Armey supports president, Democrats voice concerns

Monday, October 7th 2002, 12:00 am

By: News On 6

WASHINGTON (AP) _ House Majority Leader Dick Armey, after weeks of fence-sitting, on Monday endorsed giving President Bush the authority to go to war against Iraq, while Democratic lawmakers contended it's a mistake to launch that war without the international community's support.

Armey said his decision came after ``a careful, exhaustive review of the facts and evidence against Saddam Hussein,'' including numerous briefings by administration officials about the dangers posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Texas Republican, who is retiring at the end of this session, has in particular questioned the propriety of the United States launching a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. ``America has never been an aggressor nation,'' he said.

But he said he now believes Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire agreed to after the Persian Gulf War a decade ago, and ``I don't see this as pre-emptive at all.''

Last week, Armey asked if it was wise to attack a snake in its hole. On Monday, he said he was ``convinced the snake is out of its hole.''

But as Bush prepared to give a nationally televised speech justifying the need to disarm Iraq and remove Saddam from power, Democrats stepped up criticism of Bush's insistence that the United States will take on Iraq alone if the United Nations fails to take tough action against Saddam.

Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., who has stood with Bush in advocating action to defang Saddam, criticized what he called the administration's ``gratuitous unilateralism'' in a speech Monday to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

``We seem determined to act alone for the sake of acting alone, which may be the easy way to achieve our short-term ends, but will never result in long-term security,'' the potential Democratic presidential candidate said in prepared remarks.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who opposes the president's Iraq policies, said a preventive strike ``flies in the face of international rules of acceptable behavior.'' It would deprive America ``of the moral legitimacy necessary to promote our values abroad,'' he said in a Senate speech.

The House on Tuesday takes up the resolution authorizing the use of force, with a vote planned for Thursday. The Senate is also debating the issue this week and is likely to vote by next week, with both chambers expected to give the president the authority he is seeking.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., a resolution supporter, told a New York news conference that strong bipartisan backing would boost chances for international cooperation and ``makes it more likely (that), with their backs to the walls, Saddam and his gang will finally do what they promised to do 11 years ago, which is let inspectors get in and to disarm themselves.''

Before that happens, lawmakers will get a chance to vote on alternatives. One would limit the president's authority by confining it to dealing with Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and the other would tie it to Iraq's failure to abide by a new U.N. Security Council resolution, being pushed by the United States and Britain, on weapons inspections.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Monday there had been ``some convergence'' among other Security Council members _ France, Russia and China _ that have been reluctant to agree on a new resolution. ``We continue to be optimistic that we can bring this together and have the council send a clear message to Iraq on the need for full and unrestricted inspections,'' he said.

Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania told the Senate it would be ``vastly preferable'' to focus on disarming Saddam rather than removing him from power. ``When we talk about regime change, it raises the concern on many leaders of many nations as to who is next. Maybe they are next.''

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., an outspoken opponent of giving Bush authority to use military force, said the president has so far failed to answer questions about the costs of war and its aftermath. ``We need to have some idea of what we are getting ourselves into,'' he said. ``It is not unpatriotic to ask these questions.''