Posted on 09/06/2002 7:11:34 AM PDT by PhiKapMom
Nickles predicts quick vote on Iraq
2002-09-06
By Chris Casteel
The Oklahoman
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Don Nickles predicted Thursday that Congress will vote before mid- October on a resolution to give President Bush options -- including use of military force -- for dealing with the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Nickles, R-Ponca City, who has attended three White House meetings on Iraq in the last two days, said he asked the president Wednesday whether he wanted Congress to pass a resolution authorizing force before lawmakers left Washington this year.
"He said yes," Nickles said.
Nickles, the Senate's assistant minority leader, said he expects Congress to leave town by Oct. 11 so lawmakers can campaign for the November elections.
"I see us voting on the (Iraqi) resolution in the next three or four or five weeks," Nickles said.
The House and Senate first must hold hearings and consult with administration and military officials and the CIA, he said.
"He put the Iraqi thing right on our plates," Nickles said. "We asked for it, and we got it. It's going to be a big challenge, and we only have five weeks legislatively."
Nickles said a resolution would give the president options, adding that a full-scale invasion isn't the only action being considered by the administration.
"I'm sure the administration wants it as flexible as possible, and I don't want to do one that isn't helpful or puts a lot of qualifications on it," Nickles said.
Nickles' comments came a day after the president said he would seek congressional approval to take action against Iraq.
Nickles and Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, said, in seeking lawmakers' support, Bush did not say he would give Congress veto power over his authority.
While Nickles said it was important for Bush to say he wanted to work with Congress, Inhofe said a public debate was unnecessary.
Inhofe said the president has the authority to launch a pre-emptive attack and a public debate could give sensitive military information to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Moreover, Inhofe said, a congressional debate would give a public forum to "people who are trying to use this issue politically."
Inhofe, a member of the Armed Services and Intelligence committees, said Congress shouldn't require Bush to meet certain thresholds of evidence that Iraq has the ability to deliver a weapon of mass destruction before an American invasion is launched.
"Every time you make a new requirement, you're taking from him his constitutional responsibility," Inhofe said.
Rep. Ernest Istook said Congress has a duty to debate military action against Iraq.
"If we're talking about removing a foreign government with a huge-scale invasion, that's clearly within the constitutional duties of Congress," said Istook, R- Warr Acres.
Istook said "any military action of this nature needs national unity" and involving Congress is the way to achieve that.
He said the Bush administration's comments on Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction are "couched in a way that don't give us any detail."
Nickles said he asked Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to share enough intelligence with some members of Congress about the risk to the United States.
I think we (the White House and Republican congressional leaders) then begin a hue and cry about "How dare congress go home when we are on the verge of war!" and totally put the Dems back on the defensive.
No Daschle can't. Bush would rip the Democrats to shreds if they tried to delay a vote. And he'd just call Congress back into special session, which would prevent everybody from campaigning in the critical weeks before the election and would focus the whole country's attention on the Democrat's obstructionism. Bush has the Dems between a rock and a hard place, especially since they were the ones most demanding Congressional involvement.
'Jwalsh' commented on another thread it is "like watching Rembrandt paint."
Beautifully played indeed!
It is nonsense to think you can wage a war with "public debate" about every battle. Unless, of course YOU don't think we are a) at war or b) should win . . . .
Amen ! 
I understand your thinking... and I'm not saying that I disagree with it. But I'm not sure it's right. We all know that he has chemical and biological weapons right now, and has had for sometime now. Yet it appears they have not been used by Al Quaeda against us... yet.
The more I think about this the more I think a nice carefully planned arkancide is the best way of taking care of Saddam.
If and when we send in the troops to flatten the place and take him out.... I don't know..... I think we better be on full alert. A declared war... and we better not be worried about a bunch of P.C. garbage.
They wait now to see if the United States will be strong, or if it will compromise and back down, as it has a long and unfortunate history of doing. If we retreat or soften, then our enemies will be encouraged and will be more likely to aid regimes like Hussein's. Terrorism and state sponsored terrorism always increases when the US waffles. Weakness will always be exploited, as surely as water flows downhill. But if we act decisively, they will quickly rein in terrorists and obscure all trails linking them to terrorists, and get out of harm's way. So they wait now because they are no longer sure the US is as weak as advertised.
Thanks for keying me to this. Great article.
Now, the problem with a declaration of war in modern times is that it just won't happen. We did not get a declaration of war against Nazi Germany even after they sank a couple of our ships and killed some of our sailors; ditto WW I. National security interests dictate that you do not wait until the other guy---who cleverly waits until he has everything in place---slaughters you. Br. did not, if I recall, declare war on Argentina; we did not declare war on Korea.
I know it is frustrating, and now what you want (nor I), but the world anymore hates terms like "war" and will not sanction them in anything short of a full scale invasion of the U.S. Meanwhile, we leave ourselves open to more 9/11s.
As for Saddam, the evidence is in and growing that 1) he has the weapons, and if not nukes, soon; 2) he is already harboring the Al-quaeda, making him no different than the taliban; and 3) there is evidence enough to connect him tangentially to 9/11.
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.