Anti-War Vote May Return to Haunt Some Congressmen : Elections: Waxman now has second thoughts about his initial stand, but Beilenson still insists that the measure against Iraq was not needed.

WASHINGTON —  In one of the most important votes of their congressional careers, did Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) and Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Los Angeles) come down on the wrong side of history?

In retrospect, Waxman seems to acknowledge, the answer is yes; Beilenson says no. When Congress voted Jan. 12 to authorize President Bush to use force to expel Iraq from Kuwait, Beilenson and Waxman were among 179 House Democrats who opposed the measure, calling instead for the continuation of economic sanctions. The pro-war measure passed--the House approving it 250-183 and the Senate 52-47--with the backing of almost all Republicans, who now hope that quick victory will lead voters to punish anti-war Democrats.

Beilenson took his dovish stance another step after the United States and its allies had intensively bombed Iraqi forces and military installations for several weeks. As the prospect of a ground war loomed, he became one of 45 lawmakers who signed a letter to Bush urging the President not to “significantly increase the level of combat operations at this time.”

In contrast, Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City) broke ranks with his party’s leadership to vote for the use of force--prompting an initial outcry against him by anti-war protesters. San Fernando Valley-area Republicans Elton Gallegly of Simi Valley, Carlos J. Moorhead of Glendale, William M. Thomas of Bakersfield and Jerry Lewis of Highland all voted with Bush to go to war against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein if necessary.

Although many Democrats remain defensive about their votes to deny Bush authority to wage war, Waxman acknowledges having second thoughts.

“In retrospect,” he said recently, “I think war was inevitable given Saddam Hussein’s faulty judgment, irrational behavior and despotic objectives. A man who let his country go to war against such odds, who refused to back down even after the air campaign to avoid a ground campaign, makes you wonder whether he ever would have backed down.”

Beilenson, in contrast, said he was pleased that the United States achieved its war aims but added that he has no regrets about his vote.

“I continue to believe that sanctions were working, they were taking a very great toll and eventually they would have brought about the results that we wanted,” Beilenson said.

“You only fight wars as a last resort when your own vital interests are at stake and when you have no viable alternatives left. And that certainly wasn’t the case in January.”

After the U. S.-led rout of Iraq, controversy has raged in the nation’s capital over whether the war vote is fair game as a 1992 election issue. Most anti-war Democrats have continued to defend their votes--at the same time emphasizing their support for the troops once the conflict began Jan. 17. Republicans, meanwhile, have vowed to use the voting records of Democrats who opposed the war as an issue in next year’s election.

Indeed, Jim Salomon of Beverly Hills, Beilenson’s Republican opponent in 1988 and 1990--who says he plans to run again in 1992--is already criticizing the veteran lawmaker for opposing Bush on the issue.

“If their polls show it works, they will use it,” California Democratic Party Chairman Phil Angelides said of the Republicans. “They will jam it to us. It’s Willie Horton of ‘92”--referring to the furloughed murderer whom Bush transformed into a major campaign weapon against Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis in 1988.

Angelides predicted that domestic issues--particularly the economy, education and the environment--would take precedence over the Mideast war by Election Day. At the same time, however, a nationwide poll by Times Mirror Co. two weeks ago found that, after the conflict, more Americans identified themselves as Republicans than Democrats on a scale not seen in 60 years and that the GOP holds a 50% to 40% lead in congressional voting intentions.

In Waxman’s and Beilenson’s cases, the war’s political impact will be determined by the issue’s prominence 20 months from now, the nature of their new districts following reapportionment next year, and whether they will face well-financed opponents who can communicate effectively with voters, political consultants say.

“If a Democrat is in a truly competitive district and it’s the type of campaign that could be a close election, being on the unpopular side of the Gulf War issue will make a difference,” said Allan Hoffenblum, a Republican political consultant.

Such a scenario appears to be an unlikely prospect for Waxman, GOP strategists say. His Hollywood-based 24th District is surrounded by heavily Democratic communities--making the chances of a hostile reapportionment remote--and his prominence and fund-raising ability make it probable that he will face only token opposition.

Beilenson, too, has been reelected by secure margins. The former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee won 61.7% of the vote in 1990 despite being widely outspent and doing little campaigning in his 23rd District, which includes the West San Fernando Valley and Westside communities from Malibu to West Hollywood.

The war vote could prove more problematic, however, if reapportionment pushes him deeper into the more conservative Valley and away from his loyal Westside constituents, consultants say. Moreover, Salomon says he will use the vote to challenge Beilenson’s support for Israel--a key issue in a district where many campaign contributors and voters are Jewish.

“You cannot legitimately be pro-Israel and have voted against using force against Saddam Hussein because the bulk of public opinion in Israel, in the government and in the public was that Saddam Hussein was a mortal threat to the state of Israel,” Salomon said. As a candidate in September, Salomon advocated force if necessary to oust Hussein from Kuwait and disagreed with widespread forecasts that many American lives would be lost in the process.

“If he thinks that a decision on so momentous a question should be decided purely in terms of the results for Israel, then perhaps two years from now he should go run as a member of the Knesset,” the Israeli Parliament, Beilenson responded.

In addition, Beilenson said that when he led a congressional delegation to Saudi Arabia and Israel in December, some of his trusted Israeli friends told him that a Mideast war was not in the Jewish state’s interest. And he noted that a majority of Jewish members of Congress had joined him in opposing the war resolution.

“It won’t really hurt,” Beilenson said of his vote on the war resolution and its effect on the 1992 reelection contest. “It will cost a few votes.”

Berman, meanwhile, emerged from the Gulf crisis with enhanced credibility. Not only was he one of 86 Democrats to vote for authorization of force, but he also had voiced concern about Hussein’s militarism as early as 1984 and had sponsored a measure to impose economic sanctions against Iraq before the Aug. 2 invasion. The Bush Administration continued to oppose Berman’s bill as late as the day it passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee--only hours before Iraq invaded Kuwaiti.

Berman said he believed that several important goals were achieved by the Gulf War.

“Saddam had to be stopped; he was stopped,” Berman said. “He at least no longer poses a threat to his neighbors. . . . And we succeeded in doing something we would have had to do at some point in the future with a much greater loss of life and much more damage.”

As for his colleagues who continue to defend their opposition to the war, Berman said: “Democrats continuing to make a case now that sanctions might have achieved this result” are grasping for “more of an after-the-fact justification than a reasonable argument.”