EDITORIAL
Hawai'i delegation voted the right way

Perhaps most or even all of the members of Congress voted their conscience, rather than political expedience, on the resolution to give President Bush broad authority to wage war against Iraq. But certainly it was much easier to vote "yes."

That's why, even if you disagree with them, Hawai'i Sens. Dan Inouye and Dan Akaka and Rep. Neil Abercrombie deserve respect for their contrarian stand. No doubt the late Rep. Patsy Mink would have voted the same way.

There are several reasons why it's harder to vote "no" when a president seeks authority to make war:

• It's anything but a level playing field. The president brings the combined persuasive weight of the executive branch, including the Pentagon and the intelligence establishment, to the table. This is why, for instance, the late Sen. William Fulbright, who went on to become a leading opponent of the war in Vietnam, said he felt compelled to vote in favor of the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which gave President Johnson much the same authority that Congress has now given President Bush.
• President Bush insisted, with little justification, on passage of his resolution on the eve of crucial midterm elections. Although Hawai'i's senators aren't up for re-election, and Abercrombie's seat appears safe, many poll-conscious members of Congress may well have voted differently after Nov. 5. That hardly qualifies them for "Profiles in Courage," of course; and ironically, the broad popular support now evident for attacking Iraq appears fragile. But lack of an impending election may explain why the January 1991 vote for the first Iraq war was much closer (52-47 in the Senate; 250-183 in the House).
• Mink, Abercrombie, Akaka and Inouye all voted against the 1991 resolution, only to see the United States, supported by a host of allies, win in a relative cakewalk. Military leaders warn that the next Iraq war is unlikely to be anything like the last one. Still, it must be tempting to swallow one's doubts and sign on with the winning side.

Despite these difficulties, we agree with our congressional delegates that President Bush has thus far failed to show that Iraq presents a direct threat to the United States, that the secular Saddam would align himself with Muslim fundamentalists, or that speed is important. A "no" vote at this time was warranted.

Congress has allowed its war-making powers to slip in modern times. But lawmakers deserve credit in this instance for persuading President Bush to agree that war should be a last resort, occurring only after an honest attempt at disarming Iraq through an inspection regime, lining up support in the United Nations Security Council and signing on a coalition to conduct and pay for a war.

Congress should hold Bush to that commitment.