Posted on 12/11/2001 8:20:39 AM PST by BplusK
On December 4, a Resolution against Iraq was introduced in the Congress.
The resolution – called HJR 75, which has eight co-sponsors – states:
(1) the president and the United Nations should insist on monitoring weapons development in Iraq, as required by United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991);
(2) Iraq should allow United Nations weapons inspectors into Iraq, as required by Security Council Resolution 687;
(3) Iraq remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations; and
(4) the refusal by Iraq to admit United Nations weapons inspectors into any facility covered by the provisions of Security Council Resolution 687 should be considered an act of aggression against the United States and its allies.
Sponsored by Reps. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Porter Goss, R-Fla., and Henry Hyde, R-Ill., the bill is "scheduled for markup" tomorrow – a process whereby changes to the measure are made. Once finished, members will send it to the Rules Committee, then out to the full House for a vote.
The measure is already scheduled for markup by the full House Committee on International Relations – not even a subcommittee first. That makes this bill a high priority. The committee is scheduled to convene at 2 p.m. Eastern tomorrow.
Hyde is chairman of the International Relations committee.
Other lawmakers, especially the resolution's sponsors, appear convinced Iraq should be next on the administration's hit list.
"There is overwhelming evidence that Saddam Hussein continues full speed ahead in his quest to obtain weapons of mass destruction," Graham said earlier this month, when HJR 75 was introduced. "Without inspections and oversight from the United States and international community, I think he will eventually acquire the capability. For the security of the United States and our allies, we must not allow that to happen."
"Iraq has been operating its weapons program in the shadows," Graham continued. "If that continues, it should be viewed as a direct threat and considered an act of aggression against the United States and our allies."
Kevin Bishop, a spokesman for Graham, told WND that HJR 75 was "directly related" to the administration's ongoing terrorist war and was to be used "in addition to" existing congressional authorization.
Asked how U.S. officials know that Saddam is attempting to revitalize his weapons program – since weapons inspectors have been banned from Iraq since 1997 – Bishop said "Iraqi defectors and American intelligence agencies" have evidence pointing in that direction.
"I don't think there is anyone who disputes that Iraq is trying to obtain weapons of mass destruction," he added.
Still, others are opposed to expanding the current terror war to Iraq. In fact, entire governments remain opposed.
In an interview Sunday in Business Week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld left open the possibility that the war could be expanded to a number of different nations suspected of harboring terrorist factions.
Asked how long the U.S. could tolerate Baghdad's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld said that question was "above his pay grade."
"We've got six to 10 countries on the terrorist list. [Some] already have chemical and biological weapons programs. A number have been pursuing nuclear capabilities," he told Business Week. "When weapons were less lethal and [casualties] involved thousands instead of hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people, you could make a mistake and it wasn't terminal. [Now,] when you're dealing with that many countries and with the close linkages [among] terrorist networks ... it forces you to make different calculations."
Would you please point that out to me?
I saw on TV pictures of an Airplane near Baghdad where Saddam has taught terrorists how to take over an airplane and use it as a weapon. Is not such a training some sort of planning, aiding or harboring terrorists?
My question is still the same: why Saddam would train terrorists and stock mass destruction weapons if he never PLANNED to use them against us? Is he doing all of that just for the pleasure of doing it? Just to have fun?
I asked Would you please point that out to me?
Your reply The text says: "To use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines PLANNED, authorized, commited or aided the terrorist attacks..."
There is no authorization for use of force for anyone that plans terrorism it is only for those that PLANNED 9/11.
"I saw on TV pictures of an Airplane near Baghdad where Saddam has taught terrorists how to take over an airplane and use it as a weapon. Is not such a training some sort of planning, aiding or harboring terrorists?"
Of course it is, if it can be proved his plans are for the US or are related to 9/11. Congress made no provision for use of force for anything that is not related to 9/11.
"My question is still the same: why Saddam would train terrorists and stock mass destruction weapons if he never PLANNED to use them against us? Is he doing all of that just for the pleasure of doing it? Just to have fun?
Logic would say yes his plans are for the US. Without proof his plan is for the US and if it is not related to 9/11 we cant just go bombing and invading sovereign countries no matter how much we want to. No matter how you try and spin it the President only has specific statutory authorization for use force against those that PLANNED 9/11. Anyhting else he has to go back to Congress for authorization. If you dont like it you better tell Congress.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.