|
September 9, 2002
Throughout U.S. history in wartime the President has assumed extraordinary
powers. The commander-in-chief, it is argued, must be able to act quickly
and decisively to mobilize the nation against the enemy menacing us from
without—and within. History has also taught us that while at times such
powers seemed justified, human costs can be great, liberties can be
threatened. For a chief executive to seek to make war—in this case an
unprovoked war—and ask for the powers to do so, the threat must be
overwhelming.
Since an array of prominent U.S. leaders across party lines and a majority
of former allies from both democratic and autocratic regimes have voiced
strong opposition to a war against Iraq, and even predict great dangers if
it were undertaken, why do Cheney & Co. keep up the war cry?
Consider the “P” word: Power. First there was Florida and the
orchestrated—and successful—effort to deliver the presidency to the
candidate who lost by more than half million of the popular vote. Then
there was the “war” on terror, the President gaining from the Congress
sweeping powers to take military action in Afghanistan, and anywhere else
he deemed harboring terrorists, and a Patriot Act to underwrite Mr.
Ashcroft’s attempts to suspend the liberties of citizens, non-citizens,
and military alike. Next we have President Bush insisting on full powers
to “manage” the proposed department of Homeland Security. And now
there are the escalating drumbeats for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.
Only as the hue and cry mounted at home and abroad did the President agree
to “consult” with the Congress about his war plans [in my copy of the
Constitution it says only the Congress can declare war]. Meanwhile the
troop buildup and military deployment go forward and the Pentagon budget
skyrockets.
Where should Congress be in all this? Will we wake up ten years from now
as we did a decade after the Gulf of Tonkin resolution – to contemplate
the waste and carnage and our ignominious defeat?
The terms of the “debate” must be changed. Cheney & Co. have
effectively framed the question as pro or con: Why go to war with Iraq?
Instead, Congress should be asking: Where did this idea of war with Iraq
come from? How is it connected to the “war” on terror? Why does Saddam
Hussein become a menace who must be eliminated now, and not before 9/11?
Is he suddenly a terrorist now that the Afghanistan operation is winding
down, indeed has almost dead-ended? What purpose does war-talk serve at
this particular point in time?
I call on the elected members of Congress to stop and think—and think
carefully—before they abdicate the legislature’s Constitutional powers
to make war, and to finance that war. There will be no turning back if
Congress cedes Cheney, Bush & Co. powers to make a war of their
choosing. The overwhelming threat is not Saddam Hussein. It is this
administration’s grab for power.
|
|