One for reference.
And secondly to once and for all put in black and white the actual resolution that the members of Congress voted for, since apparently they are all now trying to mischaracterize the exact wording of the resolution that they claim they voted for at the time.
I am specifically referring to John Kerry and Fritz Hollings.
After his retirement will we learn that Cynthia McKinney is actually Hollings' daughter?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1138955/posts
Uh...did clinton have a joint res when he deployed the US army in Bosnia-Hergovenia 10 years ago or loaned our air force to the albanian muslims in 1999??
Every Democratic politician who says that Hussein was not a threat should have to explain why firing missiles at American pilots didn't count as repeated acts of war. If they respond that the Iraqis' firing of missiles at American pilots didn't count because they were such bad shots, then they should be forced to stand down range from a trigger-happy firing squad composed of Senator Byrd, Senator Hollings and Janet Reno.
Bumping to expose BOXER SHORTS LIES
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that under the conference report rules I be allowed to speak for up to an hour and do it on the subject of Iraq.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
IRAQ
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I say to my friend from West Virginia, the distinguished Senator, a great leader in the Senate, that he has been a voice of sanity and reason. He has been a voice that the Americans have wanted to hear.
This is one of the most solemn duties we have, and the fact that it was going to be rushed and the fact that it came right before an election and the fact that we have so many unanswered questions, those things are weighing on this Senator's shoulders. I am so pleased the Senator from West Virginia, from his perspective, as someone who has served so well and for so long, was able to speak out as he has.
I do not know where we will wind up on this, but I do know we are going to have alternatives. I think the fact that we will have alternatives, in many ways, is because the Senator from West Virginia from day 1--remember the day 1--when our President did not even want to come to Congress, when his staff was saying to the President it was not necessary, that the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, said, just a moment, read the Constitution.
So before I begin, I thank my friend for his remarks.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from the great State of California for her gracious remarks. I thank her, too, for what she stands for, for standing up for the Constitution and for representing the people of her great State so well, so consistently, and so effectively.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, it means a great deal to me that the Senator has said these words.
One of the most sacred, one of the most humbling, one of the most important--let me say the most important--roles Congress has to play
is determining whether our country should send its sons and daughters to war.
The role of Congress in war and peace must not be ignored. We can read it right out of the Constitution. Article I, section 8, says the following: The Congress shall have power to declare war.
What has made me proud is that the American people understand this. I believe they understand it better than some in the administration who started off in August saying the President did not have to come to Congress in order to go to war with Iraq. To be specific, on August 26, the Washington Post quoted a senior administration official who said:
We don't want to be in the legal position of asking Congress to authorize the use of force when the President already has the full authority. We don't want, in getting a resolution, to have conceded that one was constitutionally necessary.
It is clear the American people will not support a war against Iraq without the agreement of Congress. According to a USA Today-CNN poll, 69 percent of the American people favored military action with the support of Congress; only 37 percent favored military action if Congress opposed the move. It is also important to point out that 79 percent of the American people support the use of force if it were supported by the United Nations; only 37 percent favored action without United Nations support.
This is not a minor point. This administration did not want to come to Congress; and then, when it decided to do so because--frankly, they understood the views of the American people--they sent over a resolution which was the most incredible blank check I have ever seen. Its provisions basically said that even if Iraq complied with inspection and dismantlement, the administration could still go to war if Iraq failed to provide documentation, for example, on Kuwaiti POWs or because of its illicit trade outside the Oil-for-Food Program. Those issues certainly need to be addressed. There are very few people--I don't know of any--who believe those reasons should be enough to send our men and women and our bombs to Iraq.
In addition, the original resolution gave the President the authority to use force not only in Iraq but in the entire
[Page: S9878] GPO's PDF
Representative Tom Davis, Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said:
People are going to want to know before the election where their representatives stand.
Now, despite this pressure, I am proud to say my colleagues are not sitting back. We are going to fulfill our obligations under the Constitution. We are fulfilling our obligations to debate war and peace. We are not allowing this administration to ignore our views, our opinions, and our heartfelt concerns about America's sons and daughters and the innocent victims of war.
While there are some in the administration who believe taking up the Iraq issue now will hurt Democrats, I am not so sure. I am not so sure the American people want us to roll over and be silent on this. I am not so sure the American people
don't want us to see it as our duty to check and balance this administration. Already, because of our voices, the resolution offered by the President has been changed. In my view, it is still a very blank check for war with Iraq. I certainly cannot support a blank check. I think it is an affront to the people of this country to do that. Originally, it was an even blanker check, allowing the President to go to war anyplace in the region.
The role of checks and balances that we play is already evident. I know that. I also know in the greatest country on the face of this Earth, in the country that is great because of its middle class and its productivity, in that country, in our country, it is necessary to not only deal with the issue of Iraq, to deal with the issue of terrorism, to protect our people when they fly in an airplane or walk past a nuclear plant or a chemical plant or cross a bridge, it is also important to deal with the impact of this administration's economic record: The worse stock market decline in 70 years, the worst economic growth in 50 years, the greatest loss of jobs in the private sector in 50 years, and the threat that people feel from retirement insecurity and job insecurity, runaway health care costs, and a falling median income.
