21 March 2003
Senate Expresses Support for U.S. Troops as War With Iraq Begins
(Senate critics of Bush administration policy rally behind war effort) (1170) By Steve La Rocque Washington File Staff Writer Washington - Republicans and Democrats in a March 20 Senate debate supported a resolution backing President Bush as Commander-in-Chief and the U.S. Armed Forces engaged in the liberation of Iraq. After months of debate and criticism of the Bush administration policy toward Iraq, Democratic senators from across the aisle rallied in their support for the United States and its allies in their war with the Baghdad regime of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Senate Resolution 95 passed the Senate by a 99-0 margin. "The President has ordered the first salvos in Operation Iraqi Freedom," Senate Majority Leader William Frist (Republican of Tennessee) told fellow lawmakers in opening debate on the resolution. "Now our mission is clear: to use the full might of the American military to disarm Saddam Hussein and liberate the Iraqi people from his oppressive rule," he said. "Let there be no mistake, we are defending our own liberty," Frist said, "We have already seen what terrorists can do with the combined power of only three jet aircraft." The United States, he added, is now at war "so we will not ever see" what terrorists could do "if supplied with weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein." Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (Democrat of South Dakota) noted that once the President makes the decision to commit to the use of force, "the Congress has always come together to speak with one voice, for one purpose: to support the efforts of our troops, and to pray for their courage, their success, and their safe and quick return home." "We may have had differences of opinion about what brought us to this point, but the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief, and today we unite behind him as well," said Daschle, who voted for the authorization to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime, but has criticized the Bush administration's policy toward Iraq since then. "Saddam Hussein is a menace to his own people, and a threat to the peace and stability of the entire region," Daschle said. Senator John Warner (Republican of Virginia), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee noted that the Congress debated "this solemn responsibility to authorize the use of force" in October 2002. "We took our constitutional responsibility seriously," he said, "We thoroughly examined the circumstances and voted overwhelmingly, 77 to 23, to authorize the Commander in Chief to use military force if, and only if, he determined that all diplomatic efforts to peacefully disarm Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime had been fulfilled." The United Nations Security Council in a 15-0 vote backed the United States in October of last year with Resolution 1441, Warner said. This time there was no "Security Council resolution of unity," he noted, as the Security Council "became deadlocked for reasons we all know." Warner said it was important to note that President Bush "expended extraordinary efforts to bring this clear and growing threat to the attention of the United Nations and to try to build that consensus for a unified way to proceed." The Virginia Republican said that ultimately, the President's constitutional responsibility "is to the American people." President Bush, he said, made the determination that Saddam Hussein, "armed with weapons of mass destruction, is an imminent threat to the security of the people of this Nation and, indeed, other nations." The Congress, he continued, "as a coequal branch of Government, has fulfilled, in my judgment, its constitutional responsibilities by giving the President the authority he needs" to protect the American people. "We stand here together, shoulder to shoulder, whichever side of that particular issue we voted on, to support the men and women who are now in harm's way," said Senator Carl Levin (Democrat of Michigan), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Now that the military effort to disarm Saddam Hussein and remove his brutal regime from power has started, it is important that we, the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, express our unified support for our troops," said Senator Harry Reid (Democrat of Nevada), the Minority Whip in the Senate. "I respect those who have disagreed with the action of the Congress and with the action of the President, however, once the Nation moves forward under our constitutional process, where in a representative democracy the Congress votes and authorizes the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces to move ahead, we should support this action," said Senator Arlen Specter (Republican of Pennsylvania). "Prior to the announcement by President Bush on Monday that he had determined to begin a military action this week, many of us expressed our disagreement with the policy and action of the President," said Senator Jeff Bingaman (Democrat of New Mexico). "But at this point, now with the war having begun, our focus needs to be on prevailing in this conflict," said Bingaman, who in a recent speech to the Senate warned the United States could "reap the whirlwind" by war with Iraq. "I believe we are in a just cause," said Senator John Ensign (Republican of Nevada). He said the country should "stand up and support the men and women in uniform," adding "and then, when they come home, we should never, ever again allow what happened in this country when our troops came home from Vietnam." Ensign went on, "Whenever our troops come home from now on, they should be celebrated, held high as heroes, because we owe our very freedoms to the sacrifices they are willing to make." "Many Americans, including many of us in Congress, opposed this war," said Senator Ted Kennedy (Democrat of Massachusetts). "But today and throughout this conflict, we are united in support of the men and women of our Armed Forces," Kennedy said, "We pledge to do all we can to support them." "I do not agree with every word of this resolution," Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat of West Virginia) said, "I have strong reservations that the new doctrine of preemption does not meet the test of international law." Byrd added that he had "questions about our long-term strategy for the reconstruction of Iraq, the plans to democratize the Middle East, and the application of the pre-emptive doctrine that has led the United States to war in 2003." But, he continued, "I have no question about the ability of our military to deliver a crushing blow to whatever army might stand in their way in Iraq. "I have no question that our armed forces will carry out their mission with honor and resolve," Byrd added. "I have no question that our Nation has the obligation to finish the job and destroy whatever chemical, biological, and radiological weapons that Saddam Hussein possess," 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 |
|
|
|
