me, Jill and Barbara Lee together, we shall overcome!<g>
Anyway, here is the perspective of the only one Congress rep who voted against the resolution.
sfgate.com
Why I opposed the resolution to
authorize force
Barbara Lee
Sunday, September 23, 2001
ON SEPT. 11, terrorists attacked the United States
in an unprecedented and brutal manner, killing
thousands of innocent people, including the
passengers and crews of four aircraft.
Like everyone throughout our country, I am
repulsed and angered by these attacks and believe
all appropriate steps must be taken to bring the
perpetrators to justice.
We must prevent any future such attacks. That is
the highest obligation of our federal, state and local
governments. On this, we are united as a nation.
Any nation, group or individual that fails to
comprehend this or believes that we will tolerate
such illegal and uncivilized attacks is grossly
mistaken.
Last week, filled with grief and sorrow for those
killed and injured and with anger at those who had
done this, I confronted the solemn responsibility of
voting to authorize the nation to go to war. Some
believe this resolution was only symbolic, designed
to show national resolve. But I could not ignore that
it provided explicit authority, under the War Powers
Resolution and the Constitution, to go to war.
It was a blank check to the president to attack
anyone involved in the Sept.
11 events -- anywhere, in any country, without
regard to our nation's long- term foreign policy,
economic and national security interests, and
without time limit. In granting these overly broad
powers, the Congress failed its responsibility to
understand the dimensions of its declaration. I could
not support such a grant of war-making authority to
the president; I believe it would put more innocent
lives at risk.
The president has the constitutional authority to
protect the nation from further attack and he has
mobilized the armed forces to do just that. The
Congress should have waited for the facts to be
presented and then acted with fuller knowledge of
the consequences of our action.
I have heard from thousands of my constituents in
the wake of this vote. Many -- a majority -- have
counseled restraint and caution, demanding that we
ascertain the facts and ensure that violence does not
beget violence. They understand the boundless
consequences of proceeding hastily to war, and I
thank them for their support.
Others believe that I should have voted for the
resolution -- either for symbolic or geopolitical
reasons, or because they truly believe a military
option is unavoidable. However, I am not
convinced that voting for the resolution preserves
and protects U.S. interests. We must develop our
intelligence and bring those who did this to justice.
We must mobilize and maintain an international
coalition against terrorism. Finally, we have a
chance to demonstrate to the world that great
powers can choose to fight on the fronts of their
choosing, and that we can choose to avoid needless
military action when other avenues to redress our
rightful grievances and to protect our nation are
available to us.
We must respond, but the character of that
response will determine for us and for our children
the world that they will inherit. I do not dispute the
president's intent to rid the world of terrorism -- but
we have many means to reach that goal, and
measures that spawn further acts of terror or that do
not address the sources of hatred do not increase
our security.
Secretary of State Colin Powell himself eloquently
pointed out the many ways to get at the root of this
problem -- economic, diplomatic, legal and political,
as well as military. A rush to launch precipitous
military counterattacks runs too great a risk that
more innocent men, women, children will be killed. I
could not vote for a resolution that I believe could
lead to such an outcome.
Rep. Barbara Lee represents the 9th
Congressional District, which includes Oakland,
Berkeley and Alameda. |
