The Sunday Gazette Mail

September 22, 2002, Sunday

SECTION: Editorial; Pg. P3C

Bush's gall is amazing

by Robert C. Byrd

BEFORE THE NATION is committed to war, before we send our sons and daughters to battle in faraway lands, there are critical questions that must be asked. To date, the answers from the administration have been less than satisfying.

After weeks of criticism from Congress and, indeed, 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. But instead of offering compelling evidence that the Iraqi regime had taken steps to advance its weapons program, the president offered the U.N. more of a warning than an appeal for support. Instead of using the forum of the U.N. General Assembly to offer evidence and proof of his claims, the president basically told the nations of the world that you are either with me, or against me. Do not question this stand, the president said. If the U.N. is unwilling to act, then "by heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand."

While Mr. Bush tried to play the role of an international prosecutor, his case was, at best, circumstantial.

In the days that have followed that address, administration officials have attempted to provide some answers to the looming questions. But this week, when asked by the House Armed Services Committee members what was new, what was compelling to force the hand of this nation against Saddam Hussein, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld offered nothing new. He pointed to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 as compelling reason. And he said, "The last thing we want is a smoking gun. A gun smokes after it has been fired. The goal must be to stop Saddam Hussein before he fires a weapon of mass destruction against our people."

My concern is that the United States, in forcing war in Iraq, will end up shooting itself in the foot unless proper care and deliberation proceed any action. We 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 mass destruction program. We must not act alone. We must have the support of the world.

Thursday, the administration sent to Congress a draft resolution to authorize the use of American military might against Iraq. In that resolution, the president requests approval for the "use all means he determines to be appropriate." Congress must not hand this administration - or any administration - a blank check for military action. What we need is solid evidence. What we need are answers:

s Does Saddam Hussein pose an imminent threat to the United States?

s Should the United States act alone?

s Should Congress grant the president authority to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iraq?

s What would be the repercussions in the Middle East?

s What would be the repercussions around the globe?

s How many civilians would die in Iraq?

s How many American forces would be involved?

s Will even greater numbers of National Guardsmen and reservists be called up to prepare for an invasion?

s Will troops be shifted from other missions to support a war against Iraq?

s How do we afford this war?

s Has the United States ruled out responding with nuclear weapons should Saddam Hussein use chemical or biological weapons against our soldiers?

s Does Saddam Hussein have the capability to unleash weapons of mass destruction within the United States?

s Does the United States have adequate military and intelligence resources to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq while at the same time mobilizing resources to prevent or defend against attack within our own shores?

s Are we focused too greatly on fighting suspected terrorism overseas while focusing too little on the threat of terrorism here at home?

These and many other questions need answers before American troops are committed to war.

On Thursday, the president sent to Congress a suggested text for a resolution to authorize war with Iraq. The problems with this proposed resolution are numerous, and when taken as a whole, this resolution could constitute the broadest possible grant of war powers to any president in the history of our republic. The resolution is a direct insult and an affront to the powers given to Congress on matters of war under the Constitution.

The first two pages of the draft resolution have 16 "whereas" clauses that would serve to explain the intent of Congress in passing the resolution for the use of force. These clauses, as conceived by the White House, include numerous distortions of fact.

For example, in the ninth whereas clause, it is asserted that "the United States has the inherent right, as acknowledged in the United Nations Charter, to use force in order to defense itself." As if that is a justification for pre-emptive war! Let me read the relevant section of the U.N. Charter: "Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

That does not seem to justify a pre-emptive attack.

In the 16 whereas clause, it is asserted that "the president has the authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States." That is the broadest reading of the commander-in-chief clause I think I have ever seen! 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.

Finally, the White House resolution would authorize the president "to use all means that he determines appropriate, including force ... to restore international peace and security in the region." That is not an authorization for war with just Iraq. That language would allow the president to march our troops into Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, the West Bank, and anywhere else that one could argue is part of the Middle East, or has any security interest in the Middle East.

I cannot believe the gall and the arrogance of the White House in requesting such a broad grant of war powers. This is the worst kind of election-year politics.

Byrd, West Virginia's senior U.S. senator, delivered this floor address Friday.