Posted on 02/06/2003 3:19:08 AM PST by 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supposed to make that decision through the vote of their members of Congress, and therefore, I believe this should be rescinded - the president should not have the power to declare war."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.
While I hope you are right, I'm afraid Ron Paul is way too much into this peacenik-Libertarian stuff. Too bad, really, as he would make a great small-ell libertarian otherwise.
He did because he could. Constitutionally.
Not every use of military force constitutes a war. From the days of Jefferson and the Barbary pirates onward presidents have employed military force without a declaration of war when necessary to protect US interests and US lives. This is fully constitutional because it is in furtherence of the president's express and implied duties as chief executive and commander-in-chief to protect the US, its people, and its interests. If a president were to abuse this authority he could be impeached.
Placing Clinton's cynical self-serving political agenda aside, his cruise missile attacks on the aspirin factory and deserted terrorist camp were fully constitutional because they were directed at a genuine, real-time, real-world threat that could have been neutralized quickly short of a cumbersome declaration of war. Clinton didn't screw up by bombing these places. He screwed up by employing ineffective, craven, and half-hearted means of getting it done. Had one of those missiles taken out Osama bin Laden I would have been among the first to applaud.
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.