Now, there are those who say the administration is bringing up Iraq now to avoid scrutiny from this volatile and miserable economy. There have been memos that show this to be their strategy. There have been anonymous statements to this effect. And whether that is true or not, I leave to the American people. I trust the American people to look at this.
We must take care of the security of the American people. Economic security is part of that. I believe this administration is AWOL in this regard. As we deal with foreign policy challenges, we Democrats will insist we deal with domestic challenges, too. And again, let the people decide if they agree with us or not.
This I will also say clearly: We are told constantly that the President has not decided yet whether he wants to go to war with Iraq. We hear it over and over. I sit on the Foreign Relations Committee. I am proud to sit on that committee. I chair the terrorism subcommittee. Recently, Colin Powell said to us in an open hearing:
Of course the President has not made any decision with regard to military action. He's still hopeful for a political solution, a diplomatic solution.
Secretary Rumsfeld said:
The President's not made a decision with respect to Iraq.
National Security Adviser Rice said:
The President has not made a decision that the use of military force is the best option.
Ari Fleischer, the press spokesman, makes that same statement day after day after day.
I ask, if the President hasn't decided to go to war yet, if the administration has not decided to go to war yet, if the military has not been told there is going to be a war, then why is the President coming to Congress now, before he has made a somber decision, and before he has answered many key questions?
If our questions could be answered, the many questions we have, it would be one thing. However, I want to say unequivocally that the myriad of questions I have asked have not been answered.
In good conscience, how can I vote to take our country to war alone, which is what the President wants from us, without allies and without the facts that I need to fulfill my responsibilities to the people of California.
Madam President, you know my State very well. We have more than 30 million people. Out of the 880,000 reservists in the military, 61,000 are from California. I owe them the best decision I can make. Those reservists, as Senator Inouye has pointed out, many of them have families. At times you will have a wife and a husband called up to go into the danger zone. I need my questions answered before I could vote to send this country, alone--alone--into battle.
Here are the questions I have asked in one forum or another. Here are the questions that I either do not have answers to or the answers I have are incomplete. If we give the President the blank check he is asking for, which I will not vote for, if we give him the go-it-alone preemptive strike authority, which I will not vote for, then I think those who are considering voting for that ought to ask these questions. I will lay them out.
How many U.S. troops would be involved?
What are the projected casualties?
Would the United States have to foot the entire cost of using force against Iraq?
If not, which nations will provide financial support?
Which nations will provide military support?
What will the cost be to rebuild Iraq?
How long would our troops need to stay there?
Would they be a target for terrorists?
What will the impact be on our fight against terrorism?
Will Iraq use chemical or biological weapons against our troops?
Will Iraq launch chemical or biological weapons against Israel?
How will Israel respond?
What impact will that have?
How will we secure Iraqi chemical and biological weapons once the fighting starts?
How do we make sure such weapons do not get into the hands of terrorists or terrorist nations?
How do we make sure that Iraqi weapons experts, from Iraq, do not migrate to terrorist organizations or terrorist states?
Have we given enough thought to alternatives to avoid war?
Why haven't we worked with the United Nations to try Saddam Hussein as a war criminal? He is a war criminal.
During the Foreign Relations Committee hearing with Secretary Albright, I raised the idea put forward by the Carnegie Endowment on coerced inspections. Has this or a similar idea been pursued?
If we are concerned about Saddam Hussein acquiring weapons of mass destruction, why are we not fully supporting the Nunn-Lugar weapons dismantlement program?
I do not doubt that Iraq is up to no good. I know they are. That is why I voted for the Iraq Liberation Act. We know that Iraq has biological and chemical weapons and that they used them against Iran and against its own Kurdish minority. We know that following the Persian Gulf war, Iraq promised to abide by the demands of the U.N. but failed to live up to its commitment. They have not allowed unfettered inspections. They have lied about chemical and biological weapons programs. And they continue to seek the capability to produce nuclear weapons.
I do not doubt that there are some members of al-Qaida in Iraq. But there is al-Qaida in Syria. There is al-Qaida in Africa. There is al-Qaida in Pakistan and in Afghanistan. There are cells in 60 nations, including the United States of America.
The fight against bin Laden and his organization must not be weakened. I want to quote what the head of our Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator BOB GRAHAM, has to say about this. You and I know he is not a man of overstatement. He said:
At this point I think Iraq is a primary distraction from achieving our goals of reducing the threat of international terrorism.
[Page: S9879] GPO's PDF
Listen to what Wesley Clark has said. He headed our NATO troops.
Unilateral U.S. action today would disrupt the war against al-Qaida.
Despite statements by staff to the contrary, the President appears to want to go it alone in war when we are already in a war. According to the President, we are in a war, one that will require all of our wits and lots of our treasure, both in human capital and in tax dollars.
I do not think it is enough to be critical of this blank check resolution the President is supporting. I want to say how I would approach this question. Iraq must be held to its word, as expressed in U.N. resolutions, that it will submit to thorough inspections and dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction, period.
