Bush wins Democrats' support for Iraq strike

US president George Bush gained important new Democratic support for his war resolution, bolstering his expected margin of victory in Congress for broad authority to use force against Iraq.

But the administration was having less success on the international front.

A 25-minute phone call between Bush and French president Jacques Chirac failed to produce a breakthrough over wording of a new United Nations Security Council resolution to disarm Saddam Hussein.

“This is intricate diplomacy and we are continuing our consultations,” said White House spokesman Sean McCormack. He cited a “mutual desire” to find common ground.

Both the Republican-led House and the Democratic-ruled Senate yesterday forged ahead with debate on a resolution giving Bush authority to use US force against Iraq – with or without UN participation.

The White House cited a new CIA assessment – suggesting Saddam might launch terrorist attacks if he concluded a US military attack was inevitable – as further justification for strengthening the president’s hand. Opponents used the same document to argue against a US first strike.

But more Democrats closed ranks with the president and leaders of both parties predicted congressional passage by wide margins by the end of the week. Both houses of Congress debated the measure late into the night and a final vote in the House was expected today.

Sen Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate’s number two Democrat, announced he would vote with the president, while cautioning Bush to use the power with discretion. “As president of the United States, you are the leader of the free world, not its ruler,” Reid said.

Sen Joseph Biden of Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who had favoured a more restrictive version, indicated he, too, would support Bush, saying it would “give the president the kind of momentum he needs” to prevail in the security council. “If Saddam Hussein is around five years from now, we are in deep trouble as a country,” Biden said.

Also voicing their support were Democratic Sens Chris Dodd of Connecticut and John Kerry of Massachusetts. Dodd said he hoped the show of unity “will reduce the likelihood that force will be necessary”. Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran who had been in the go-slow camp, said Saddam’s arsenal posed “a real and grave threat” to the United States and its allies.

Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott told reporters the war resolution had support from possibly all of the Senate’s 49 Republicans and was gaining substantial Democratic backing. A Senate vote today to stifle delaying tactics ”will pass overwhelmingly”, Lott predicted.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said despite continuing divisions among Democrats, “my determination is to finish debate before the end of this week”. Daschle has not said whether he will vote for the resolution.

Senate Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, pressed his effort to block or delay the final vote.

“This is a question that involves peace and war, a question that involves great sacrifice to this country,” Byrd said. Still, he all but conceded defeat.

“The wheels have been greased,” said Byrd.

Despite Bush’s call for a quick UN resolution, the five veto-wielding members of the security council remained divided on whether to authorise military action if Iraq did not comply with UN weapons inspectors.

The United States and Britain have demanded a green light to attack Iraq in case it blocks inspectors again. France, Russia and China insist Saddam should first be given a chance to co-operate.

McCormack, the White House spokesman, said that Bush stressed in his phone call with Chirac that the stronger the UN resolution, “the more likely this matter can be resolved peacefully”.

In Paris, Chirac spokeswoman Catherine Colonna said the French president was open to strengthening the powers of UN weapons inspectors in Iraq – but still could not accept making military recourse an automatic response should they be hampered.

Secretary of State Colin Powell stood fast by the administration’s position. “There must be consequences for failure to comply,” he told CNN’s Larry King. “And if those consequences include going to war, then I hope the international community will understand the importance of us doing this as an international community.”