WASHINGTON _ Members of Congress return to the nation's capital this week generally squeamish about the prospect of a pre-emptive military invasion to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

While some members said last week they were willing to follow President Bush into war if he sounds the battle cry, many others are reluctant to go it alone without the support of allies in Europe and the Middle East. Florida members, like those of other states, said Bush has yet to make a solid case for ordering a full-fledged Iraq attack.

The anguished debate took on new urgency when Vice President Dick Cheney forcefully argued last week for a pre-emptive strike to topple Hussein, while White House lawyers advised the president he did not need the consent of Congress. Rather than rally support, these developments stirred opposition from abroad while prompting members of Congress to assert their prerogative to declare war, or not.

The forthcoming debate will determine whether Bush can count on public and congressional backing before putting the nation on the warpath. All this brings sudden relevance to the opinions of Congress. And the Florida delegation _ well represented on the Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Armed Services committees _ could prove influential.

Florida members last week gave a range of opinions, but almost all said Bush must obtain congressional support for a war effort and that his administration will need to divulge at least a portion of any evidence indicating Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States and its allies.

"The president would be well advised to get the support of the American people and the support of his own administration if he decides to attack. He does not have that support. His administration is split and the American people are split," said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., a member of the Armed Services Committee.

"I would like to have Saddam out of there," said Nelson, reflecting the views of many members, "but I know of no imminent threat to the United States."

A decade ago, then-President George H.W. Bush cobbled together an impressive international alliance and painstakingly persuaded Congress to back a U.S.-led mission to liberate Kuwait and defeat Iraqi forces.

Those alliances helped the United States win a relatively bloodless Persian Gulf War, but they also restrained U.S. forces from marching into Baghdad and removing Hussein, leaving Iraq a deeply wounded but menacing presence.

Arab allies then and now oppose unilateral U.S. action to oust Hussein and occupy Iraq, largely because it would jeopardize stability in the region.

"Continued fighting in 1991 would have been enormously bloody, the loss of life to civilians and among military people in the coalition would have been substantial, and it would have had a negative impact on the Arab coalition," said Andrew Hess, professor of diplomacy at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

The current President Bush today faces a quandary. Unilateral action would have fewer such restraints but also risk alienating other nations in a region where anti-American passions already complicate the wider war on terrorism.

Nevertheless, Cheney has pointed to Iraq's development of "weapons of mass destruction," such as chemicals used in a war against Iran, as evidence that Hussein is willing and able to devastate U.S. interests unless somebody steps in to stop him.

Some members of Congress assume the administration must have secret intelligence about Iraqi links to terrorism or evidence that Hussein has plans to deploy deadly weapons.

They also fear he will acquire atomic or nuclear capabilities that could wreak destruction far beyond the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

"The question is not whether Iraq gets atomic weapons, but when. And we know what they plan to do with them," said Rep. Clay Shaw, R-Fla. "So a pre-emptive strike (by U.S. forces) makes all the sense in the world."

"I trust the judgment of the Bush-Cheney team and will support whatever decision they may ultimately make," Shaw said.

Some Democrats also are inclined to support a war resolution, though only after Bush makes a case for it. One of these, Rep. Peter Deutsch, D-Fla., said a pre-emptive strike should not depend on the vagaries of opinion in Europe or the Arab world.

"Saddam Hussein's weapons are not aimed at Sweden or France, they are aimed at the United States and Israel," Deutsch said. "This is not about them, it's about us. If Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, if he has nuclear capability as well, we are talking about a potential disaster beyond any of our imaginations."

Other members contend that the United States must not force its way into the tinderbox of Iraq without rounding up solid support from the American public and other nations to create a united front against Hussein, just as the first President Bush did in 1990-91.

"If we act unilaterally, we risk turmoil throughout the Middle East. We increase the danger of reprisals against Israel," said Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., a member of the International Relations Committee.

"Initially there was a wide degree of support for `regime change' in Iraq," Wexler said, "but the more people have learned about the many complications of changing the regime, the more they fully appreciate the risk to our allies, and they want a more comprehensive approach than the president so far has offered."

A crucial part of the debate is whether an attack on Iraq would help or hurt the war against terrorism.

The sudden alarm about Iraq apparently is not based so much on Hussein's recent actions, but on shifting perceptions in the United States, according to several experts.

"What Sept. 11th did was demonstrate our vulnerability and the pervasiveness of this terrorist network with whom Hussein may have ties," said Bruce Kuniholm, a former State Department policy planner and now professor of public policy and history at Duke University.

The Bush administration has yet to implicate Hussein in the terrorist attacks, focusing more on evidence that he has harbored terrorists while developing destructive weapons.

"What is happening since Sept. 11 is the fear that Iraq could support terrorist organizations in the development of chemical or biological weapons, which could be perpetrated with human delivery systems," said Edward Walker, former ambassador to Egypt and Israel, and now president of the Middle East Institute. "It is speculative but something we need to be aware of."

Many members of Congress remain unconvinced that the evidence justifies a pre-emptive invasion, which would be a dramatic departure from the traditional U.S. policy of defense, containment and deterrence. And they worry about the cost and consequences of occupying Iraq after the turmoil of war.

"The United States has its hands full in the war against terrorism, against al-Qaida, and we still haven't found Osama bin Laden," said Rep. Jim Davis, D-Fla., a member of the International Relations Committee. "The fundamental question I am focusing on now is: What is the level of risk to our nation (posed by Iraq)? I'm not convinced it's close to the point where we need to take a Draconian step."

As Congress resumes its session after an August break, congressional hearings are planned to examine these questions, assess the risks of military action or inaction, allowing Bush time to make his case.

Despite the tone of urgency from the White House, most members and experts expect a final decision to be months away.

hello there & you too