24 September 2002
Byrd Assails Bush Administration's Iraq Resolution
(Senate must not grant such a wide-ranging authorization to use force) (940) By Steve LaRocque Washington File Staff Writer Washington -- The longest serving Democratic senator took to the floor of the Senate September 20 to criticize the Bush administration's request for Congressional authorization to use force against the regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat of West Virginia) told fellow senators that before the United States commits to war with Iraq, "there are critical questions that must be asked, and it is not unpatriotic to ask questions." Byrd, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and President Pro Tempore of the Senate, urged his colleagues to remember the role the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of war and peace. As President Pro Tempore, Byrd would preside over the Senate in the absence of the Vice President. Byrd, a one-time Senate Majority Leader, and leader of his party in the Senate for twelve years, said the proposed resolution from the White House regarding Iraq was too broad in scope. "After weeks of criticism from Congress and, indeed, from the countries of the world, President Bush went to the United Nations to press his case that Iraq posed a serious threat to the peace and security of the globe," Byrd said. "But instead of offering compelling evidence that the Iraqi regime had taken steps to advance its weapons program to the point that it is necessary for the United States to deliver an unprovoked attack on a sovereign state -- namely, Iraq -- the President offered the U.N. more of a warning than an appeal for support." Byrd, who also serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Senate Rules Committee, and the Senate Budget Committee, criticized President Bush for telling other nations they were either for the United States or against it. Byrd said the Bush administration's case against Iraq was at best circumstantial. The West Virginia Democrat noted that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at a session of the House Armed Services Committee could not offer any new information that would compel the United States to act against the Baghdad regime. Byrd rejected the point Rumsfeld made before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the September 11 terror attacks against the United States were the new element in U.S. security calculations. Turning Rumsfeld's warning about not waiting to have a "smoking gun" before taking action, Byrd said his concern was that the United States, "in forcing war in Iraq, will end up shooting itself in the foot." The United States, he added, "must not be hell-bent on an invasion until we have exhausted every other possible option to assess and eliminate Iraq's supposed weapons of destruction program." America must not act alone, Byrd warned, "The United States must have the support of the world." Byrd scoffed at the draft resolution from the White House that would authorize the President to "use all means" in dealing with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. "Congress must not hand this administration or any other administration a blank check for military action, period," Byrd said. "Does Saddam Hussein pose an imminent threat to the United States?" Byrd asked. "Should Congress grant the President authority to launch a preemptive attack on Iraq?" he continued. The West Virginia Democrat said he wondered how many Iraqi civilians would die in an effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and how many troops the United States would have to use to reach its goal. Noting that the Gulf War cost $61 billion, with many other nations contributing to the cost of that conflict, Byrd quoted the President's economic adviser as saying a new war with Iraq could cost as much as $200 billion. "Has the United States ruled out responding with nuclear weapons should Saddam Hussein use chemical or biological weapons against our soldiers?" Byrd asked. "Does Saddam Hussein have the capability to unleash weapons of mass destruction within the United States?" he questioned. "Does the United States have adequate military and intelligence resources to fight a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq while, at the same time, mobilizing resources to prevent or defend against attack within our own shores?" Byrd said. Byrd charged President Bush with "seeking powers that have never been given to any other President." Byrd said the text of a proposed resolution sent by the White House to Congress on September 19 had numerous problems. He noted the suggested language would "constitute the broadest possible grant of war powers to any President in the history of our Republic." While the President does have power under the Constitution to repel an attack on the nation, Byrd said, the President doesn't have the power to "launch an unprovoked offensive military attack on another nation or state." Calling the proposed resolution "an affront," Byrd said the clauses include "numerous distortions of fact." The President, Byrd acknowledged, "has the authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States." But, he added, "What about the power of the Congress under article I, section 8 of the Constitution to declare war? That is not mentioned at all in the resolution proposed by the White House. "What a colossus this President is going to become if the Senate gives him this kind of authority," Byrd said, "The White House resolution would authorize the President to use all means that he determines appropriate." The language of the resolution would not only authorize war against Iraq, but "would allow the President to march our troops into Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, the West Bank, and anywhere else that is part of the Middle East," Byrd warned. "I cannot believe the gall and the arrogance of the White House in requesting such a broad grant of war powers," Byrd said. (The Washington File is a product of the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
