Congress OKs resolution authorizing war on Iraq
Posted on 10/11/2002 5:22:16 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
Congress OKs resolution authorizing war on Iraq
10/11/2002
WASHINGTON - For the second time in 11 years, a solemn Congress voted to authorize war against Saddam Hussein, this time over the specter of chemical, biological and nuclear terrorism.
The Senate signed off early Friday by a vote of 77-23, strengthening President Bush's hand as he seeks United Nations support to force the Iraqi dictator to scrap his weapons program.
"The days of Iraq acting as an outlaw state are coming to an end," Mr. Bush said hours earlier, after the House voted, 296-133, to give him the authority he had sought.
| Also Online | ||||||||||||||||
|
In somber speeches, lawmakers said they backed the resolution giving Mr. Bush the option of using military force because Mr. Hussein has shown a willingness to use weapons of mass destruction or give them to terrorists for a strike that could make the Sept. 11 attacks pale by comparison.
"The risks are simply too catastrophic to allow Iraq to continue on its present course," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.
Many Senate Democrats had said they would vote for the resolution, but the vote was delayed by the parliamentary tactics of Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who accused his colleagues of forfeiting their responsibilities by giving the president the power to declare war on his own.
"We took an oath to defend the Constitution - are we defending it here today?" Mr. Byrd said.
| How they voted | |
|
During the earlier House debate, critics warned that pre-emptive war would only bring on more horrors. They said it increases the chance that Mr. Hussein will use his stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, either on American troops or Israel.
"We are placing our young people in harm's way in a way that can be avoided by taking a multilateral approach first," said House Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., urging the White House to concentrate on new U.N. weapons inspections.
Other House members said they hope war can be avoided, but it may be necessary to dissuade a "bioterrorist" like Mr. Hussein.
"There's no telling when an American city will be attacked at his direction or with his support," said House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land.
House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., whose support helped forge the lopsided vote, called last year's attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon "the ultimate wake-up call."
"Sept. 11 has made all the difference," Mr. Gephardt said.
Although the debate was passionate, sometimes tearful, the outcome had long been predicted. The House vote exceeded the 67-vote margin by which it decided to allow war to expel Iraq from Kuwait during the 1991 Gulf War. The Senate vote then was 52-47.
Sept. 11 aftershocks
Members who cast votes both times attributed the bigger margins to the aftershocks of Sept. 11, as well as Mr. Hussein's failure to honor disarmament agreements he made after losing that war.
During three days of House debate, supporters of authorizing the use of force said Mr. Hussein has expanded his stockpile of biological and chemical weapons, including anthrax and nerve gas, since U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998. And, they cautioned, he is probably pursuing nuclear arms.
"Ask yourself, 'Why does Saddam seek a nuclear bomb?' " said Rep. Barbara Cubin, R-Wyo. "I think we all know."
The question split House Democrats, 126 who voted for the resolution, 81 against.
Democratic supporters disputed contentions that the resolution gives Mr. Bush a "blank check." They said it urged Mr. Bush to work with the U.N. on new and tougher weapons inspections and to report to Congress regularly.
| WORDS ON IRAQ | |
|
"This bipartisan resolution will send the strong, clear signal that America is committed to ending the threat that Saddam Hussein poses to the world," said Rep. Martin Frost, D-Dallas, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. "Through diplomacy if he will allow it, but through military action if he refuses."
Six Republicans opposed the resolution, including Texan Ron Paul, R-Surfside, who said he did not see a threat to national security.
The Texas congressional delegation supported the resolution 21-8. Rep. Solomon Ortiz, D-Corpus Christi, did not vote because he underwent vocal chord surgery Thursday, but he supported the resolution.
Opponents agreed that Mr. Hussein was a threat but said war without direct provocation may have unintended consequences.
In addition to the possibility that Mr. Hussein will wield chemical or biological weapons, opponents said the war might make it easier for Islamic extremists to recruit more terrorists.
Opponents also said Iraq would distract the military from the war against terrorism, noting that the fate of Osama bin Laden was unknown and that Islamic nations that have helped the United States may drop their support.
Others cited concerns expressed by members of both the first and the current Bush administrations, including former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and current Middle East envoy Anthony Zinni.
'Haste and hubris'
"The resolution before us is a product of haste and hubris," said Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio.
Opponents also called the idea of pre-emptive war immoral and suggested that the conflict has just as much to do with the world's oil supply as it does with weapons of mass destruction.
"Instead of adherence to the golden rule, we are being moved toward the rule of liquid gold - do unto others before they do unto you," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.
A pre-emptive attack may also encourage other nations to do the same thing, whatever the reason, critics said.
Supporters of force said pre-emptive action is an essential option to prevent a terrorist attack that could kill thousands or even millions.
In the Senate, Republicans Phil Gramm and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who both voted for the resolution, said the president must have the right to use force.
Mr. Gramm likened Mr. Hussein to a rattlesnake in the back yard, one that could bite if attacked but which has to be dealt with in any event.
"Most rational people get their pistol and get their stick, and they go out there because that rattlesnake is going to be out there for a long time," he said.
Ms. Hutchison said Sept. 11 taught America a harsh lesson about complacency.
"It is with a heavy heart and a realization of the consequences that I will vote yes," she said.
Mr. Bush picked up a notable boost early Thursday when Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said that he would vote for the resolution. He stressed that he would continue to ask questions about the possible consequences of war.
