Bill Would Repeal (Congressional)Resolution Authorizing Military Action

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 2/06/03 | Robert B. Bluey

[kattracks]

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - Some members of Congress used Secretary of State Colin Powell's United Nations speech Wednesday to call for a new vote on whether President Bush should have the authority to use military action against Iraq.

U.S. Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) introduced a resolution that would repeal the vote Congress took last October giving Bush the power to wage war. A handful of liberal Democrats joined Paul and DeFazio, claiming the administration has consistently failed to make its case.

By repealing last fall's resolution, Congress would be asking Powell and other administration officials to again seek permission to use military force against Iraq. Supporters of Paul and DeFazio's measure said Powell presented little new evidence during Wednesday's U.N. presentation.

"If you believe the United States should have a war, then be willing to vote for war," DeFazio said. "The president should be willing to come to Congress and make a case for war because that is indeed what this is about."

Even though Bush already has approval from Congress, Paul said that new information has surfaced in the past four months that could sway several members of Congress. The House passed the resolution by a 296-133 vote on Oct. 10, and the Senate followed with a 77-23 vote a day later.

Paul said Bush does not have the authority to carry out a war with Iraq unless Congress gives him that power.

"Presidents, in a republic, aren't supposed to make that decision," he said. "The people are supposed to make that decision through the vote of their members of Congress, and therefore, I believe this should be rescinded - the president should not have the power to declare war."

Meanwhile on Capitol Hill, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Powell's speech was a "restatement" of evidence he has already heard. Biden declined to comment on the idea of a second war resolution in Congress, but he said it was imperative for the United Nations to vote on the matter once again.

Powell successfully persuaded the 15-member U.N. Security Council to unanimously adopt a resolution in November giving Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations."

Biden, who along with other lawmakers, met with Bush Wednesday morning, credited the administration for winning over the Security Council last fall. He said if Powell could persuade opponents of an Iraq war like China, France and Russia, the United States would be in a better position during and after a conflict.

"I hope today's presentation by Secretary Powell, a man well respected throughout the world and particularly Europe, will embolden leaders who have been reluctant to risk any political capital in their own countries to make the case to their people."

During his presentation, Powell presented photographs, telephone transcripts and intelligence reports to illustrate Iraq's violation of U.N. mandates to disclose and destroy its weapons of mass destruction. Biden said some of that information was directed toward countries like France and Russia, which could face their own terrorist attacks.

"It is not just the United States that's a target," he said, predicting that another U.N. resolution is possible. "I believe there is an ability to get a second resolution, and therefore, I'm of the view that we have a really good chance to stay united. It will be hard sledding, it will be very difficult negotiations, and hopefully, we have emboldened some of the leadership to step up."

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) commended Powell for making a powerful case to convince world leaders of Saddam Hussein's practices. He said Powell's evidence proved Iraq's association with terrorist organizations like al Qaeda and its failure to comply with past U.N. resolutions.

"Saddam Hussein has been playing a dangerous game of cat and mouse with the United Nations for over a decade now. But the time for games is coming to an end," Hastert said. "Secretary Powell's presentation proved that we must take effective action to disarm the Hussein regime, and we must do it soon."

Hastert, who helped broker the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq, dismissed critics of the administration who have repeatedly asked Bush to present a "smoking gun." He said if the United States waits to act, Hussein would only endanger more American lives.

E-mail a news tip to Robert B. Bluey.

Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.

[Dead Corpse]

Because without a Declaration of War, we are stuck sniffing around the skirts of the UN to get "permission". We deny our national sovereignity.

We were ATTACKED. We have every right to return fire. We have a moral OBLIGATION to. However, we also have our Laws. Rational and moral laws outlined with words that mean things. We have been so twisted and diminished by One Worlders and New Dealers that we are no longer a Constitutional Republic, but just one portion of a democracy under UN treaty.

Declare War. Go it alone. The world will be a better place when we are done and we will have to apologize to no one for having done what is right. Waiting on the UN will only increase the chances of more of us getting killed. We MUST bring these terrorist criminals to justice, but we cannot abandon our principles to do so.

Got it?

[philman_36]

Here is Bush's authorization from congress. Why you don't want him to have it is beyond me.
Don't try and put words in my mouth! I've never said that I don't want Bush to have congressional authorization. What I am saying, and what I'll continue saying, is that I desire only congressional authorization, not congressional authorization and UN Security Council authorization like that gives.
As is why you keep pretending that congressional authorization is not what Bush does have, and Clinton didn't in Kosovo.
I'm not "pretending" anything. Bush does have congressional authorization in conjunction with the auspices/authorization of UN Resolutions and Clinton didn't have any congressional authorization at all, only UN authorization.
That is the significant difference between the two cases.
I don't want us taking any action under any UN auspices, resolutions or sanctions whatsoever. That is the significant similarity in the two cases.
Is that so hard for you to understand?

