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supposed to make that decision through the vote of their members of Congress, and therefore, I believe this should be rescinded - the president should not have the power to declare war."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.
We're going to get terrorism if we go after Saddam or not.
All through the '90's Americans were killed, but no one did anything about it. It made the terrorists bolder and stronger.
Now that Bush is president, he's doing something about it. Saddam and his ilk are part of it.
I can't believe the Democrats are willing to risk this countries future for a stupid vote!!! Americans were slaughtered dieing the '90's, and it reached ther 9/11 stage, because the Democrat president stuck his ugly head in the sand.
It shouldn't be allowed to happen again.
Democrats are Socialist. They want a US dictator. How many Americans will they let die to reach their goal?
I am fully aware that Bill Clinton loathed the military, and the Constitution for that matter. But are we no better than him? I personally believe that the U.S. Congress would vote, in the majority, for a Declaration of War. Do the posters on this thread not agree? I know that this scenario presents a slight paradox for us, between doing what we want to do (ie, make Iraq a parking lot tomorrow) and what we are Constitutionally binded to do (ie, pass a Declaration of War through the Congress and then make Iraq a parking lot in two days or so).
Paul and DeFazio, two peas in a pod. They probably say "All right!" to the war protestors who hold up signs such as,
"Smoke weed, not Iraqi's".
I cannot imagine that there are even 41 democratic senators who would vote against it. The political consequences of being on the wrong side of this once it's done, and all of the evidence comes out ala the fall of the Soviet Union and the fall of Nazi Germany, would be so great that they dare not risk it.
As someone said, go back and reread William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. It's chilling.
Those who make the case for appeasement, through international institutions that are toothless and run by tyrants and oligarchs, are the moral equivalent of the 'America First' types before Pearl Harbor. Some may be sincere, but they are wrong. They are enemies of America.
First and formost, the congress did authorize hostilities, How is it in the interest of this country to have a vote every several months? Might this affect the moral of the military, (of which the president is commander in chief)?
How would you like your employer to reauthorize your employment every three months? (Or pick some similar analogy).
I just lost a lot of respect for Ron Paul.
He is right in saying a declaration of war by the Congress is the proper and Constitutional way to go. Congress has shirked it's responsibility in that area for some time now (back to Korea?).
I don't agree with him as far as the question of the war itself. I believe Saddam must be dealt with now before it's too late.
What has bothered me about a lot of conservatives/republicans is their cafeteria approach to the Constitution. In that regard too many are just like liberals. They just pick and choose different parts of the Constitution they like.
At least Ron Paul is one of the few in Congress who seems to support the Constitution in total, not just when convenient.
But now, because it's Bush's turn at bat... all the rules and regs no longer apply.
Scary how quickly "we" are becoming "them".
When we went after Al Queda, we were not fighting against a nation-state. Constitutionally, we should have had Letters of M&R as we did with the Barbary Pirates. Same deal, just not on the high-seas. Instead, Congress authorized a "use of force" to go get them. Kind of extra legal, but a decent compromise.
Iraq. North Korea. Anywhere else where we will be directly attacking a Nation, we need that Declaration of War from our Congress before Bush can excersize all of his options as Commander in Chief. The Constitution is pretty darn clear on this.
Let's stop sh1tting on the Constitution shall we? The democrats have done it enough damage, no need to do more. Public opinion is running high enough that any Congress critter voting against a Declaration will be risking their career. Well, except maybe in Ithica. Even Ron Paul has stated in his speeches that he would vote for a Declaration of War, but that any other meassure does not pass a Constitutional smell test.
So. Do we errode another check and balance in our Government, or do we play by our own rules?
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.