VTMBH Article: Body
The U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives passed a resolution to grant President Bush the authority to use Americas armed forces as he deems necessary and appropriate to defend national security.
In the House, six Republicans joined 126 Democrats in voting against the resolution. All of the Latino Democrats voted against the resolution, as did all but four members of the Congressional Black CaucusHarold Ford Jr., (D.-Tenn.), Sanford Bishop (D.-Ga.), William Jefferson (D.-La.) and Albert R. Wynn (d.-Md.)
During House debates on the resolution, Ford said the risks of inaction and delay far outweigh the risks of action. He argued that he most compelling case for military action is the nuclear threat that Iraq poses. Although Ford acknowledged the lack of concrete evidence suggesting an imminent nuclear threat, he said: But what we do have evidence of is Saddams continued desire to obtain a nuclear weapon. And we know that should he obtain the raw materials, which may be available to him any number of ways, he could build a nuclear bomb in less than a year.
Fors continued, Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a cruel, reckless and misguided dictator pose a clear and present danger to our security. I couldn't vote to authorize military action abroad if I did not believe that Saddam Hussein poses a growing threat to our security, one that will not recede just because we hope it goes away.
Meanwhile, dissenting Democrats provided their reasons for opposing the resolution, which sanctions what they call an unprovoked attack on Iraq: the lack of imminent danger to the nations interest, the economic impact on an already weak national economy, the diversion from the critical issues the nation currently faces and the strong possibility of more terrorist attacks in retaliation.
Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D.-Texas) argued, While the United States must maintain its sovereign right to act in self-defense, I strongly believe that we cannot act without the support of the international community in this situation. I am deeply troubled that acting alone, without exhausting diplomatic options, could seriously harm global support for our war on terrorism and distract our nation from addressing its economic problems. Furthermore, I am concerned the administration failed to share with Congress any plans to stabilize and democratize a post-conflict Iraq.
In addition, Rep. Charles Rangel (D.-N.Y.) argued, It just seems to me that we will never, never, never be in a position to chastise the governments of Pakistan and India, of North and South Korea, of Georgia and the [former] Soviet Unionthat we will never be able to tell them that they cannot take their subjective fears and strike against the other national without taking their complaint to the United Nationsbecause we are the ones that have said, that, yes we will go to the United Nations, but we are not bound by the United Nations.
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) added, I rise in opposition to this resolution authorizing the president to commence war at a time and place of his choosing. It not only would set dangerous precedents and risk unnecessary bloodshed. It already has generated a grand diversion of Americas political focus as elections approach, and worse, it would create a grand diversion of our already depleted resources, so desperately needed for pressing problems at home.
Conyers continued, Nor has any member of the Bush administration, Congress or the intelligence community shown evidence linking the al Qaeda attacks last year on New York City and the Pentagon with either Saddam Hussein or Iraqi terrorists.
The two senators from New York, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, were amongst the 77 Democrats who voted in support of the Iraq resolution. Clinton said it was a difficult vote to cast and probably the hardest decision shes ever had to make, although she says she cast the vote with conviction. Clinton, who was subjected to protest outside her office, says perhaps her decision was influenced by her eight years in the White House.
I want this president, or any future president, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. I want to ensure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and our support for the presidents efforts to wage Americas war against terrorists and mass destruction.
In the House, six Republicans joined 126 Democrats in voting against the resolution. All of the Latino Democrats voted against the resolution, as did all but four members of the Congressional Black CaucusHarold Ford Jr., (D.-Tenn.), Sanford Bishop (D.-Ga.), William Jefferson (D.-La.) and Albert R. Wynn (d.-Md.)
During House debates on the resolution, Ford said the risks of inaction and delay far outweigh the risks of action. He argued that he most compelling case for military action is the nuclear threat that Iraq poses. Although Ford acknowledged the lack of concrete evidence suggesting an imminent nuclear threat, he said: But what we do have evidence of is Saddams continued desire to obtain a nuclear weapon. And we know that should he obtain the raw materials, which may be available to him any number of ways, he could build a nuclear bomb in less than a year.
Fors continued, Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a cruel, reckless and misguided dictator pose a clear and present danger to our security. I couldn't vote to authorize military action abroad if I did not believe that Saddam Hussein poses a growing threat to our security, one that will not recede just because we hope it goes away.
Meanwhile, dissenting Democrats provided their reasons for opposing the resolution, which sanctions what they call an unprovoked attack on Iraq: the lack of imminent danger to the nations interest, the economic impact on an already weak national economy, the diversion from the critical issues the nation currently faces and the strong possibility of more terrorist attacks in retaliation.
Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D.-Texas) argued, While the United States must maintain its sovereign right to act in self-defense, I strongly believe that we cannot act without the support of the international community in this situation. I am deeply troubled that acting alone, without exhausting diplomatic options, could seriously harm global support for our war on terrorism and distract our nation from addressing its economic problems. Furthermore, I am concerned the administration failed to share with Congress any plans to stabilize and democratize a post-conflict Iraq.
In addition, Rep. Charles Rangel (D.-N.Y.) argued, It just seems to me that we will never, never, never be in a position to chastise the governments of Pakistan and India, of North and South Korea, of Georgia and the [former] Soviet Unionthat we will never be able to tell them that they cannot take their subjective fears and strike against the other national without taking their complaint to the United Nationsbecause we are the ones that have said, that, yes we will go to the United Nations, but we are not bound by the United Nations.
Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) added, I rise in opposition to this resolution authorizing the president to commence war at a time and place of his choosing. It not only would set dangerous precedents and risk unnecessary bloodshed. It already has generated a grand diversion of Americas political focus as elections approach, and worse, it would create a grand diversion of our already depleted resources, so desperately needed for pressing problems at home.
Conyers continued, Nor has any member of the Bush administration, Congress or the intelligence community shown evidence linking the al Qaeda attacks last year on New York City and the Pentagon with either Saddam Hussein or Iraqi terrorists.
The two senators from New York, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, were amongst the 77 Democrats who voted in support of the Iraq resolution. Clinton said it was a difficult vote to cast and probably the hardest decision shes ever had to make, although she says she cast the vote with conviction. Clinton, who was subjected to protest outside her office, says perhaps her decision was influenced by her eight years in the White House.
I want this president, or any future president, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. I want to ensure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and our support for the presidents efforts to wage Americas war against terrorists and mass destruction.