Congress considers attack

Opponents are scattered across the political spectrum. Some insist the bombing wouldn't go far enough, including conservative Republicans on Capitol Hill who believe the ultimate goal should be to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Others fear a U.S. attack would go too far, killing thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, destroying Mideast peace efforts, and bypassing Congress in making war on another nation.

Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.), one of the capital's most respected foreign affairs voices, said he backs Clinton's Iraqi policy but doesn't think force would diminish the threat of Iraq's weapons or its ability to threaten its neighbors.

"The administration, I think, has a very heavy responsibility now to articulate with very great precision what our purposes are in Iraq," Hamilton told Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who trooped to Capitol Hill nearly every day last week to talk about Iraq.

President Clinton plans to deliver a speech today at the Pentagon to make the case for why the United States may launch air strikes on suspected sites in Iraq.

which Saddam has ruled off limits to U.N. inspectors.

His foreign policy team will hold town hall meetings this week.

The one thing bombing opponents and proponents have in common with Clinton is abhorrence of Saddam, who had agreed after the 1991 Persian Gulf War to allow U.N. inspections to ensure he didn't rebuild his unconventional war machine.

Those feelings initially translated into strong congressional support for Clinton. Support wavered last week, with Republicans and Democrats raising questions about what an airstrike could accomplish and at what cost.

A supportive resolution was put off until Congress returns from a break next week.

Conservative Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, last week introduced emergency legislation to stop Clinton from using force in the Gulf.

"There is absolutely no moral or constitutional reason to go to war with Iraq at this time," said Paul, a former Air Force flight surgeon.

A liberal, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., also asked on PBS-TV's "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" last week: "How many people are we going to kill this time just because we don't want to set a precedent for having a country dictate ...who can do an inspection?"

All seven active U.S. Roman Catholic cardinals cautioned in a letter to Clinton that bombings could be impossible to justify. About one-fifth of the National Catholic Conference of Bishops already had signed on to a campaign to end U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq.

Two former CIA directors who served under Clinton joined a different sort of opposition chorus, advocating more than airstrikes.

"The problem with Iraq will not be solved by an air campaign," former CIA Director John Deutch said. His predecessor, James Woolsey, criticized Clinton's "flaccid responses" and advocated a combination of bombs, support for Iraqi opposition groups and imposition of a countrywide no-fly zone over Iraq.

Sam Husseini of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee criticized the news media for holding Clinton up to intense scrutiny on the allegations of a sexual relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky while "rationales for the Iraq policy go unchallenged."

He said Arab Americans are baffled by the kind of diplomacy Clinton is conducting and the disregard for Iraqi casualties.

"Comply or die -that's not diplomacy," Husseini said. "This isn't 'Wag the Dog.' The blood will be real," he added, alluding to a current movie in which a fake U.S. war is waged to divert attention from a presidential sex scandal.

Gordon Clark, executive director of Peace Action, an anti-war group, said military action could scuttle Mideast peace efforts, spawn terrorism and probably increase the chance that the weapons Clinton seeks to destroy will be used.

"The only consequence we can be sure bombing will bring is that we will kill thousands more innocent people who have no control whatsoever over what Saddam Hussein does," Clark said.

02-17-98