"Force must be a last resort, not a first response," Mr. Daschle said.
Several House members called the vote the most serious one imaginable.
House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Flower Mound, who had questioned the idea of a pre-emptive attack but wound up supporting the resolution, choked up over the idea that American men and women could soon be fighting and dying in Iraq.
"Mr. President, we trust to you the best we have to give," Mr. Armey said. "Use them well so they can come home."
E-mail djackson@dallasnews.com
The only GOP in Texas that voted against the President, fyi folks.....
Ron Paul, R-Surfside
Perhaps Iraq alone doesn't have the capability to threaten the U.S., but Iraq coupled with other nations and groups certainly can.
Who would have thought that a handful of men could have wreaked upon the U.S. the horrors of September 11th? Iraq is one thread in a tapestry of terror and therefore must be removed.
Except for his attire, Ron Paul is no different than the hippy peaceniks who relish the opportunity to undermine the U.S.. What a jerk.
Stand to one side then. I hear there is an attempt to re-open that old food favorite Chicken Delight. Ron Paul would be the perfect delivery driver, they use 60's Volkswagen Bugs with bobble style chicken heads on top. Buckets of fried chicken delivered in a yellow bug by a yellow ex- congressman.
Six Republicans opposed the resolution, including Texan Ron Paul, R-Surfside, who said he did not see a threat to national security.
I don’t believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions. America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don’t need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. If Congress believes war is justified, it should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors.
Furthermore, he was a successful doctor before becoming a member of Congress, and he is not looking out for his long term political job as is almost every other politician. I feel he will probably retire in a few years anyway.
To be fair, he has opposed war against Iraq in the recent past because he did not see a threat immediate enough for a full blown conflict and he fees a partial conflict will weaken our defenses.
I do not always agree with RP, and I probably do not agree with him now, but I do not think its fair to label him as a libertarian nut because he justifies his voting with intellectually honest reasons. To compare, think of any other politician, Repub or Demo, who would NOT vote for an unnecessary pork barrel spending bill that would directly and unfairly benefit his specific constituency.
He's not really a GOP. He's Libertarian.....and voting with the DIMocRATS.
Thanks, I don't really know that much about him. Since this article lists him being from Surfside, I figured he probably lived in California (second home) or something, lol !! (I assume Surfside must be around Padre Island).
Yes, thanks....
AGAINST
Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin
Charlie Gonzalez, D-San Antonio
Ruben Hinojosa, D-Mercedes
Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas
Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston
Ron Paul, R-Surfside
Silvestre Reyes, D-El Paso
Ciro Rodriguez, D-San Antonio
Here's a post to me by FReeper yoe a couple of months ago.....
To: MeeknMing
Democrats are a strange bunch especially their leaders. They complain about politics of personnel destruction when that is how they try to divide the country. They have little pride in America, it seems that the American people serve for their pleasure only. If you don't cotton to the democratic line, you aren't American. They used the surplus for other countries and other people when there was much to do here at home. They take our best technologies and sell them to nations that will use the knowledge against us. They lack an enormous amount of integrity and don't seem to care as they flaunt sleazy ethics and morality in our faces.
We didn't have a government for the people under the Clinton administration, what we had was a Democrats Only need apply type of government and now they are attempting to replace a People's Government with their tired old arguments about an education system they didn't fix in 8 years, a health care program they messed up and couldn't fix in 8 years, a social security system they say needs fixing and did nothing about it in 8 years when in reality that system is fine as long as lawmakers don't spend the money that social security is meant for; they spent 8 years hiring federal workers with no qualifications as long as it meant a democratic vote leaving behind a dumbed down, bloated army of sleazy federal laborers who have plundered their departments of millions in dollars and equipment.
Democrats seem to have no respect, no real base from which true justice can spring, only justice that bends for them. They have no enthusiasm for country/nation, no pride, just the spoils from a rich nation for the DNC. They continue to huddle with shady and corrupt people both here in America and abroad for reasons that only benefit them. They are elitists and exclude the real Americans as they race for the Marxist Utopia they have dreamed about...where individual successes are discouraged in favor of a commune like population. They have learned nothing from failed socialism or failed communism; they still want to live like kings all the while painting a glowing picture of togetherness for the masses who work for them. It is called Slavery, servitude to a few at the top, domination over the people through higher taxes and rules and regulations. Democrats want a Unionized nation/world of bondage and they can surely have it by dividing the country with the deceptive lies they and the press propagandize with daily.
Stand tall Americans and stand firmly for the principals of our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, both of which are like the fabled Vampires silver cross or spike to the leading democrats, they don't want you to have either; it is these people who would return this country to the quagmire of corruption of the Clinton/Gore/Reno years.
We are talking about RP, thus my reservations about him are appropriate for discussion; and I did not telegraph my reservations, I stated them. Remember, I was responding to your statement “I used to have respect for him.” My point is that he still deserves respect because (a) he is very conservative on so many other issues, (b) he honestly tries to follow the Constitution, and (c) he is not afraid to stand up for what he believes is right, even if that position is unpopular.
On to an related matter, it would be something if he lost the election to Corby Windham, a political baby whose platform is not much more than “I care about educating kids”. My response would be, of course, then he should not go to Congress because public education is a matter for the states. It's that darn Constitution thing again--oh well.
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.
