BY The New York Times and The Cincinnati Enquirer
WASHINGTON — Republicans in Congress were bitterly divided Wednesday night over the timing of the airstrikes against Iraq, and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott fiercely attacked President Clinton's policy.
After a meeting with House Republicans, Rep. Bob Livingston of Louisiana, the speaker-designate, called on Republicans and Democrats “to support our troops now that they're deployed.”
Clearly skeptical of the timing of the attack, Mr. Livingston said, “We'll leave that to the best judgment of the American people.”
Republican lawmakers wrestled with competing instincts: the urge to support American troops and an American president when missiles are falling, and a thinly-disguised anger that the attack had come on the eve of an impeachment vote.
That led to surreal scenes, like Mr. Livingston's news conference in the Capitol rotunda, with comments about praying for the troops mingled with a promise that the impeachment vote would be put off for only a matter of days.
But in an extraordinary rebuke of the president's foreign policy, Mr. Lott, said he opposed the air assault on suspected Iraqi chemical, nuclear and biological weapons sites, arguing that the attacks were ineffective.
“I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time,” Mr. Lott said in a statement, infuriating the White House. “Both the timing and the policy are subject to question.”
For months, Mr. Lott has criticized the administration for failing to take more aggressive steps to topple Saddam Hussein. Under pressure from Congress, Mr. Clinton enacted the Iraq Liberation Act in October, which earmarked $8 million to support Iraqi political opposition. But in a letter to Mr. Clinton on Wednesday, Mr. Lott and five other Senate Republicans said only $58,000 of that money has been spent.
“I will support serious and sustained action but will oppose action that does not accomplish our larger strategic goal,” Mr. Lott said.
But even as Mr. Lott raised objections, House Republicans were planning to vote today on a resolution of support for the troops in the Persian Gulf.
Tristate members of Congress support Mr. Clinton's airstrikes against Iraq, but several questioned the timing.
“Questions about his (Mr. Clinton's) motivations are inevitable. The president's credibility with the American people at this time is very low,” said Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Cincinnati.
“I would hope the president bases his decision on what is in the best interest of our country and the people in the military. Politics should not play a role in this.”
Mr. Chabot is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and the House International Relations Committee.
“I think there are an awful lot of questions that are being asked by members of Congress, just as there are by members of the public,” Mr. Chabot said.
Military action, Mr. Chabot said, should have been taken long ago.
“This is really nothing new with Saddam Hussein,” he said.
Rep. Rob Portman, R-Terrace Park, said he is worried about the impact the timing of the strike will have on the perceptions of other nations.
“My biggest concern about the timing is the impact it will have on our enemies abroad and those who otherwise might be our allies,” he said.
It gives them a chance to say “it is politically motivated,” Mr. Portman added.
“From a foreign policy perspective, I think it is ill-advised to attack at this time,” he said.
Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Lucasville, who opposes impeachment, said he is fully behind the president's actions.
“I am absolutely not suspicious of the timing. I believe it is inappropriate for any member of the House of Representatives to express such opinions at this time,” Mr. Strickland said.
Rep. John Boehner, R-West Chester, was more cryptic.
“John Boehner supports our troops and supports the impeachment of this president,” a Boehner statement said.
Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, refused to join in suspicions about the timing.
“I think it is very important that the United States have a bipartisan foreign policy and that we be united as long as our troops are in harm's way,” he said.
Mr. DeWine, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the goal should be to “severely damage their military.”
He also said, “No one is going to cry if Saddam is killed. I'm not going to shed any tears. This is one of the evil men of this century.”
Gov. George Voinovich, a Republican who will replace John Glenn in the Senate in January, said he did not know whether Mr. Clinton had made the right decision because he did not have enough information.
“However, now that military action is under way, it is important for our country to unite behind and support our men and women in uniform,” Mr. Voinovich said.
Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Nashville, Ind., disputed the “Wag-the-Dog” theory.
“The president made the decision based on national security priorities, not domestic political concerns,” he said.
“This was not a decision made by President Clinton but by Saddam Hussein.”