[duk]

Immaturity of International law? Even my 8 year old knows the difference between a lie and truth. Our constitution can be read and understood by most H.S. grads, our Fathers made it that way. The average elected congressman could follow its instructions to the letter without being a lawyer. It is a legal and binding document.
How many of you can read and understand your legal and binding contract for the purchase/lease of the vehicle your are driving? You have to be some kind of evil genius. It's a simple purchase agreement, not the rule of law governing an entire country for over 200 years!
When in plain print it says "declare war", how immature do you have to be to twist it around. Congress knows this but are avoiding it. They don't have the courage to stand up and be counted. I demand leadership!!
If we don't want to abide by our treaties than let congress say so and sign us off. It is within their authority to do this. To sidestep our legal commitments for tatical/stratigic advantage is dishonorable. It puts the UNITED STATES in the same league as Korea. Their signed treaties mean nothing as does their word.
Honor and integrity is a hard road to travel, but well worth it. We are,because those who went before us stuck to it. Those who will lead us in the future are watching now!! When our eyes are dim and hair gray, I want to believe they will lead us with the same honor and integrity we lived.

[mrsmith]

"sniffing around the skirts of the UN to get "permission". "

THERE WAS NO UN DURING THE ADAMS AND JEFFERSON ADMINISTRATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We're doing this the same way we did then.

[philman_36]

BTW...You get burned on your own position so you lash out at me for exposing it. Good job showing your true nature.

[Eagle Eye]

You want another Congressional vote because your spines are going soft? You should have thought about that 3 months ago.

Don't you dare confuse those who prefer a decalration war to a resolution of force with those that don't want ANY action.

If all goes well, I'll be over there within 3 weeks supporting the military efforts. Will you be there to met me?

Don't talk to me about going soft.

[philman_36]

We're doing this the same way we did then.
No, we're not. As you admit...THERE WAS NO UN DURING THE ADAMS AND JEFFERSON ADMINISTRATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We didn't need or ask for anyone's "permission", "approval" or "acceptance" then and we sure don't need it now, yet aren't we doing just that?...getting "permission", "approval" and "acceptance" to do what is ours to do by right?

[IronJack]

The Left was caught off guard by 9/11 and didn't have time to muster their shock troops before the Afghanistan bombing began. But now they've had time to get the talking points out, get the rabble-rousers trained and outfitted, and get the signage printed and the busses hired. The Hate America machine is primed this time around. And it shows.

[mrsmith]

"Bush does have congressional authorization in conjunction with the auspices/authorization of UN Resolutions "

". The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; "

He also has congressional authorization based solely on his determination of US security interests, which the resolution earlier says are threatened by Saddam in several ways.
His authorization in section (1) of the resolution is not dependent on the UN.

[Dead Corpse]

Liar. Why all the waiting on the UN? Why all this crap about a coalition?

[elfman2]

"When in plain print it says "declare war", how immature do you have to be to twist it around. …To sidestep our legal commitments for tatical/stratigic advantage is dishonorable. It puts the UNITED STATES in the same league as Korea. "

We're more than following the sprit of the Constitution which was intended to ensure Congressional and public authorization. The Constitution is not a suicide pack. If you're unable to see the difference between the US war on terrorism and North Korea, nothing you ever read or hear will make any difference.

[Dead Corpse]

Just that fact that section 2 is even in ther is rather telling. Not to mention Bush continually mentioning the UN in every speech and Powell's dog-n-pony show for the UN Security Council.

Why bother if we don't need them?

[duk]

Sounds real good for offing a bad guy, but not for an all out physical invasion of another country. I don't believe we needed a DoW to put Kadofi in his place or put a missle into the back seat of an Al Q. Congressional permission to put the bad guys in their place is very appropriate.

[mrsmith]

LOL!

No, I've tried to find the sense or error in your position.

Apparently it is that you believe the resolution ONLY authorizes the use of military force to enforce UN resolutions.

[Green]

You're reply has nothing to do with what I said.

[duk]

Time for dinner: Good conversations, thankyou. We all agree Sadam must go and that we're going to do it. Lets make sure our example of how and why will be sufficient for the next generation to follow. As I tell my kids, TALK NICE!!
AHHH...meatloaf

[mrsmith]

"sufficient for the next generation to follow"

Well said. That is why I have sympathy for those who condemn including the UN in the resolution.

[Kev-Head]

Did somebody pay off Ron Paul (R) to get in bed with the Demorats. What a bunch of manure.

[philman_36]

Apparently it is that you believe the resolution ONLY authorizes the use of military force to enforce UN resolutions.
No, that isn't what I believe. Putting words in my mouth again? If you would read my replies you would see that. This is primarily about UN Resolutions!

[philman_36]

That is why I have sympathy for those who condemn including the UN in the resolution.
I condemn including the UN in the resolution and so do you...
The congress should state in it's own words what the president's authority is and not let it be determined by the UN.
At least I thought you did. I guess you don't after all. Changing tides and blowing winds...
Spare your "sympathy" for me and give it to yourself. I want neither it nor the UN.
Including the UN resolutions will not be a good example for the next generation to follow. It's not even a good example for this generation to follow.