Congress Wants In on War Debate

When Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento) headed home for Congress’ summer recess, he was armed for a slew of town meetings to discuss the future of Social Security--a favorite topic for Democrats this election year.

But Matsui soon found his constituents had another issue on their minds: They peppered him with questions about the growing prospects that President Bush will launch a military attack against Iraq.

“It’s dominating the discussion back home,” Matsui said.

And it’s likely to dominate Capitol Hill when lawmakers reconvene in Washington next week--a big change from when Congress left town for its monthlong break. At that point, a U.S. attack on Iraq seemed a somewhat vague possibility; since then, top administration officials have been aggressively pressing the argument for going to war.

Lawmakers are increasingly worried about whether they can get a word in edgewise in this rapidly escalating debate. They already are bridling at administration lawyers, who argue that Bush is not legally bound to seek congressional approval to launch an attack.

It’s a sure bet returning members of Congress will be demanding more information and consultation from the administration about its Iraqi policy. Although there are precious few voices flatly opposing an attack, many lawmakers are urging the administration to do more to explain why military action is needed--even after Vice President Dick Cheney earlier this week laid out the case for a preemptive strike.

“There’s got to be more of that,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), noting that polls show support for sending U.S. ground troops to oust Saddam Hussein dropped to 53% of those polled in Gallup’s latest survey--down from 74% in November.

Interviews with several members of Congress around the country indicate that Bush still has a lot of work to do to win the support of voters--even in Republican-dominated districts.

Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R-W. Va.) estimated that 80% of the voters she has asked think the president’s approach to Iraq is too bellicose.

“They don’t find a compelling reason for us to go into Iraq at this time,” said Capito, who benefited from Bush’s coattails when she narrowly won her first term in 2000.

The anticipated congressional debate should expose divisions within the GOP that mirror the splits within the Bush administration between those who are clamoring for action--the sooner the better--and more cautious Republicans who remain unconvinced that an attack on Iraq is the best way to topple Hussein.

Among Democrats, meanwhile, the Iraq issue poses distinct political challenges. Most Democrats remain loath to openly oppose a popular president on his foreign policy; senior party strategists predict that if it came to a vote, Bush would easily win approval of using force against Iraq. But like Matsui, many Democrats have been hearing from constituents who are cool or even hostile to the idea.

Also, some Democrats are concerned that a full-blown debate on Iraq could undercut their party’s focus on other issues--such as the economy--that they want to keep front and center as the November elections near.

“I take the threat posed by Iraq seriously, and I think we need a regime change,” said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice). “But we also need an economic strategy and a homeland security strategy. We risk both of those if all the attention and money moves to Iraq.”

Bush says he has not decided yet whether to invade Iraq to topple Hussein, despite recent comments from Cheney and other hawkish members of the administration that have made a strike seem practically inevitable.

Bush has promised to consult with Congress before he takes such as step. But that process got off to a rocky start when word leaked this week that White House lawyers believe Bush would not need congressional approval because, they argue, the 1991 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq when Bush’s father was president still applied.

That ruffled feathers in both parties.

“If that’s the case, I would caution the Vietnamese because that means the Tonkin Gulf resolution still applies,” said McCain, referring to the measure that authorized U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.), a fierce defender of congressional prerogatives, called the White House argument a “power grab.”

Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.), chairman of the House International Relations Committee, agreed that technically Bush would not be legally bound to seek congressional approval to use force against Iraq. But Hyde, a strong Bush ally, said it was politically essential to get a popular mandate from Congress.

“On an issue as important as this, Congress has time for a debate and a vote,” Hyde said.

A sure sign of the growing spotlight on Iraq is the growing clamor for more hearings.

Hyde is planning hearings on the issue in September, but is still negotiating with the administration about which witnesses will be called.

Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Wednesday called for hearings, saying “the crescendo of debate on Iraq has reached an extraordinary level” in Congress’ absence.

The administration, which is seeking to quell criticism that it wants to bypass Congress as it plots its Iraqi strategy, responded favorably. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said congressional hearings “are part of a healthy discussion on how we move forward on Iraq. And we look forward to participating and being cooperative with Congress as those hearings are held.”

The hawks in the Bush administration have an influential and vocal congressional ally in House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who in a recent speech gave a spirited defense of the policy of preemptively attacking Iraq--and a pointed rebuke to those who favor going slow in dealing with Hussein to build a broader international coalition.

“These apologists for idleness would have us believe that consensus is a first principle,” DeLay said. “But if we can’t agree that terrorists murdering innocent civilians should be actively opposed, this path offers nothing but immobilizing confusion.”

Still, many of those calling for caution are DeLay’s GOP colleagues.

Sen. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, has said the administration must work harder at building support for possible military action. “We must develop a more certain road map for the American people,” Lugar wrote in a column for his hometown newspaper.

And Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is battling for reelection, voiced concern that ousting Hussein may not achieve the more important goal of eliminating Iraq’s capability to deploy weapons of mass destruction.

“I think the administration’s focus on Saddam Hussein is a mistake,” Collins told a home-state newspaper. “Our focus ought to be on the biological and chemical weapons in Iraq.”

Doubts also have been raised by those with little to worry about politically. Said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), who faces no Democratic opponent this fall, “The president has not made the case with the American people. There is still confusion and misunderstanding about why he feels so strongly about this.”

Political analysts say Iraq has not risen into the top tier of campaign issues, but its prominence is clearly on the rise.

In South Dakota, a close Senate contest is still dominated by pocketbook issues like health care and jobs. But Iraq came up in a debate Tuesday between Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S. D.) and his GOP opponent, Rep. John R. Thune (R-S. D.).

Democrats may come under pressure this fall to mount more aggressive opposition to an invasion. A case in point: A coalition of peace activists in California on Wednesday held a news conference to give Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) a “thank you card” for her “leadership against the Bush administration’s rush to war.”

In fact, said Feinstein spokesman Scott Berber, the senator has not opposed the use of force; she has only sponsored a resolution calling for Bush to seek congressional approval for any use of force. “That is a long way from opposing a war,” said Gerber.

Times staff writer James Gerstenzang contributed to this report.