Sharp Questions on Iraq Await Bush in Congress

Faced with the growing likelihood of a major vote this fall on Iraq, members of Congress on Thursday raised a host of pointed questions they say President Bush must answer if he seeks their approval for sending U.S. troops to topple Saddam Hussein.

Bush, meanwhile, reiterated in strong terms that he is resolved to move against the Iraqi president, even as the administration’s precise plan for doing so remains unclear.

“I meant it when I said I’m going to consult with Congress,” Bush said at a political fund-raiser in Louisville, Ky., a day after announcing that he would seek congressional approval before taking any action.

“One thing is for certain: I’m not going to change my view,” he added. “And my view is, we cannot let the world’s worst leaders blackmail America, threaten America or hurt America with the world’s worst weapons.”

The debate over Iraq could dominate the next few weeks of this year’s congressional session and, possibly, influence some critical contests in the Nov. 5 midterm elections.

On a number of fronts Thursday on Capitol Hill and on the congressional campaign trail, there were signs of the intensifying debate:

A spokesman for the House International Relations Committee said the panel would quiz Bush administration officials closely on Iraq in classified briefings and public hearings starting in the middle of this month.

Eighteen liberal House Democrats and one independent sent Bush a letter with sharp questions about a potential military strike against Iraq, laying the groundwork for antiwar arguments should the president decide on a full-fledged invasion.

Several Senate candidates, Democrats and Republicans alike, announced that they would support Bush or were leaning toward backing a bid for congressional approval of action against Hussein. Some Democrats, however, remained skeptical or noncommittal.

Senators from both parties took to the floor to raise questions that outlined the evolving debate and the growing chorus for more details on the threat that the administration says Hussein poses.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) wondered when the administration would demonstrate that Hussein has, or is close to having, nuclear weapons. “Where is the evidence?” he asked. “We have a duty to ask questions because we are living in a very perilous time, and the war drums are beating all around us.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said a strike at Iraq could complicate efforts to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and set back the U.S.’s declared war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks. She added that launching a major invasion of another nation “leads to the questions of whether a preemptive war is morally right, legally right, or politically the right way for the United States to proceed.”

Other senators who support the president, such as Democrat Zell Miller of Georgia, said Bush must still convince the public. “I don’t think the president has made the case with the folks back home,” Miller said. “He can, and I think he will, but he hasn’t yet.”

Bush sought Thursday to build such support. With a fresh sense of urgency, he declared in four animated speeches in Kentucky and South Bend, Ind., his seemingly unalterable conviction that the United States must force a regime change in Baghdad.

Referring to weapons of mass destruction thought by the administration to be in Hussein’s possession, Bush said in Louisville: “We must anticipate problems before they occur. We must deal with threats to our security today-- before it can be too late.”

Aboard Air Force One, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters: “The president believes that the evidence that we have already seen to date is sufficient to require regime change.”

Bush is scheduled to continue pressing his case today in telephone calls to the leaders of China, Russia and France. He also is to meet Saturday at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, one of America’s staunchest allies. In addition, Bush plans to travel to Detroit on Monday to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

On Capitol Hill, the questions broached by lawmakers over Iraq showed that the administration would face a formidable task in assembling broad bipartisan support for a military strike, especially if large numbers of U.S. troops are involved.

While some Republicans are urging a go-slow approach, most of the skeptics are Democrats. That was true in January 1991, when Bush’s father, then-President George Bush, won approval from a divided Congress for a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq in the Persian Gulf War. The partisan divide from 1991 lingers today and could be a factor in the coming debate.

Of the 75 Democrats still in the House who voted on the 1991 war resolution, 52 opposed it. The ranks of the naysayers included such current party leaders as Reps. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.

By contrast, of 67 House Republicans who remain from the vote nearly a dozen years ago, only one voted against the resolution: Rep. Constance A. Morella of Maryland.

Much has changed since 1991. Most important, the nation is fighting a war on terrorism after the Sept. 11 attacks. And there is growing concern about the threat of biological, chemical or nuclear attacks from terrorists, possibly aided by rogue states such as Iraq.

Still, some of those who voted against the 1991 resolution seem prepared to take a similar position now. Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.), for instance, is deeply skeptical of the direction taken by the current Bush administration toward Iraq. “To date, they have not made a case that would persuade me,” DeFazio said.

He wrote a letter, signed by 18 other House liberals, demanding explanations from Bush on Iraq’s weapons capabilities and on the military and diplomatic fallout of a U.S. strike against Baghdad.

While the role of foreign policy in the congressional races remains unclear, Bush’s anti-Hussein campaign could affect some key contests. The president’s announcement that he would seek approval before taking action raised pressure on candidates to clarify their positions on military action.

Tellingly, several Democrats running for the Senate in states that Bush carried in 2000 quickly indicated that they would vote for a resolution authorizing action against Iraq if they were in office.

Rep. Bob Clement (D-Tenn), who’s running for an open Senate seat against Republican Lamar Alexander, said Wednesday that he would vote with Bush. Alex Sanders, who’s vying with Republican Rep. Lindsay O. Graham for an open Senate seat in South Carolina, said through a spokesman that “if the vote were today ... he would support the president.”

Dan Pfeiffer, spokesman for Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), who is seeking reelection, said the candidate “likely” would vote for a resolution.

Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster working on the South Carolina and Tennessee Senate races, said Democrats in more hawkish states are unlikely to oppose the president. But he said that a prolonged Iraq debate will benefit GOP candidates by shifting the public’s focus away from the economy toward national security issues, a Republican strength among most voters.

Democrats dispute that notion. And some Democrats believe that the congressional vote may offer their candidates in more conservative states an unexpected opportunity to blunt Republican attacks on their defense record.

*

Times staff writers Janet Hook, Richard Simon and Ronald Brownstein contributed to this report.