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supposed to make that decision through the vote of their members of Congress, and therefore, I believe this should be rescinded - the president should not have the power to declare war."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.
(From post #108) We’re not consulting the UN because we absolutely need them, but because we need Saddam to be courting them rather than threatening the world as we prepare.
Nevertheless, Support is nice to have. And getting it keeps the state department busy, rather than in our way. We want as much international support as possible so that we have some level of confidence that the bottom isn’t going to fall out from us somewhere else when we commit troops. We want to establish an overwhelming international consensus in support of our campaign so that some who’d like to see it fail (China) don’t dare actively work against us and then say, “Well, most of Europe is with us anyway”.
What is the point you're trying to make?
This is primarily about UN Resolutions! If it wasn't then it wouldn't even be mentioned!
Let's pop our own fireworks and make it plain and clear that they're ours, not the UN's. I'm tired of the US giving the UN legitimacy by asking for permission.
Why? A UN mandate is not a congressional authorization of war. It means nothing.
We had enough of that crap with 8 years of Klinton. We don't need to get it from Bush as well.
OK.
"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; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
I don't like (2) either. The congress should state in it's own words what the president's authority is and not let it be determined by the UN.
The alternative is to abandoned the most highly regarded and long head treaty on the nature of war just as we most needed the world's support to flush out al-Queda. There would have been not time to rewrite it, and even doing that (much less abandoning it) was probably judged to have a destabilizing effect on the unity that ended up shattering the terrorist's refuges, finances and concealment.
The Geneva Convention was intended to restrict civilized nations from resorting to the more barbaric practices of war. It was not written with WMD humping nationless suicide bombers from hellholes sinking to the most savage methods that they're capable with the most duplicitous mechanisms imaginable.
That's the kind of brilliant, insightful and mentally balance analysis that I expect of you.
Probably. Welcome to the failure of the immaturity of international law. Under the wrong circumstances of politics and threats, the rules can be twisted to become a noose.
Here is Bush's authorization from congress.
Why you don't want him to have it is beyond me.
As is why you keep pretending that congressional authorization is not what Bush does have, and Clinton didn't in Kosovo.
That is the significant difference between the two cases.
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.