Legislators’ Opposition to Iraq Attack Withers

Congressional opposition to authorizing a potential military attack on Iraq is crumbling, but leading lawmakers are making a last-ditch effort to narrow the focus of a White House-requested resolution that would grant the administration wide latitude in dealing with Baghdad.

White House officials and congressional leaders are meeting to discuss possible changes to temper the far-reaching powers President Bush asked for in a draft resolution sent to Congress last week.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration turned up the public heat on the international community on the eve of introducing a formal resolution at the United Nations to force Iraq to surrender its weapons of mass destruction.

Bush, during a trip to New Jersey, warned the United Nations that it risks being seen as “nothing but a debating society” if it does not pass a tough resolution on dismantling Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s arsenal.

“I want to see strong resolutions coming out of that U.N., a resolution which says the old ways of deceit are gone, a resolution which will hold this man to account, a resolution which will allow freedom-loving countries to disarm Saddam Hussein before he threatens his neighborhood, before he threatens freedom, before he threatens America and before he threatens civilization,” Bush said.

U.S. officials said Monday that they were encouraged by what they were hearing behind the scenes among the other 14 members of the U.N. Security Council. And U.N. officials said there were growing indications that Russia would agree to a new U.N. resolution targeting Iraq, despite its having expressed reservations about the need for further mandates.

“We have not come out against a resolution tightening the regime of [the] work of the inspectors in Iraq,” Russian Defense Minister Sergei B. Ivanov said during a stopover Monday in Lisbon.

On Capitol Hill, only a small cadre of lawmakers--mostly liberal Democrats--has come out in direct opposition to authorizing force against Iraq. Even Democrats who just two weeks ago were raising caution flags and demanding answers to questions about Bush’s goals now seem resigned to Congress voting soon to support his policies toward Iraq. The key remaining question seems to be the margin by which the resolution passes.

However, many lawmakers are still trying to change the wording of Bush’s proposal. Of particular concern is language that seems to authorize military action not just in Iraq but across the region.

“There’s a large number of people--in both parties--who think that that is a very broad mandate to give to the president,” House Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said.

Although Democrats have been most vocal about their misgivings, even some Republicans are quietly expressing concerns that the administration is overreaching.

“This is the White House wish list,” said a senior House Republican advisor. “Our members are going to want to make sure there is a role for Congress.”

This aide predicted that the White House would accept changes in the phrasing that would authorize the use of force to achieve, among other things, “peace and security in the region.” Many lawmakers want that language revised to specify Iraq as the target.

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Monday that the language was borrowed from earlier U.N. resolutions that should be acceptable to lawmakers. But Fleischer signaled that the administration would be flexible on that point: “If the Congress decides that the boilerplate diplomatic language that’s been contained in previous United Nations resolutions is not appropriate, we’ll work with them on it.” Many Democrats concede that they have little leverage to make major changes in the resolution, such as a bigger role for the U.N. in the confrontation with Iraq.

“He’s going to get whatever he wants,” said a senior House Democratic strategist. “He’s going to do whatever he wants.”

Some Democrats may try to draft an alternative resolution. But others worry that would project a message of division at a time when Congress should be standing united behind the president.

“There’s a difference of opinion as to whether there should be an alternative,” Pelosi said.

Congress also has begun to turn its attention to the cost of launching an attack on Iraq. An analysis by the Democratic staff of the House Budget Committee released Monday concluded that an initial military operation lasting 30 to 60 days with a U.S. force ranging from 125,000 to 250,000 would cost between $48 billion and $93 billion.

U.S. officials continued to charge that Hussein has backtracked on the commitment he made Sept. 16 to allow U.N. arms inspection teams into his country for the first time in four years.

Since Thursday, Baghdad has warned that it will not allow inspectors to engage in searches that would compromise Iraqi “sovereignty and dignity,” a reference to several presidential compounds that Hussein has tried to keep off-limits.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Monday that Iraq had not formally notified him that the sites would be kept from inspection. But he reiterated his message to Baghdad that the terms of the inspectors’ return are not negotiable.

“Recent Iraqi statements are just further proof that Iraq is already backtracking on its commitments to have inspections without conditions,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Monday.

In Britain, which is co-sponsoring the U.N. resolution, Prime Minister Tony Blair told his Cabinet on Monday that Hussein is manufacturing new weapons of mass destruction, despite formal denials from Baghdad.

“There is no doubt that Saddam is continuing with his WMD program. We are not talking about historic leftovers, but an ongoing continuing program. [Hussein] has been able to make progress in his WMD program and has to be stopped,” Blair said, according to a government spokesman.

Blair brought with him an intelligence dossier on Iraq’s weapons programs, at least a part of which will be made public today.

*

Times staff writer Maggie Farley in New York contributed to this report.