Below: text of the Bush resolution
Last night at a meeting at St. Pauls United Church of Christ I sat there thinking, am I being a knee jerk isolationist? We were discussing how to respond to Bush's request to Congress for carte blanche authority to do what he wanted militarily in the Mid-East with Iraq and possibly other countries.
My first response on any conflict is to avoid violence. I have spent much of my life reading, interviewing former participants of America's wars about details, the rationales and the results of their actions.
My conversations with my uncle a veteran of WWI, another in WWII and a late friend who volunteered in the Spanish Civil War seemed to reveal there was good reason to fight a war that had no other possible option. Hitler, Kaiser Bill, and fascism were wars of aggression that enslaved millions and seemingly threatened America's interests.
By the time Korea came along, the vestiges of what was right for America had become blurred. Vietnam erased any sense of right and wrong in terms of warfare. The lies, such as the manufactured Gulf of Tonkin incident only set the stage for thousands more to die a needless death in the pursuit of muddled American foreign policy goals. I had friends and relatives die as part of the needless contingent. I had heard the presidents, defense secretaries, secretary of states of that era do what the Rumsfeld, Powell, and Cheney of this era are doing - pitching a product that is flawed.
I thought, the US has a role - no an obligation as the world's strongest power to protect the weakest. Just today we sent 170 US troops to the Ivory Coast to protect 160 US kids in the midst of their civil war. This is a good use of America's armed forces.
I was given the job of getting the exact wording of Bush's war resolution he sent to Congress on September 19th. It is attached. I read the resolution and saw his using the protection of the Kurds as a rationale. I thought to myself, why so late and is this placating liberals like me to gain his own desire to promote a "Texas style justice." Unhappily I concluded it was. I saw no evidence that Bush gave a rat's ass about the Kurds, long oppressed by Saddam Hussein and his predecessors in Baghdad.
I realize, do not like GBush. I don't even like to refer to him as president, as he stole the election. I don't respect a thief of any stripe. I also know he's here for 28 more months - perhaps four more years after that. That is the price one pays for an orderly democracy.
Bush brought him his own view of the world that has been dubbed, "Texas style justice." This term emulates from his days of playing Texas governor where he talked tough, executed 152 people, including the youth and mentally retarded and always gave the impression he was a tough gunslinger sheriff. This earned him the title of the most-killing Governor, in the history of the United States of America.
Living in Illinois there was separation from this 18th Century thinking. Being president unfortunately makes him no longer isolated as a revisionist governor.
I also thought back to the war his father fought in the early 90s. There we invaded Iraq after soldiers passed through the burning oil fields of Kuwait and dodged missiles being thrown at Israel - shades of WWII. I also remembered his father's failure to march to Baghdad and oust Saddam Hussein - now the self appointed job of his namesake son.
None of that is present today. The US sought the return of UN arms inspectors to Iraq and that has been achieved. Bush has made charges that Iraq has and is developing biological, chemical and nuclear weaponry. He bases his information on "secret" reports, which he refuses to share with people of this country. And yesterday he had his minion English PM Tony Blair disclose more about some of these charges.
Bush has developed a whole milieu of secrecy, which erodes any credibility he might have with Americans. It is particularly irksome to have Bush and his minions saying it's none of your business to press and other inquiries. Whatever ability Bush had to deliver a speech, utter a credible statement is undermined by his over-dependence on secrecy in a democratic society.
I concluded after this process that my original thinking was correct - a war in Iraq by Bush would be wrong.
I look forward to Rev. Tom Henry's sermon at 11 AM this Sunday. I'm sure he'll be far more articulate than me. Please feel free to attend. The church is at Orchard and Fullerton.
- Doug Dobmeyer
Note: You are free to circulate and reprint this column, as you want. Please provide attribution to the author.
Text of a proposed Congressional resolution submitted by Pres. Bush. on Sept. 19, 2002, authorizing military action against Iraq.
WHEREAS Congress in 1998 concluded that Iraq was then in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations and thereby threatened the vital interests of the United States and international peace and security, stated the reasons for that conclusion, and urged the president to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations (Public Law 105-235);
WHEREAS Iraq remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations, thereby continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States and international peace and security;
WHEREAS Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population, including Kurdish peoples, thereby threatening international peace and security in the region by refusing to release, repatriate or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
WHEREAS the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
WHEREAS the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward and willingness to attack the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and coalition armed forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
WHEREAS members of Al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens and interests, including the attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
WHEREAS Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
WHEREAS the attacks on the United States of Sept. 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to international terrorist organizations;
WHEREAS the United States has the inherent right, as acknowledged in the United Nations Charter, to use force in order to defend itself;
WHEREAS Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the high risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its armed forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify the use of force by the United States in order to defend itself;
WHEREAS Iraq is in material breach of its disarmament and other obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, to cease repression of its civilian population that threatens international peace and security under United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and to cease threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq under United Nations Security Council Resolution 949, and the United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes use of all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with these "subsequent relevant resolutions";
WHEREAS Congress in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the president to use the armed forces of the United States to achieve full implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674 and 677, pursuant to Security Council Resolutions 678;
WHEREAS Congress, in Section 1095 of Public Law 102-190, has stated that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of the Security Council resolutions 687 as being consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Resolution 688";
WHEREAS Congress in the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) has expressed its sense that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
WHEREAS the president has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
WHEREAS the president has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States;
Now therefore, be it
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Further Resolution on Iraq."
SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
The president is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above, defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region.