Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bill Would Repeal (Congressional)Resolution Authorizing Military Action
CNSNEWS.com ^ | 2/06/03 | Robert B. Bluey

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supposed to make that decision through the vote of their members of Congress, and therefore, I believe this should be rescinded - the president should not have the power to declare war."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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-166 next last

1 posted on 02/06/2003 3:19:08 AM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Unfriggin real is all I can say.
2 posted on 02/06/2003 3:24:49 AM PST by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) was on O'Reilly last night. O'Reilly had him in a corner. He was sputtering. Hard to believe these jerks are Congressmen........... well, on second thought............
3 posted on 02/06/2003 3:26:41 AM PST by Linda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
once again and again and again... the dems and dems-witted are not rallying around the flag ...rto
4 posted on 02/06/2003 3:27:40 AM PST by visitor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: kattracks
I would say a check of U.S. Reps. Ron Paul's and Peter DeFazio's backers/financial supporters is in order. A check of their sanity might not be a bad idea either.
6 posted on 02/06/2003 3:28:58 AM PST by Humal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
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.

consistently failed to make its case ???

Paul .. you are an IDIOT!

7 posted on 02/06/2003 3:31:23 AM PST by Mo1 (I Hate The Party of Bill Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
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.

I am at a complete loss here as to what exactly they would use from Powell's presentation to support rescinding the previous resolution.

8 posted on 02/06/2003 3:32:25 AM PST by Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Green
Maybe the congress is starting to take their job seriously. It is after all THEIR place to declare war and not just military action.
Powells case was very good, and I took it as "we are going to war because." This was not a plea to go to war or to ask support. We are going and congress should step up and say it in writing or reign in Bush. I am really hopefull that this is actually good news.
9 posted on 02/06/2003 3:46:50 AM PST by duk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
"Paul .. you are an IDIOT!"

Well, seeing that R. Paul is really a libertarian who uses Republicans' $$$ to get elected - Um, unethical, yes - an idiot, no.

10 posted on 02/06/2003 3:49:39 AM PST by Psalm 73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: duk
I understand what you are saying but that is not what this article addresses. It says they are going to use Powell's presentation to support their position of no war. That is what has me puzzled. There was nothing in his presentation, that I recall, that would support their resolution of no war.
11 posted on 02/06/2003 3:50:42 AM PST by Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 73
Personally I don't care what party he is from or who's money he is using

This is about the safety and welfare of our country and he doesn't think Powell made a case??

Sorry but IMO the man needs to have his head examined

12 posted on 02/06/2003 3:53:45 AM PST by Mo1 (I Hate The Party of Bill Clinton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
"Unfriggin real is all I can say."

Yup. All I can do is sigh and shake my head. ~ America doesn't need foreign enemies; we've got them in our own Congress.

13 posted on 02/06/2003 4:12:45 AM PST by Right_in_Virginia (May God bless President Bush and our troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks; RonPaulLives
INDIANGIVERS!!


RPL Ping!!

14 posted on 02/06/2003 4:28:52 AM PST by upchuck (TSCG: Flies dance operas to your wisdom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Why is all this argle-bargle so "imperative" in Iraq, when there was virtually no hesitation in Afghanistan? Could it be that the memory of 9/11 was that much fresher, and our resolve had not yet been diluted by partisanship?
15 posted on 02/06/2003 4:46:55 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck
The Nov. election is passed and they can renig on a measure they passed just to help get votes. Now they don't have to act like they support the protection of our country.
16 posted on 02/06/2003 4:52:49 AM PST by Conservative Kay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Could it be that the memory of 9/11 was that much fresher, and our resolve had not yet been diluted by partisanship?

Ahhh grasshopper, you have swerved into the truth!
17 posted on 02/06/2003 4:59:37 AM PST by GodBlessRonaldReagan (where is Scotty Moore when we need him most?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
"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."

What about that is difficult to understand?

IF, and I say IF, one truly believes in the Constitution and one truly believes in supporitng the troops, then an unambiguous decalratin of war is the best way to go.

The US did not have a stellar record when conduction "police actions", containment, or other non-declared war actions.

How many Freepers would have allowed clinton to attack and invade without a declaration of war?

18 posted on 02/06/2003 4:59:46 AM PST by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excessive legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

To: kattracks
They're either with US or against US. No middle of the road. We are RIGHT, they be Left. WAKE UP AMERICA.
20 posted on 02/06/2003 5:03:41 AM PST by wearredcaps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-166 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson