U.N., Congressional Democrats Last Holdouts to Attack on Iraq By Lawrence Morahan CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer September 17, 2002 (CNSNews.com) - As the Bush administration attempts to rally support for an attack on Iraq, the United Nations and congressional Democrats appear to be the last holdouts on approving a military operation, partly out of political considerations, political analysts said Monday. Jim Phillips, a research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs with the Heritage Foundation, said both sides ultimately would support the president, however. "I think Bush's speech was very effective and hopefully will galvanize the U.N. to do the right thing -- to follow through on its many resolutions that Iraq has violated, and I think Capitol Hill will follow through also, hopefully before the November elections, in approving a hard-line policy on Iraq," he said. Secretary of State Colin Powell traveled to New York on Monday to negotiate with U.N. Security Council partners for a U.N. resolution that both condemns Iraq for failing to live up to agreements and sets a timetable for compliance. Any security resolution must have a clear recognition that Saddam Hussein is in material breach of all the obligations that he entered into as a result of these many U.N. resolutions, Powell said Sept. 15 on NBC's "Meet the Press." The resolution also must specify what action Iraq must take to mend the breach and the United Nations must spell out what it will do if Hussein does not comply, he added. Powell said he expects action on the resolution to be completed in a matter of weeks, not months. The permanent members of the Security Council -- Russia, France, China and Great Britain -- agree that Iraq has flouted U.N. resolutions, he said. However, some analysts said it was unwise for the Bush administration to seek United Nations' support before the president sought support from Congress. "I think both sides really are making the wrong point," said Cliff Kincaid, a Washington journalist who covers the United Nations and is president of America's Survival, Inc. "[Senate Majority Leader Tom] Daschle is certainly wrong when he says, 'let's see what the U.N. does.' But on the other hand, Bush is wrong by going to the U.N. before he formally asks Congress to do anything on this. "He's going to the U.N., then he's basically saying, 'well, Congress ought to back me up. Under the Constitution, he's supposed to go to Congress first," Kincaid said. The real debate should involve only the president, the Congress and the American people, Kincaid added. "What Bush is doing ... is he's going to the U.N. and basically pleading with them to allow us to enforce their resolutions," he said. If Iraq is an imminent threat to the United States, Bush ought to go to Congress for a declaration of war. "Quite frankly, I'm of the view that if Bush wants to wage war on Iraq, he's going to have to get a declaration of war from Congress and the U.N should have nothing to do with this," he said. Democratic Support for Action Will Grow Democrats who complained that President Bush planned an attack without consulting them now are saying Bush is politicizing the issue by making them declare their positions in advance of the November elections. However, members of Congress who are getting more detailed briefings on the threat posed by Iraq tend to be more persuaded of the need for military action, Phillips said. "I think over time as the briefings filter down, more will support the president," he said. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) and House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) have come out in support of Bush's Iraq policy. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) a possible contender for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination, and Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) also has voiced support for Bush. Phillips said Bush is likely to get from Congress a declaration of support for military action rather than a declaration of war. "I don't think legally he needs to, but politically he should," Phillips said. A Gallup poll conducted Sept. 5 - 8 found that voters overwhelmingly believe Republicans are more capable of protecting the United States from international terrorism and military threats, according to reports.              Printer-friendly version Click here to be added to our mailing list.