Iraq vote necessary
An editorial
The Capital Times
August 27, 2002
madison.com
White House lawyers apparently told President Bush earlier this month that he, in fact, does not need congressional approval to attack Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
That's the word from two senior administration officials who said that White House counsel Al Gonzales told Bush that the Constitution gives the president authority to wage war without explicit authority from Congress. That's no doubt because the Constitution designates the president as commander-in-chief.
Gonzales also told the president he had authority to act under the 1991 Persian Gulf resolution that approved the use of military force against Iraq. It allowed the use of force to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions, including demands that Iraq get rid of weapons of mass destruction and allow U.N. inspectors into the country - which it has not done. But when Iraq formalized a cease-fire with a notification to the U.N. Security Council, that authority technically ended. And if neither of those scenarios flies, administration officials are also pushing the case that the Sept. 14 resolution endorsing a military response to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon fills the bill. That assumes there is a link between Iraq and al-Qaida, which is disputed and as yet unproven.
While all three options offer some justification for Bush being the sole decision-maker, they miss the real issue here. As Harold Hongju Koh, a professor of international law at Yale Law School, noted, it's shortsighted for the administration to try to avoid a full congressional debate about such an expensive and perilous operation.
"The constitutional structure tries to make war hard to get into, so the president has to show leadership and make his case to the elected representatives," said Koh, who was an assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration. He pointed out that the constitutional argument may permit the administration "to get us into the war, but it won't give them the political support at home and abroad to sustain that effort."
There are already questions being raised at home - many by high-ranking Republicans. But the criticism at home is mild compared to what's coming from abroad.
Gerald Kaufman, highly respected former foreign affairs spokesman of the ruling Labor Party in Britain - this nation's closest ally - minced no works last week when he verbally skewered our nation's president and his advisers, suggesting President Bush and his team have no concept of the dangers that an invasion of Iraq poses, not only to the stability of the Middle East but also the world economy. We quote:
"Bush, himself the most intellectually backward American president of my political lifetime, is surrounded by advisers whose bellicosity is exceeded only by their political, military and diplomatic illiteracy."
In the face of such heated criticism, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer keeps trying to reassure citizens and politicians that Bush is listening to many views but has not yet decided how to proceed against Iraq.
"The president welcomes thoughtful opinions. He views this as part of the healthy national debate on the threat posed to peace by Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction," Fleischer said Sunday. "He always welcomes any support for decisions he has not yet made."
When Fleischer makes statements like those, it's no wonder the Brits are going ballistic. We should be, too.
So President Bush welcomes "any support." He does not yet have ours or that of any thoughtful citizen. He will not get that support unless he asks for it and is able to make his case.
Bush needs more than a lawyer giving him the OK to lead this nation into war with Iraq. He needs the OK of American citizens via their elected representatives in Congress. |
