WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 (UPI) -- Congressional lawmakers on Sunday said President George W. Bush's proposed resolution to force Iraqi disarmament needs fine-tuning, but will likely receive approval once they understand how much power it gives him.
The Senate Intelligence Committee last week debated whether to approve a resolution that would give President Bush authorization to send military forces into Iraq should the Arab nation continue its refusal to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction.
Earlier this month, the president called on the United Nations to support a resolution that would compel Iraq to disarm, rather than allow weapons inspectors to return after a 4-year forced hiatus, or threaten consequences if they fail to do so. He then asked Congress to give him authorization to send troops if necessary to pre-empt any chance of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein using those weapons.
At issue is whether the United States will undertake the operation without the help of its allies, many of whom oppose a first strike against Iraq. Concern also exists over whether the resolution, as the draft from the White House is worded, gives Bush broader powers to station troops in the region and possibly turn its anti-terrorism movement on Iran in the future.
Complicating matters for the administration is its failure to convince some of its most important world allies to join the United States in its stand against Iraq. This week, Bush was able to convince neither Russia nor France, both members of the U.N. Security Council to join its campaign.
The White House on Friday announced a fundamental shift in national security strategy, saying that the United States would "lead the world in defending the peace against global terror and against aggressive regimes seeking weapons of mass destruction" -- including acting alone if the international community failed to act.
The proposed resolution would give Bush the power to "use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council resolutions (in regard to Iraq)..., defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region."
Critics have called the wording of the resolution a "blank check" that would give the president almost unfettered discretion in the use of military personnel in the region. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., a member of the Select Intelligence Committee, disagreed.
"The president needs the authority to do the things that we all know need to be done. And if you have a crimped set of words in there that have to be subject to interpretation or revisiting with subsequent resolutions, you don't have the authority that the president will need. And therefore, I think the resolution is well written," Kyl said during an appearance on ABC's "This Week."
Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, of Nebraska, appearing on the same program, said the administration knew that Congress would need to take time and define what it is the resolution means.
"I know some have dismissed this as word tinkering and not very important. But these are very, very important definitions because it will guide the president and this nation, probably, into war," said Hagel, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The details in the language will likely be ironed out during hearings this week that include an appearance by Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Failing to define what the intent of the United States is, Hagel said, the president could station troops in the region because he would have the authority to restore international peace and security in the region. That could include crossing into other nations besides Iraq, Hagel said.
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., told CBS'S "Face the Nation" that the substance of Bush's resolution would likely receive congressional approval, though he said he could not predict what would happen when the proposal reached the United Nations.
"This could drive the U.N., but we're going to find out who our friends are in the world in the next few months," Shelby said.
Arizona Sen. John McCain, a Republican, told NBC's "Meet the Press" that the United Nations Security Council would likely give "some kind of endorsement," but that if they do not and Hussein remains defiant, he would support the United States taking on the fight alone.
Polls show Bush's speech on Sept. 12 speech before the United Nations General Assembly bolstered his support among the American people for military action against Iraq. A 52 percent majority now says Bush has explained clearly what's at stake for the United States in Iraq, according to a poll released Thursday by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Less than a month ago, just 37 percent felt the president had laid out a case for military action.
Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., on CBS' "Face the Nation" said an informed public will understand the severity of the threat posed by Hussein.
"The American people are grown ups. You tell them what we need to do, tell them the threat and they will back the president, but we haven't told them all the story yet," Biden said.
Shelby agreed: "I believe the American people are a lot smarter than some people give them credit for. They're a lot better informed than a lot of people give them credit for... You can see the dynamic change in America toward the war since President Bush went before the United Nations. They understand what's going on. They see these hearings that we've been having in the joint committee. They're concerned about safety."
