| ``No convincing case has been made in the press or in this body that we must act to give the president authority to invade a sovereign body now, or before the election,'' Byrd said.
|
Posted on 09/13/2002 4:17:21 PM PDT by GeneD
Filed at 7:01 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Despite President Bush's call for quick action, several Senate Democrats maneuvered on Friday to put the brakes on a vote to give congressional backing to a possible military strike on Iraq.
Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the Senate president pro tempore and chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee, said in a floor speech he would object to a vote on the use of force against Iraq before the Nov. 5 congressional election.
``This senator is not, now or ever, going to be stampeded. Has to be voted on before the election? Forget it,'' Byrd, a master of the Senate's rules and procedures, said.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said that before voting to authorize a U.S. military strike, Congress should pass a resolution calling on the United Nations to enforce its own requirements that Iraq disarm.
``We should speak with one voice as a Congress to the U.N. urging them to act, to set a deadline and to authorize force to enforce those (weapons) inspections if Iraq does not voluntarily comply,'' Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said.
``For us to get engaged in a distraction, a debate as to what will happen if the U.N. doesn't do that, is to take away from the strength of our urging the U.N. to act,'' he said.
Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said he favored a resolution similar to Levin's proposal. A spokeswoman for Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat, said he had not yet evaluated the plan.
BUSH CRITICIZES LAWMAKERS
Bush, who was at the United Nations on Friday after addressing its General Assembly on Thursday, criticized lawmakers who want the United Nations to act first on Iraq before they vote to authorize U.S. military force.
``If I were running for office, I'm not sure how I'd explain to the American people -- say, vote for me, and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I'm going to wait for somebody else to act,'' Bush said.
``I don't imagine Saddam Hussein sitting around, saying, 'Gosh, I think I'm going to wait for some resolution.' He's a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible.''
On Thursday, Bush told the United Nations that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was amassing weapons of mass destruction that threaten the United States and its allies. He challenged the United Nations to make Iraq comply with U.S. disarmament demands, and said action was inevitable if Baghdad failed to do so.
A number of Democrats and some Republicans argue Congress should give the United Nations a chance to enforce its requirements for Saddam to disarm before authorizing a unilateral U.S. military strike.
They also say Bush has not made a compelling case that Iraq poses an immediate threat, and that lawmakers should not have to vote on a resolution that could lead to war in the tense period before elections where control of the Senate and the House of Representatives will be decided by a few seats.
``No convincing case has been made in the press or in this body that we must act to give the president authority to invade a sovereign body now, or before the election,'' Byrd said.
Other senators said Iraq's rejection on Friday of an unconditional return of U.N. weapons inspectors showed that Congress must quickly give Bush the military clout he wants against Baghdad.
``The Congress needs to go ahead and give the president the authority he needs,'' Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, said.
Lott dismissed the plan floated by Levin.
``How many times do you have to say you've got to do something?'' Lott said. ``We've got language stronger than that on the books right now.''
So why, Senator Byrd, is there a very large hoof sticking out of your butt?
A Pyrrhic victory.
A victory gained at too great a cost: like that of the Greek leader Pyrrhus over the Romans in 279BC.
I'm against an Iraq attack, as I haven't seen the evidence that Iraq is developing Weapons of Mass Destruction. Don't you think that if there were evidence, the government would have those images or statments all over television. All this time and no clear evidence, talks of deadlines that evidence will be shown? Come on, something is not right.
I'm hearing talks of nukes and attacking Baghdad. What about the innocent people, men, women and children, who will be killed. That's wrong. I don't care if the U.S. is saying that it's okay. I do not see the evidence, and I'm suspicious of the whole thing.
Would you also have been against attacking Germany,say, in 1940, when we knew what was going on there ?
Thankfully, that warmonger was put to rest. However, do you see any connections from above to today's present situation?
Saddam moved on Kewait, gassed his own ( but different ethic group ) Kurds, gassed and bioterrorized those of another Muslim sect, put a " hit " on his own son ( it didn't kill him; failed attempt ... just paralized him ), aides and abets al Qaeda members, rules ( if you care to call it that ) with an iron fist, kills anyone he even imagines is his enemy, has set up a cult of person, like Hitler, he looks back in history, and makes that his country's focus, holds the same kind of spectales as the Nazis and Hitler did, has " secret police squads ", manipulates his people ( jails, tortures, and / or kills them, if they don't act as he wants them to ), threatens our safety and the rest of the world's as well. I could go on ; however, maybe you should really do the scut work and find out for yourself. The similarities are there; you just don't know enough about them. :-)
Hey, I don't think that Saddam is a good guy, but where is the evidence that the administration is claiming that he has?
| ``No convincing case has been made in the press or in this body that we must act to give the president authority to invade a sovereign body now, or before the election,'' Byrd said.
|
The congress is playing a really risky game when they delay getting this done.
She advised she saw the prisons and the equipment there that was used for torture of prisoners. One item was some kind of meat grinder (large size for humans). She mentioned something about the acid vats he used to get rid of the bodies - or for torture.
She also said that citizens are killed weekly. They will kill all the prisoners in jail to make room for the next week's prisoners. People are accused at random, tortured, raped and killed.
When asked what about the citizens if we did go to war - she stated "they are being killed now." She had family there and still wanted Saddam taken out even with the risks.
Also indicated that Saddam allowed his people to starve while he used the money from oil for building his palaces. That the inspectors did not find his weapons and that he would hide them - even in his palace if he had to. There were many ways he hid them.
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.
Senator Byrd had better hope that his 'convincing case' does not happen before the election. If Saddam gets one off while these guys are wringing their hands -- and while Bush is urging them to act fast -- they will have killed thousands of Americans with their big mouths.