The passage of a resolution opposing the prompt liberation of Iraq has covered the New York City Council in shame. While 17 laudable members voted “no” on Resolution 549-A, and one other spoke against it, the majority of the Council chose to thumb its nose at the men and women of our armed services as they face peril overseas. The individual members of the Council are certainly free to speak out if they believe that America is undertaking an unjust or imprudent war. But as a representative institution in the city they have broken with two bipartisan votes of the United States Congress and tarnished the reputation of the Council chamber.

Much will be made of the fact that the resolution passed has been watered down from that originally conceived. The resolution states that “the government of the United States should make all efforts to work through the United Nations Security Council in a manner that would reaffirm our nation’s commitment to the rule of law and the primacy of human rights in our international relationships.”

But it’s a resolution in which words lose meaning. “Since taking power in 1979, Saddam Hussein’s regime has committed human rights violations against the Iraqi people on a massive scale,” it says.” It is imperative that Iraq not be allowed to possess, use or export biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, or weapons of terror, and that Iraq fully comply with the United Nations resolutions.” It says, “There is evidence that despite some cooperation, Iraq is not fully complying with United Nations resolutions.”

The language is so conflicted that it could almost sound like the Council had drafted a pro-war measure. New Yorkers know better. The Council takes issue with the cost of the war, accepting an estimate from the National Bureau of Economic Research placing the cost of an invasion and peacekeeping afterward in the range of $150 billion to $750 billion. “Such cost would place an enormous strain on our nation’s ability to maintain the infrastructure, human services and social programs necessary for our nation’s security, general welfare and progress,” it says. No estimates from the council on the costs of appeasement, of the price of more terror attacks on America if Saddam’s regime is allowed to stay in power.

The Council also cavils that, “The United States government has not articulated how a military attack would result in the formation of an Iraqi government that rejects the development of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and promotes freedom and democracy.” The Council, however, was silent during the long struggle of the free Iraqis in exile for support for the liberation of the country. Its resolution will delight the leadership in Baghdad, Berlin, and Paris.

What a tragedy to see the names of such ambitious politicians as Eva Moskowitz and Gifford Miller on the list of those who sponsored Resolution 549-A, a list that also includes: William Perkins, Maria Baez, Charles Barron, Tracy Boyland, Gale Brewer, Yvette Clarke, Leroy Comrie, James Davis, Bill de- Blasio, Erik Dilan, Pedro Espada, Helen Foster, Alan Gerson, Eric Gioia, Sara Gonzalez, Robert Jackson, Oliver Koppell, John Liu, Margarita Lopez, Miguel Martinez, Hiram Monserrate, Christine Quinn, Philip Reed, Diana Reyna, James Sanders, Larry Seabrook, Jose Serrano, Kendall Stewart, Albert Vann, and David Yassky.

But let it be also noted that many members were able to resist the blandishments of the sponsors of this resolution, some, such as Joel Rivera, after courageous soul-searching. They are: Joseph Addabbo, Tony Avella, Simcha Felder, Lewis Fidler, Dennis Gallagher, James Gennaro, Melinda Katz, Andrew Lanza, Michael McMahon, Michael Nelson, James Oddo, Madeline Provenzano, Domenic Recchia, Mr. Rivera, Helen Sears, Peter Vallone, and David Weprin. Although Allan Jennings, councilmember from Queens, was not counted as voting “no,” he spoke against the resolution, a fact of which he will take satisfaction in the future.