Friday, Oct. 4, 2002 | 5:04 a.m.
DO NEVADANS support an invasion of Iraq, even without United Nations or ally support? They do, if the state's four lawmakers in Congress reflect Nevada's population.
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., a frequent GOP critic, was one of a handful of Democrats amid 14 lawmakers who huddled with President Bush at the White House on Tuesday for an "amazing" 45-minute meeting.
Bush had been courting Democrats to support his policy to oust Saddam Hussein and Berkley caught the eye of the White House. She is a member of the International Relations Committee, which began the debate in Congress of the Iraq resolution last week. (She also sits on the Veterans Affairs Committee.) And Berkley had openly stated she was willing to work with the president to reach a resolution compromise.
Berkley has repeatedly called for Bush to relentlessly pursue building a strong coalition with other nations. But she backs his request to invade Iraq with or without allies or the United Nations.
So does Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev. He told me he strongly objects to Democrats who advocate mandatory U.N. support.
"I'm very, very disillusioned by that," Gibbons, a former Vietnam and Persian Gulf combat Air Force pilot, said. "The president should be able to use military force to defend military personnel without having to get the permission of the United Nations."
Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said he would not change a word of the resolution crafted by Bush and House leaders last week that allows the president to launch a unilateral strike regardless of what the United Nations does.
Lawmakers who support changes that stress diplomacy over giving Bush war authority "are marginalizing themselves when you have a compromise with this much support. It will pass with pretty overwhelming numbers," Ensign said.
Only Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., has not jumped on the Bush resolution bandwagon. He may later this week, as the Senate likely wraps up debate.
But late last week, Reid said he was also mulling a resolution by Sens. Joe Biden, D-Del., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind.
The Biden-Lugar resolution emphasizes exhausting diplomatic options and dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction first. It authorizes Bush to go it alone only if the United Nations does not pass a new resolution calling for stricter arms inspections. Bush also would have to prove that Iraq's weapons were so dangerous that an attack was absolutely necessary.
Reid said he was "very impressed" with Biden-Lugar. "I want to see how that one feels when we get out there in debate," Reid said.
Reid, who calls himself a "hawk," not a dove, has nevertheless been adamant that Bush vigorously pursue the support of the United Nations and European allies, calling a go-it-alone attack a very last resort.
What's the rush? Reid has asked.
House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt, whom Bush recruited to support his resolution last week, brushed off criticism that he sold out his party. Lawmakers have to make a personal decision, not a political one, based on their own consciences, Gephardt said.
But they also should make decisions that take into account the will of their constituents, although that is not always easy to gauge.
Many Americans say they support Bush, but others aren't so sure. A Washington Post poll last week found 61 percent of Americans support Saddam's forced ouster, but only 46 percent favored an invasion without allied support, with 47 percent opposed.
Nevada's lawmakers, like the rest of Congress, are a microcosm of a nation that is wrestling with what to do about Iraq. This week they face the most difficult decision that exists in Washington: whether to endorse sending soldiers to war.
They will have to painstakingly weigh each resolution and take their time debating every word.
They will live with their vote -- and others may die because of it.
archive
