack. She said she would vote for it “with the trust that the administration will forge a coalition, rather than go it alone.”

Another fence sitter who fell into Bush’s camp was Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a moderate Republican who said she concluded that supporting the resolution was the best way to prompt strong U.N. action.

The Senate defeated, 75 to 24, a proposal by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) that--like Spratt’s in the House--would have linked authorization of use of force to action by the U.N.

Levin portrayed his approach as the best hope to build a global coalition against Hussein without damaging the U.S.-led campaign against terrorists.

The amendment was backed by only one Republican, Chafee of Rhode Island, and failed to draw a majority of Democrats.

Also Thursday, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) dropped plans to offer an alternative that would have narrowed the authorization for use of force solely to the aim of disarming Iraq, not toppling Hussein.

Biden said he agreed to back Bush to step up pressure on the U.N. and because the president had assured him that the focus of U.S. policy would be disarmament, not regime change.

“This is about weapons of mass destruction,” Biden said. “If the president attempts to take this nation to war ... for any reason--any reason--other than weapons of mass destruction, I will be on this floor every day taking issue.”

*

Times staff writers Edwin Chen, Faye Fiore and Richard Simon contributed to this report.