BROOKS KRAFT/GAMMA FOR TIME PITCHMAN IN CHIEF: Bush, in Louisville, Ky., plans to hold "discussions" with the public to win its support

Making His Case
	President Bush has to take on Congress before he can take out Saddam. In this high-stakes election season, that means playing hardball
	By Karen Tumulty | Washington

Posted Sunday, Sept. 8, 2002; 6:31 p.m. EST

Just hours after President Bush indicated that he would soon ask Congress to vote on whether to wage war against Iraq, he dispatched one of his best men to make the case. When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made his way last Wednesday to a secure, windowless room on the top floor of the Capitol, nearly three-quarters of the Senators awaited him. They were confronting one of the gravest decisions lawmakers can face—sending troops into battle—and they expected to see the intelligence Rumsfeld and other Bush Administration officials have said would clinch the case that Saddam Hussein must go, the sooner the better. Instead, they got the kind of riff Rumsfeld uses with the Pentagon press corps. "There are three issues here," the Defense Secretary told them. "There is the issue of what we know. There is the issue of what we don't know. And there is the issue of what we don't know we don't know."

So much for a smoking gun. Rumsfeld's presentation left even stalwarts of the President's party unhappy. "We want to be with you," Oklahoma Senator Don Nickles, the Senate's second-ranking Republican, finally told him. "But you're not giving us enough." The following day, the White House and State Department phoned Senators to assess the damage. Not a fatal setback, they concluded, but the mess in Room S-407 showed that the President will have to work hard to convince Congress and the American public that a war with Iraq is in the national interest. Congress normally gives a popular Commander in Chief what he wants, but Bush has a mountain of skepticism to overcome. As Senate majority leader Tom Daschle put it, "I'm more concerned about getting this done right than getting it done quickly."

This isn't just another military adventure. This would be unlike any other war the nation has waged. Bush & Co. aren't responding to cross-border aggression or an assault on American citizens or interests. To use the President's language, this would be "pre-emptive," launched against a country that has not—yet—attacked the U.S. or its allies.

It's no wonder there isn't a consensus: a recent poll by the Pew Research Center showed that while 64% of Americans supported U.S. military action to oust Saddam Hussein, only 30% would favor going in without allies. In the very week that an anniversary reminds America of the lethal nature of its enemies, is it easier or harder for the President to stand before the United Nations and the American people and defend a plan to continue that war by launching another one? A year after 9/11, does Bush have to prove some connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden, or is it enough that since that day, Americans have the dark imagination to see what an enemy can do to destroy us? With each new speech, each meeting with congressional leaders, each Op-Ed salvo, the Administration is speaking to a curious and conflicted public. Is this war really necessary? Do we have to fight it now? Will we have to fight it alone? And will starting a war have consequences like more terrorist attacks at home and abroad?

Administration officials are still working out their plan for answering those questions in a way that will show Americans that war, as terrible as it is, is the least costly course possible. Saddam, they will argue, is dangerous now and will grow only more dangerous as he builds his arsenal of gases and poisons and searches for a nuclear weapon. There is a sense, at least inside the Beltway, that Bush will eventually win the support he needs. But the issues haven't yet been fully aired, and to the extent that there has been debate, it has occurred largely within the President's party, between the brain trust of the current President Bush and the veterans of his father's Administration. Democrats have been nearly silent on the merits of an invasion, perhaps because there's no point wasting a bullet when, for now, there are plenty of Republicans to do it for them (and perhaps because so many Dems have been in Washington long enough to regret their votes against the first President Bush's war against Saddam). With the country hurtling toward possible conflict, it's almost hard to recall how much in disarray the Administration's Iraq policy was just a week or two ago. Before the President launched his new offensive, the oddly public dissension among his top aides threatened to unhinge his war wagon altogether. Vice President Dick Cheney articulated the hard line, arguing that inaction was tantamount to appeasement, even as Secretary of State Colin Powell talked up a far milder next step: getting U.N. arms inspectors back into Iraq. So jarring had been the dissonance that when Bush summoned congressional leaders to the White House last Wednesday to ask lawmakers to unite behind his Iraq policy, House International Relations Committee chairman Henry Hyde said the President's team should do so first. "The Administration has to speak with one voice," he said.

Intentionally or not, by pushing lawmakers to focus on Iraq, the Administration is deflecting issues that might have caused trouble for the Republicans this election season, like the shaky economy, shrinking 401(k)s and a litany of CEO wrongdoing. A popular President is pushing Congress to vote on Iraq before Election Day, Nov. 5, and the timing could put lawmakers on the spot. Early this year, Bush adviser Karl Rove boasted, "We can go to the country on this [war on terrorism] issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America." That said, some Democratic strategists still insist that come November pocketbook issues, not Iraq, will drive the election. Recent history bolsters the argument: in the 1990 midterm election, another time of economic malaise, Republicans lost eight House seats and one Senate seat, even as the first President Bush was sending troops by the thousands to the Persian Gulf.

1 | 2 | Next >>

Get the Magazine — Try 4 Issues Free!

Saddam's Bombmaker  By Khidhir Hamza and Jeff Stein Price: $12.60

	NATION 11 Lives: Stories of Survival Since last spring, TIME has followed 11 lives that have been irrevocably changed by 9/11. Their stories teach 11 lessons in courage, conflict and grace WORLD Can the U.S. Save Hamid Karzai? And do we need to? New Afghan violence suggests a Taliban-al Qaeda comeback. What we may have to do to combat it  TELEVISION Back in Business Next month the Sopranos gives some bada-bing to a too-safe fall TV season. We've got a sneak peek SPORTS NFL 2002 With a record 256 games on the regular-season schedule, you can't see 'em all. Here are the ones you can't miss