Posted on 10/12/2002 9:40:41 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
WASHINGTON (CP) - Congress voted solidly to give President George W. Bush the broad authority he sought to use U.S. military force to confront Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein- with or without UN support. The Democratic-led Senate approved the war resolution 77-23 early Friday, wrapping up an often contentious week-long debate. The House voted for the resolution on Thursday, 296-133. Because the Senate approved the House-passed measure without changing a word, it now goes directly to Bush for his signature.
The resolution gives Bush the power to use American military force to enforce United Nations orders that Saddam dispose of his weapons of mass destruction. It encourages Bush to seek UN co-operation in such a campaign but does not require it.
"The House of Representatives has spoken clearly to the world and to the United Nations Security Council: The gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally," Bush said after the House vote.
The president has stressed, however, that he has made no decision on launching a military strike against Iraq.
While Bush hailed the strong showing, a majority of House Democrats voted against the resolution - even though their leader, Dick Gephardt of Missouri, was one of its authors. "I believe we must confront the threat posed by the current Iraqi regime directly," Gephardt said.
The Senate approved the same resolution after voting 75-25 to choke off delaying tactics. It voted downseries of efforts to weaken or block the resolution, as did the House. It voted down a series of efforts to weaken or block the resolution, as did the House.
The administration got a big boost when Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a Democrat, announced he was putting aside his misgivings to support the president.
"I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice," said Daschle. "It is neither a Democratic resolution nor a Republican resolution. It is now a statement of American resolve and values."
But some influential Democrats remained opposed.
"The power to declare war is the most solemn responsibility given to Congress by the Constitution," said Senator Edward Kennedy. "We must not delegate that responsibility to the president in advance."
The resolution gives the president wide latitude in defending the United States against the "continuing threat" posed by Baghdad. In a concession to Democrats, it encourages that all diplomatic means be exhausted before force is used, and requires reports to Congress every 60 days once action is taken.
Bush has said he hopes to work with the United Nations, but wanted congressional authority to act independently if necessary. The strong congressional backing he received could bolster U.S. efforts before the UN Security Council.
"Today's vote . . . sends a clear message to the Iraqi regime: You must disarm and comply with all existing UN resolutions or (you) will be forced to comply," Bush said. "There are no other options for the Iraqi regime. There can be no negotiations. The days of Iraq acting as an outlaw state are coming to an end."
Meanwhile in Ottawa, Prime Minister Jean Chretien came the closest yet Thursday to committing Canada to joining a military coalition aimed at destroying Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
"If the United Nations were to come to the conclusion that we have to go there to destroy the armament of massive destruction that (Saddam) might have, we will go there," Chretien told students at an Ottawa high school.
The U.S. war resolution comes nearly 11 years after Congress voted to give Bush's father similar powers to confront Saddam. In the earlier instance, however, an international coalition was already in place to drive Iraqi invaders out of Kuwait. The current Bush administration has faced resistance from allies in its efforts to form a similar international coalition.
In the House, 126 of the chamber's 208 Democrats voted against the war resolution.
Still, that was stronger support than Bush's father received in 1991 when the House voted 250-183 to authorize force against Iraq.
House Democrats on Thursday urged the president to work closely with the United Nations before going it alone against Iraq.
"Completely bypassing the UN would set a dangerous precedent that would undoubtedly be used by other countries in the future to our and the world's detriment," said Gephardt.
The House earlier rejected the main challenge to the White House-backed resolution, a proposal backed by a majority of Democrats that obliged the president to return to Congress for a second vote on the use of U.S. force against Iraq after he decides that co-operative efforts with the UN are futile.
Democratic Representative John Spratt said that without a multilateral approach, "this will be the United States versus Iraq and in some quarters the U.S. versus the Arab and the Muslim world."
On the key 75-25 Senate vote to draw debate to a close, 28 Democrats joined 47 Republicans in voting for the measure. Only two Republicans voted against it: Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, a former majority leader, continued to wage what he conceded was a losing battle to block the resolution, which he called "a blank cheque that we're giving the president."
Meanwhile, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. Central Command, said Thursday that the Bush administration seems unnecessarily rushed about taking on Iraq. Zinni, a former U.S. envoy to the Mideast for the Bush administration, said he considers Saddam "deterrable and containable at this point."
"I'm not convinced we need to do this now," Zinni said at a foreign-policy forum.
After the current election is over, if we get at least a 3 or 4 seat margin in the Senate, we need to DEMAND that Chaffee and Specter RESIGN and re-run as RATS or Independents.
If we get a 5 or 6 seat margin, we can then go after Collins and Snowe. They certainly aren't much good to us either.
If we someday get a 7 or 8 seat margin, maybe we can replace Hatch and McCain as well.
We REALLY need to CLEAN HOUSE---or should I say Senate?
And, furthermore, the US Constitution gives the power to declare war solely to the Congress. Free-standing declarations, like this one, are complete when the two Houses have acted on the same text, with a majority in favor in each House.
Congress does have the option, if it so chooses, to include a war resolution within a bill. It did so on 6 February, 1802, when it gave President Jefferson discretionary power to attack the Barbary Pirates. It did so on 18 September, 2001, when it gave President Bush similar authority to attack the terrorists.
Don't reporters have access to obscure documents like history books, and copies of the Constitution? Don't they know these things are relevant when the issue is war and peace? Or is it just that they cannot read?
Congressman Billybob
Click for "Oedipus and the Democrats"
Specter voted against cutting off debate, but for authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Only the RINO Chafee and the "independent" Jeffords joined the left Democrats in voting against the latter.
Boxer (D) CA
Graham (D) FL
Akaka (D) HI
Inouye (D) HI
Durbin (D) IL
Kennedy (D) MA
Mikulski (D) MD
Sarbanes (D) MD
Levin (D) MI
Stabenow (D) MI
Dayton (D) MN
Wellstone(D) MN
Conrad (D) ND
Corzine (D) NJ
Bingaman (D) NM
Wyden (D) OR
Chafee (R) RI
Reed (D) RI
Jeffords (D) VT
Leahy (D) VT
Murray (D) WA
Feingold (D) WI
Byrd (D) WV
This being a nation of laws, on what legal basis are "WE" going to be "demanding" things, about the duly elected representatives, of folks in other states?
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.