Congress is expected approve a resolution before Election Day granting President Bush the powers to launch a "preemptive" war against Iraq.
This is hardly startling for a legislative body catapulted to the far reaches of jingo excess since Sept. 11, but the important news is that a small but potentially viable sector of the Democratic Party and its congressional delegation has finally started to criticize or at least question the Bush administration's mania for endless wars.
These liberal Democrats -- a distinct minority in the Senate and House -- have cautiously started to speak out after a year when most of them approved a resolution giving Bush broad powers to initiate an open-ended war on terrorism, supported a major assault upon civil liberties known as the USA Patriot Act, and approved an enormous increase in war spending, among other measures propelling the U.S. down the road to war, repression and debt.
Now, emboldened by recent criticism of the methodology behind Bush's war plans by several mandarins of the Republican inner circle, at least some Democratic members of Congress are expressing qualms about the Bush administration's preference to start a war first and answer questions later. Most of these politicians support the war against Afghanistan and do not express total opposition to the notion of a preemptive war against Iraq, but they insist that: (1) The U.S. should first provide UN weapons inspectors with the opportunity and time to fulfill their responsibilities before launching a possibly preventable war; (2) the White House should not take action without a substantial number of allies; (3) the administration must show that a war to unseat Iraqi President Saddam Hussein will not drain support, energy and resources from the war on terrorism.
Former Vice President Al Gore, the leading Democratic contender for the presidential nomination, has criticized the Bush regime's preference for blasting Hussein out of Baghdad. In a speech Sept. 23, he argued that an invasion might scuttle the war on terrorism, and charged that it was presumptuous to advocate "a new, uniquely American right to preemptively attack whomsoever he may deem represents a potential future threat." So far, he alone of the five or six leading candidates for the party's presidential nomination in 2004 has spoken out. The others have aligned themselves in one way or another with the warhawks --though this may change in time.
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), Gore's former running mate in 2000 and a Democratic presidential contender in his own right, has been beating the war drums against Iraq for over a year. He criticized Gore's remarks, arguing that the U.S. armed forces were perfectly capable of waging war in Iraq and against terrorism at the same time.
Another leading contender for the presidential nomination, Senate majority leader Tom Daschle (S.D.), lashed out at President Bush Sept. 25 for declaring that the Democrats are "not interested in the security of the American people" -- but he has not expressed more than trifling misgivings about a war. Throughout the year he has been instrumental in organizing backing for President Bush's war on terrorism and pledging "strong bipartisan support" for the White House resolution authorizing a conflict with Iraq. Daschle's main interest appears to be passing Bush's war resolution quickly enough to leave some time before elections for the electorate to think about blaming Bush (his public approval rating remains between 65-70%) for the faltering economy and corporate corruption.
Among senate Democrats, Edward Kennedy last week questioned the war drive in these words: "I am concerned that using force against Iraq before other means are tried will sorely test both the integrity and effectiveness of the [90-member war on terrorism] coalition." The senate's leading liberal also posited, "The administration has not made a convincing case that we face ... [an] imminent threat to our national security that [requires] a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war." Critical Senate Democrats include Robert Byrd (W. Va.) Carl Levin (Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), and Patrick Leahy (Vt.), among several others who may balk at Bush's request for an authorizing resolution for war.
In the House, perhaps 30 representatives are associated with a newly formed antiwar coalition. They include Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), the leader of the chamber's progressive caucus and a major opposition voice; Barbara Lee (Calif.), the only House member to oppose the congressional resolution providing Bush with war powers last year; Marcy Kaptur (Ohio), who characterized Bush's plan as "naked aggression;" Jim McDermott (Wash.), who thinks an attack on Iraq "has much more to do with oil than anything else;" Bob Filner (Calif.), who says Bush is "leading us in the wrong direction;" and Maurice Hinchey (N.Y.), the only Mid-Hudson congressperson to oppose a war with Iraq. Kucinich announced formation of the coalition at a press conference Sept. 20, telling reporters that "unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq is unjustified, unwarranted and illegal."
Lee has introduced a bill (No. 473) opposing a unilateral first strike at Iraq, calling instead for the U.S. to cooperate with the United Nations in restarting arms inspections and obtaining compliance with UN resolutions. As of this writing about 30 representatives have co-sponsored the bill. In a related development, Reps. McDermott and David Bonior (D-Mich.) took part in a fact-finding trip to Iraq last week and conducted a press conference in Baghdad where they suggested that the UN should act only if the Iraqi government did not cooperate with weapons inspectors. This presumably implies that the U.S. should not launch a war until the UN declares one is necessary.
Only a few members of this gathering congressional opposition appear to be unencumbered by various qualifications regarding their critique of a new war with Iraq. This one says, try inspections first. That one says, obtain Security Council backing first. Another says, get support from allies first. One cannot help but wonder what comes second, if, perchance, the allies and the UN for any reason decide to continence a U.S. attack. It seems possible that some of the existing dissent may dissipate. After all, it was Congress in 1998 that overwhelmingly approved the imperialist notion of regime-change in Iraq, and most Democrats were in the majority. Likewise, virtually all Democrats in Congress including those now speaking out, continue to justify the bombing and occupation of Afghanistan and other unsavory aspects of that euphemism for world hegemony known as the war on terrorism.
Regardless, the recent materialization of a Democratic congressional opposition is a highly positive development that will create a split in the lockstepping ranks of mentally jackbooted legislators quickmarching to Baghdad. As such, the antiwar movement will benefit. But this phenomenon cannot yet be compared to the opposition against a successful White House war-authorization proposal mounted by congressional Democrats during the prelude to the first President Bush's war against Iraq in 1991. A total of 45 (out of 55) Democratic senators and 179 Democratic representatives (out of 265) opposed the resolution. The great majority of today's Democratic members of Congress remain safely situated three steps behind and a quarter-inch or less to the left of the current President Bush as he prepares to let slip the dogs of war on a country not cimperialistnected with the World Trade Center tragedy. [* "... and let slip the dogs of war..." -- from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. "The little fox is still, the dogs of war have made their kill" -- Langston Hughes in 1936, when Italy subjugated Ethiopia. A powerful and moving expression, though 'tis people such as George Bush, not dogs, who commit these crimes.]
The original White House proposal in mid-September amounted to a warhawk wish list, virtually compelling the U.S. to bombard Baghdad if Saddam Hussein failed to say "Bless you" after Bush sneezed. It was so blatantly aggressive (essentially allowing the Vandal-in-Chief to ransack the entire Middle East, if he felt it necessary, instead of merely plundering Iraq), that the Bush administration resubmitted a modified draft joint resolution. This resolution authorizies "the use of U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq" as Bush sees fit to "defend the national security interests of the U.S. against the threat posed by Iraq and to enforce the UN Security Council resolutions." Some more modifications are expected, but not to the extent of forbidding a U.S. attack without Security Council approval.
Congressional opposition is too small to be effective at this point, but it will help to build the antiwar movement, which is becoming increasingly active. The war resolution, plus the beginning of a fightback in Congress should serve to swell the ranks of the big protests in Washington and San Francisco, Oct. 26.