Cautious Lawmakers Slow Resolution On Iraq Some Fear Giving Clinton Too Much Leeway On Military Action

Lawmakers, worried about giving President Clinton open-ended authority to mount air strikes against Iraq, are slowing efforts in the Senate to muster bipartisan support for military action.

Defense Secretary William Cohen said Tuesday that if diplomacy fails to persuade Iraq to allow international weapons inspections, the United States would wage a “significant” military campaign against Iraq.

“It would be far more than what has been experienced in the past, certainly since the Persian Gulf War,” Cohen told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Cohen; Gen. Henry Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Sandy Berger, national security adviser, trooped to Capitol Hill to meet with lawmakers and rally support for possible air strikes aimed at suspected nuclear, chemical and biological weapons manufacturing and storage sites.

But some senators are voicing fears a resolution sponsored by Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi and Democratic leader Thomas Daschle of South Dakota gives President Clinton too much leeway to conduct military operations against Iraq.

“This resolution is an expression of political support for any action the president contemplates in Iraq,” said Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., who lost three limbs in the Vietnam War. “I just want to make sure it doesn’t expand the power the president already has, under a 1991 law, to do what he might be thinking to do.”

Sen. Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., a Medal of Honor winner in Vietnam who also lost part of a leg there, also has raised questions about the scope of the Lott-Daschle resolution.

The proposed resolution calls on the president “to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

Lott said the resolution is intended to send a clear message to Saddam that the United States is determined to enforce a U.N. mandate to search out and destroy any technology or stockpiles of Iraqi mass-destruction weapons.

“It is time to act,” Lott said, “multilaterally if possible, unilaterally if necessary.”

Cleland said Tuesday he would be willing to support the resolution if it mirrored language contained in a 1991 law that gave former President George Bush a blank check to wage war against Iraq.

That law, which is still in effect, required the president to consult closely with Congress while committing U.S. forces to combat and to report regularly to Congress on the process of the campaign.

“I’m insisting on four basic points,” Cleland said. “That any resolution we pass now be consistent with the U.S Constitution (on declarations of war), consistent with the War Powers Act (which restrains a president’s authority to wage unfettered war), consistent with the U.N. Security Council’s resolution of 1991 (curbing Iraqi aggression), and consistent with Congress’ 1991 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.”

He said Senate leaders have taken his views under consideration and appear likely to incorporate them, at least in part, in a new resolution supporting military action against Saddam.

Daschle said Democrats have submitted a new draft of the resolution to Lott and are awaiting his response. “If we can work it out,” Daschle said, “we might be able to move on it this week.”

Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., also voiced reservations about handing the president unconditional authority in Iraq.

“I’m all for sending Saddam a strong message,” he said, “but I don’t want to give the president carte blanche power to do anything he wants without some congressional consultation.”

House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, said leaders there are waiting for the Senate to act before bringing a concurrent resolution to the floor.