Precedent? I’ll Give You A Precedent

Discuss this on our boards!

Precedent? I’ll Give You A Precedent
by Linda A. Prussen-Razzano, Dallas Bureau Chief

October 9, 2002

"Candidly Yours"

Linda A. Prussen-Razzano During the House Hearings today on authorization of use of force against Iraq, the level of posturing extended far beyond humorous to sublimely grotesque.

Had enough to the nonsense? So have I.

Let’s get down to brass tacks, shall we?

First and foremost, as I have already shown, President Bush was not the one who changed our nuclear first-strike policy: President Clinton did. In November of 1997, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 60, which allowed the United States to "consider using nuclear weapons against attackers who hit American forces with chemical or biological weapons. " It was made to address the "worrisome possibility that nations such as Iraq might turn chemical or biological arsenals against U.S. troops." If one were to listen to the mainstream media and Democrat party, however, this little nugget of truth would not be shared.

Second, we do not need an official declaration of war to begin a military campaign with Iraq. Congress already authorized the use of force in our first entanglement with Iraq under President H.W. Bush; the conditions set forth under the cease-fire still exist. United Nations Resolution 678 and 687, both written under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, allow the "use of military action" to enforce them. These two resolutions allow Britain and the United States to enforce no-fly zones to protect Kuwait and surrounding countries. In these no-fly zones, our military men and women have come under repeated attacks by Iraqi ground forces using surface to air weapons. During the first few years of inspections, the United Nations recognized these attacks as provocation deserving a military response; however, once inspections began to break down, the United Nations no longer acknowledged the attacks, realizing it would give just cause to the United States for a military assault. Nevertheless, the attacks continue to this day. Whether the United Nations chooses to officially recognize them or not, we have endured enough provocation to warrant a military response.

Further, on March 2, 1998, the United Nations passed Resolution 1154, demanding Iraq compliance and warning that failure to comply would result in the "severest consequences for Iraq." May I direct your attention to Operation Desert Fox, the poorly named military campaign begun under President Clinton in December of 1998, against Iraq? What did President Clinton use to justify that fruitless engagement? Resolution 1154, of course.

At that time, there was no hue and cry from Democrats in Congress. They supported President Clinton throughout his ineffectual three days of bombing. The general sentiment was not doubt and hesitation, but action and righteousness. Why all the hand-wringing now? Who knows, but back in 1998, when Congress passed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" and President Clinton signed it, everyone saw the wisdom of removing Saddam as soon as possible. After listing 11 brutal grievances against Saddam Hussein, including the butchering of 180,000 people, Congress advised, "it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Isn’t that fascinating? When President Bush says the same thing, certain individuals who shall remain nameless suddenly begin expectorating in fury and gasping in horror.

Anthony Sivers, in his 1998 editorial in the Washington Times entitled "Just Cause on Iraq," offered this insightful commentary: "Just Cause: The first just cause is the anticipatory self-defense of the international community from the threat of use entailed in Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) (U.N. Security Council Res. 687). His use of poison gas in aggressive wars, torture and mass murder are sufficient evidence for probable cause assumption of malice aforethought on his part, given opportunity, with any WMD capabilities possessed. Inaction to forestall such opportunity would be morally irresponsible."

But if President Bush wants to really get nasty, he can remind the Democrats in Congress, those self-same Democrats who are screaming about "the process" now, how they fell into lock-step support when President Clinton, without an official declaration of war or the blessings of the United Nations, launched a full-scale military assault against Serbia. He committed troops without the consultation of congressional Republicans and before any military spending has been approved. Congress never gave Clinton any authorization for it, other than to timidly offer appropriations after our troops were on the ground; in fact, it violated Public Law 105-262 (HR4103, section 8106a).

So tell me again, Senator Daschle, Congressman Lee, why we saw fit to bomb the bejeesus out of a former ally, who’s internal wrangling resulted in approximately 1,500 deaths (on both sides!) over a 5 year period, and marked their leader as Hilter’s clone, but experience great trepidation over tackling a man who has killed 180,000 people, invaded neighboring countries, thwarted numerous United Nations resolutions and nuclear non-proliferation treaties, and harbored terrorists?

I may be just a blond, mini-van driving future soccer mom, but even I know you don’t have a decent enough answer to justify your position. You’re messing with the security of our country, for the sake of political posturing.

I just hope the voters in your state figure that out come election day. ***

Sources:

1 Associated Press, "Report outlines conditions for nuclear first strike," Diamond, John, December 8, 1997.
2 Ibid.
3 Congressional Research Service Issues Brief #92-117, "Iraq: Compliance, Sanctions, and U.S. Policy," Katzman, Kenneth, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division, Rev. September 6, 2002.
4 United Nations, Security Council Resolution 1154 on the Situation Between Iraq and Kuwait, March 2, 1998.
5 H.R. 4655, "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998"
6 The Washington Times, "Just Cause on Iraq," Sivers, Anthony, November 25, 1998.
7 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1999, Public Law 105-262.

Photo of Linda Prussen-Razzano courtesy of staff files