Bush gets go-ahead for war if Hussein won't disarm
Senate votes 77-23, House 296-133 for the resolution
Bush's focus limited to Iraq, not entire Middle East

E-mail this story
Printer-friendly format
Search archives

Photo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House passes resolution (AP/CSPAN via APTN)

Stories
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Text of the joint resolution

Audio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Bush reacts to vote
October 10, 2002 RealAudio

Stories
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House roll call vote
October 10, 2002

Story collections
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
History of Iraq

Stories
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conflict with Iraq

Photo gallery
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Graphics: Inspections timeline, Iraq's military strategy, more

By Jill Zuckman
Washington Bureau
Published October 11, 2002, 6:51 AM CDT

WASHINGTON -- Congress has voted overwhelmingly to allow President Bush to embark on war if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein fails to abandon his biological, chemical and nuclear arms programs.

The Democrat-led Senate approved the war resolution 77-23 early today. It authorizes Bush to unilaterally launch a preemptive strike. A somber House voted for the resolution 296-133 on Thursday.

It now goes to Bush for his signature.

Despite the intense feelings on both sides and quarrels over whether the United States must work more closely with the United Nations, the outcome of congressional voting was not in doubt. The large margins are expected to bolster Secretary of State Colin Powell as he works to persuade the U.N. Security Council to demand a new round of unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq.

The resolution, the result of a bipartisan compromise brokered by House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt, gives the president most of the power he sought. But the resolution also calls on the president to exhaust all diplomatic efforts before using force, and it narrows Bush's focus to Iraq, rather than the whole Middle East as the White House initially proposed.

Finally, the measure requires the president to report to Congress every 60 days if he does go to war.

Thursday at the White House, Bush said he was pleased by the House vote, saying it sent a message to the world.

"Today's vote also sends a clear message to the Iraqi regime. It must disarm and comply with all existing U.N. resolutions or it will be forced to comply," Bush said.

Congress' action comes more than a decade after it first decided to take on the Iraqi president for his invasion of Kuwait in August 1990. Back then, the atmosphere was markedly different.

Congress had not directly confronted the prospect of sending American soldiers into combat since World War II. Lawmakers were anguished over the responsibility and conflicted about whether to give diplomacy more time or to turn to military force.

On Jan. 12, 1991, a deeply divided Congress voted to authorize the president to go to war against Iraq if it did not leave Kuwait.

This time, the debate over the Iraqi dictator was colored by the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, fear that Hussein could develop nuclear weapons to be used against the United States and the upcoming midterm election.

Even Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who had spent weeks voicing grave concerns about the president's handling of Iraq, voted to give him the authority to use force.

"The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent," Daschle said. "But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored."

Many lawmakers insisted that the resolution did not mean that the nation would soon be at war. Indeed, Bush has said he has not yet decided whether to activate the military.

"It is not an act of war. It is an act to deter war," Sen. John Warner, R-Va., said.

Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., said Hussein would understand nothing other than the language of aggression.

"It is only when the Iraqi dictator is certain of our willingness to wage war if necessary that peace becomes possible," Lantos said.

But other lawmakers said Congress was making a monumental mistake.

Tonkin Gulf resolution

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said Congress was repeating history by not asking enough questions and not taking enough time before granting a president's request.

Thirty-eight years ago, Byrd said, he voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which gave President Lyndon Johnson a free hand to expand the war in Vietnam.

"It was this resolution that led to the deaths of 58,000 Americans and 150,000 Americans being wounded in action," Byrd said. "After all of that carnage, we began to learn that in voting for the Tonkin Gulf resolution, we were basing our votes on bad information."

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said he had concluded that the November elections were pressuring many lawmakers to support Bush.

"I think members of Congress tend to fall in line behind the president on security matters," he said.

Levin in the Senate and Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., in the House supplied the primary alternative for those with qualms about allowing Bush to take unilateral action against Iraq. Their proposal would have required Bush to return to Congress for a second vote on the use of American force once he concluded that efforts to work with the United Nations had failed.

Without putting together a multilateral coalition, Spratt said, "This will be the United States versus Iraq and in some quarters the U.S. versus the Arab and the Muslim world."

The House rejected the Levin-Spratt proposal, 270-155. The Senate also rejected that approach, 75-24.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., tried to amend the resolution by altering the language to allow for the use of force in case of an imminent threat, rather than an ongoing threat.

He said the administration was seeking to undo years of American foreign policy by lowering the threshold for one nation to attack another.

"If we are going to argue that we have the right as a nation to attack any nation that we suspect may be a threat to us, how then can the United States play a role in the world supporting diplomacy and peace?" Durbin asked.

The Senate rejected his proposal, 70-30.

Passions ran high on both sides of the debate as lawmakers worried about the consequences of action and inaction.

"History informs us that the dangers of complacency and inaction far outweigh the calculated risks of confronting evil," said House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas.

"Let us take this stand against tyranny and let us stand with our president. The forces of freedom are on the march, and terrorists will find no safe harbor in the world."

A difficult decision

Gephardt, who voted for the resolution, said: "No one wants to go to war. No one wants to put our young men and women in harm's way. And I know we hope that our actions today will avert war.

"But our decision is not so simple, because we must weigh the dangers of sending our young people into hostilities against the threat presented by Iraq to our citizens' safety."

In fact, many lawmakers worried that the Iraqi situation was linked to terrorist attacks against the United States.

"While there is no definite evidence of prior close collaboration between the Al Qaeda criminals and Saddam Hussein, there is no doubt they might find common cause in attacking us and our allies at any time," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.

Voting for the resolution in the Senate were 48 Republicans and 29 Democrats. Voting against it were 21 Democrats, Republican Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and independent James Jeffords of Vermont.

In the House, 133 lawmakers voted against the resolution. Of those dissenters, there were 126 Democrats, six Republicans and one independent. Every member of the Hispanic caucus voted no, and 34 out of 38 members of the Congressional Black Caucus also voted against the measure.

Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., said he believes war is not inevitable, despite the vote of Congress.

"As long as people are involved, there's the opportunity to change the direction of the president. People stay engaged, stay involved," Davis exhorted.

Of the 20 House members from Illinois, 12 voted yes and eight voted no. Only two Democrats voted for the resolution, Reps. Rod Blagojevich and David Phelps, both of whom are engaged in competitive campaigns. All the Republicans voted yes.