Let's repeat that. Iraq must be held to its word that it will submit to thorough inspections, unfettered inspections, and dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction, period. That is what they agreed to. They signed on the dotted line to do it. And that is what must happen. Those were United Nations resolutions, and we must work for an updated resolution ensuring that such unfettered inspections do take place or there will be consequences. These weapons are a threat to the world, and the world must respond. I believe if we handle this right, the world will respond.
But if our allies believe we have not made the case, if they believe this is a political issue here, or if they believe it is a grudge match here, or if they believe that the whole thing is being manipulated for domestic political reasons, I believe that will hurt our Nation. I believe that will isolate us. I do not think that is a good path for our country.
Can we rule the world with our weapons and our guns and our might? I am sure we can. I know we can.
Can we win every military confrontation that anyone could ever imagine? Yes. We can.
But I believe the greatness of our Nation has been built on other things: The power of our persuasion, not the power of our arsenal; the power of our ideals, not the power of our threats; the power and greatness of our people, not the power and the greatness of our machines.
America at her best has been seen as a beacon of hope, not fear; an example not of ``Might makes right,'' but ``Might backing right.'' What is right at a time like this? I believe it is laying out a path for peace, not just a path for war; trying everything we can to avoid chaos and devastation to our own and to innocent civilians who may well be used as pawns in urban warfare.
I believed that Madeleine Albright, the former Secretary of State under President Clinton, and Dr. Henry Kissinger laid out a path for peace when they spoke before the Foreign Relations Committee. They talked about unfettered inspections and dismantlement of weapons of mass destruction. As they said, and I agree, it will not be easy. Maybe it will be impossible. But there is no doubt in my mind that we should lay out that path and try for complete, unfettered inspections, with nothing off limits, to be followed by dismantlement of those weapons.
For those who say it will never work, maybe they are right. But we have never pulled the massive trigger of our weapons on a nation that has not attacked us first. At the least--at the least--we should see if we can exhaust all other options.
That is why I support the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator CARL LEVIN, and his resolution that will be introduced. This is what it does:
No. 1, it urges the United Nations Security Council to quickly adopt a resolution that demands immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access for U.N. inspectors so that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and prohibited missiles will be destroyed. [1441 said that and that didn't work ~ Oxen]
No. 2, it urges this new U.N. Security Council resolution to authorize the use of necessary and appropriate force by U.N. member states to enforce the resolution if Iraq refuses to comply.
No. 3, it reaffirms that, under international law and the U.N. Charter, the United States has the inherent right to self-defense.
No. 4, it authorizes the use U.S. Armed Forces pursuant to the new U.N. Security Council resolution that deals with weapons of mass destruction.
In closing, let me say very clearly that I will not vote for a blank check for unilateral action. I also will not vote for a resolution that is dressed up to look like Congress has powers when, in fact, all the words really call for are consultations and determinations.
That is when Senator Byrd said ``pretty'' words. He said, ``Pretty, pretty, pretty words.'' Sounds good--consultations and determinations. What does it really mean? Nothing. It means the administration tells us what they think. We already know what they think.
To me, consultations and determinations without a vote by Congress are like a computer that is not plugged in. It looks good, it looks powerful, it looks impressive, but it does nothing.
I didn't come to the Senate for the title. I didn't come to the Senate to debate meaninglessly on the Senate floor. [HA! Could have fooled me!! ~ Oxen] I didn't come to the Senate to do nothing. I didn't come to the Senate to run away from a hard vote. I came to uphold the duties of my office. I came to represent the people of California.
In the past 4 years, I have voted to use force twice--once against Milosevic to stop a genocide and once after September 11 when we suffered a barbarous attack. But, in this case, if any President wants to go to war alone or outside the type of coalitions we have built for the war on terror, or the last Persian Gulf war, then let him come to the American people, through the Congress for another debate and a vote.
It is one thing to go with a coalition. It is one thing to determine that we will be part of a multinational force. It is another thing to do it alone, without a specific vote of the Congress before the President has decided to do so. As I have said, his aides keep telling us he has not made the decision. So why do we have to give him a blank check today? If he wants to go it alone, if he wants to send my people to a place where we don't even know if chemical or biological weapons will be used [Again not if they're there ~ Oxen], we don't even know what the estimates of casualties are, we don't even know what it is going to cost, we don't even know how long we are going to have to stay there, we don't know what will happen if Israel responds--we don't know so many things--I don't think it is asking too much to ask my colleagues to support a resolution by Senator Levin. He said that if he wants to go it alone, then the President has to come back.
In the CARL LEVIN resolution, it is implicit that he must come back if he wants to go it alone. CARL LEVIN's resolution authorizes force as part of the U.N. enforcement action to dismantle Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But again, if the President wants to go it alone, he must come back to us.
I believe the people of my State expect me, on their behalf, to get my questions and their questions answered, not to engage in guesswork, and, above all, not to abdicate my responsibility as a Senator to anyone else. If our Founders wanted the President--or any President--to have the power to go to war without our consent, they would have said so. But, again, this is what our Founders said in article I, section 8: Congress shall have power to declare war.
Thank you very much, Madam President. I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
BTTT