First ask Congress

George W. Bush should take all necessary political precautions when heading into what could be a long war against Iraq. Most White House administration officials and lawmakers say Bush doesn't need congressional approval for heading into a war, citing the 1991 Persian Gulf resolution, which allowed his father, former President Bush, to send troops to fight Iraqis when they invaded Kuwait.\nThe president might not legally need Congress' consent before heading into this war, but he should by all means seek its acknowledgment first.\nArguments concerning war-powers began in the early 19th century and are still alive today. Some feel the president should not be harnessed by the excessive conditions a vote from Congress would generate. For example, Congress might limit Bush to only eliminating weapons of mass destruction, while the administration believes this war must focus on larger targets. \nAlthough such limits seem unnecessary and too stringent, they are part of the checks and balances system that protects our country from unbridled executive action. We voted for the congressmen in office. They are the most demographically proportional national representatives we have and their duty is to act on behalf of their constituents. If these legislators add amendments to a war bill, they are, in essence, speaking for the people. If the Bush maneuvers around such amendments, the president is ignoring the will of the people. That's not democratic.\nThe president, as stated in the Constitution, is in command of the armed forces, but only Congress can declare war. The framers feared a president would step into war hastily if unchecked by Congress. While a strong case can certainly be made for a war against Iraq, Congress -- not Bush, should pan out details of the war, including the scope of war and budget. \nIf Bush blows off Congress now, he will surely regret this decision when he must come before it in a few months pleading for a war-budget increase. Bush will also wish he'd first consulted Congress if the war on Iraq turns sour, resulting in a U.S. catastrophe, which would be politically damaging. \nI understand where Bush is coming from, however. On numerous occasions, he has butted heads with certain members of Congress who are unswervingly resistant to anything he suggests. They have shamefully blocked Bush from filling judicial positions. They've clogged up budget increases with extravagant amounts of pork barrel legislation. They've blocked votes on important legislation simply out of partisan spite. I wouldn't want to ask these congressmen for anything either.\nEven though these representatives are behaving immaturely and irresponsibly, Bush must still garner the support of the people when going into war. This is only properly attained by a vote in Congress. If Bush seeks congressional permission first, he will emerge looking like a good statesman. Congres-sional backup wouldn't hurt either.\nAs a compromise, Congress could draft a resolution of support and present it to the president without him asking for it beforehand. At least in this instance, Bush wouldn't have to sweat needless provisions, possibly restraining him from leading a successful war against Iraq. \nDemocratic leaders in the Senate are already voicing their disapproval if Bush commits U.S. troops to war. Right now, Democrats don't have good dirt on Bush. He certainly shouldn't provide them with a scandal as election time nears.