Hawai'i delegation to be among top skeptics to Bush's Iraq plan

By Derrick DePledge
Advertiser Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — The United States should not give up on diplomacy to solve its differences with Iraq, but President Bush may have gone too far toward war to turn away, Sen. Dan Inouye said.

"Often, in history, if the words are too dangerous, it can almost become a reality by mistake," the Hawai'i Democrat said. "I just hope we know what we're doing."

President Bush is expected to outline his case against Iraq today in his State of the Union address, and again to present an ultimatum for Iraq to disarm or face a military attack from the United States.

The president's speech is aimed at the growing number of Americans who believe war is unjustified without clear evidence Iraq has stockpiled weapons or significant support from U.S. allies.

A recent poll for Newsweek magazine found 53 percent approve of the way Bush is handling the situation with Iraq, while 42 percent disapprove. Most of those interviewed — 66 percent — want the United States to take as much time as necessary to achieve its goals in Iraq before resorting to military force. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

Some of the president's biggest skeptics in the Capitol tonight will be from Hawai'i.

Last fall, Inouye, Sen. Daniel Akaka and Rep. Neil Abercrombie, all D-Hawai'i, voted against the resolution giving Bush the option of using military force against Iraq. Rep. Ed Case, D-Hawai'i, who took office after the vote, said he probably would have supported the resolution, but now has misgivings about the Bush administration's approach.

Since the House and Senate votes, a few Democrats have criticized Bush harshly for rushing to war, but the consensus among most lawmakers is that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein presents a serious threat and must be confronted.

Inouye is among several senators who have argued for more diplomacy before any attacks. The United States also should have the backing of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait to strengthen its challenge to Iraq, he said.

"I hope that we would allow our diplomatic skills to be used much more vigorously," Inouye said in an interview last week.

Akaka said he is impressed by the progress made by United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq, and believes they could be effective if given enough time and resources.

Bush, he said, has not made a persuasive argument for war or explained the long-term role for the United States in a post-war Iraq. Akaka also said war with Iraq could divert attention from preventing further terrorist attacks on the United States.

"Our first priority should be the war on terrorism," he said.

Abercrombie offered the sharpest critique, calling the Bush administration's rhetoric a political diversion from the poor economy. He characterized a unilateral U.S. attack on Iraq as "imperialist aggression."

"I don't know what else to call it," he said.

War also could damage Hawai'i's tourist industry, which is rebounding from a slump caused by the Sept. 11 attacks, Abercrombie said. People from Asia and the Mainland may be reluctant to travel during wartime.

"If we attack Iraq, the tourism economy in Hawai'i will collapse," Abercrombie predicted.

Case said he had been generally supportive of the Bush administration's policy toward Iraq, but sees the coming days as a crossroads. Without greater evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or is deliberately misleading the U.N. inspectors, the president will have difficulty convincing Americans that the United States alone should launch an attack.

"I think it's incumbent on Bush to make a compelling case to the American people," Case said.