Re: Help prevent a war on Iraq (fwd)

["Clement M. Henry" <chenry@mail.la.utexas.edu>]

Here is a constructive reply to a note I sent our local congressman, Lloyd
Doggett, recently.  We should all at UT be proud of his efforts to prevent
a national catastrophe.  Note General Wesley Clark's comments below.

*****************************
Clement M. Henry
Professor of Government
University of Texas at Austin
Austin TX 78712
tel 471-5121, fax 471-1061

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 15:39:36 -0400
From: lloyd.doggett@mail.house.gov
To: chenry@mail.la.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: Help prevent a war on Iraq






              August 30, 2002


Clement M. Henry
1509 West Lake Drive
Austin, Texas  78746-3719

Dear Clement:

Thank you for your communication regarding Iraq.  I appreciate
your input on this important issue and certainly understand your
concern about expanding military action into Iraq.

Since June, I have sought adoption by the Democratic Caucus of
the attached resolution limiting military action against Iraq without
the prior approval of Congress.  Only 50 House members have
joined this effort to date.  In addition, I have joined many of these
same members in sending a letter to the President requesting that
he get congressional authorization prior to any military action in
Iraq.

On a related issue, the House recently considered the Cost of War
Against Terrorism Authorization Act.  Four of us rose to question
it but were constrained by a procedure that tightly limited the time
for debate and denied all amendments.  In addition to my brief
attached remarks during the truncated floor debate, I did extract
statements in the legislative record that narrowly limit use of this
money to the events of September 11 and not the expansion of the
conflict to Iraq or other countries.

Perhaps you have also heard the comments by former NATO
Supreme Allied Commander General Wesley Clark, the
coordinator of the Kosovo campaign, during an interview on
CNN's "Late Edition":

          It's a very strange scenario that we're caught up in . .
     . . We don't yet, or at least we haven't explained  if
     we have it, the legal basis to invade another nation.
     We haven't handled the diplomatic piece.  We don't
     have an exit strategy.  And we are giving our
     opponent full advanced  notice of our intent to do
     him permanent injury . . . . So it is asymmetric
     warfare at its worst right now.


Our country deserves more than a post-mortem on this vital issue
that could impact the lives of so many.  I welcome your continued
counsel.




Rep. Lloyd Doggett
Cost of War Against Terrorism Authorization Act
July 23, 2002

Mr. Speaker, we approach the midnight hour here in Washington,
our Nation's Capital.  This bill was first noticed for consideration
by the House less than three hours ago.  One hour ago copies of the
bill were not available for Members to review, and, at this moment,
there are fewer Members present here tonight than there are
members of the National Security Committee.

Any bill that authorizes the expenditure of $10 billion of taxpayer
money for any purpose, no matter how worthy or important to the
Nation, deserves better consideration than this.  It is outrageous to
be taking up such a matter under these conditions.

Seldom has a day in recent weeks gone by without some
Administration official or commentator suggesting that the
salvation for our Nation's security lies in expanded use of nuclear
weapons, or that our Nation should alter its traditions by launching
a surprise attack, or just the simple, but dangerous cry, "On to
Baghdad."

Each of these alternatives would do more to undermine the security
of American families than to ensure that security.  We need a full
and complete public debate about such a major change in our
national defense policy.  No Administration official has been able
to connect the regime in Iraq, one that all of us despise, to the
terrorism of September 11.  If they could, they surely would have
done so by now.

I am pleased that no one here tonight speaking in support of this
bill claims that it is anything more than what I would term an
attempt to put some limits, however modest they may be, on what
otherwise would have been a $10 billion slush fund that the
Administration requested.  If the Administration wishes to make
the case that it should invade Iraq, or any other country, for that
matter, not connected directly to the events of September 11, it
must come to this Congress and come to the citizens of our country
and make its case, not at midnight, but in the full light of day.


Proposed House Democratic Resolution on Iraq

          Whereas the authorization to use force passed by the
     House on September 14, 2001 only authorized the
     use of force against those determined to be
     responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001.

          Whereas no credible link has been established
     between the attacks of September 11, 2001 and Iraq.

          Whereas it is not the policy of the United States to
     overthrow the governments of foreign nations short
     of a declaration of war.

          Whereas under the Constitution. Article I, Section
     8. Congress has sole authority to declare war and to
     authorize use of force.

          Whereas Congress has neither been asked to pass
     nor has it passed a declaration of war against Iraq.

          Therefore be it resolved that the House Democratic
     Caucus opposes a U.S. invasion of Iraq without new
     Congressional authorization and considers such an
     invasion to be an unlawful act.


Lloyd Doggett
328 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-4865, (512) 916-5921
www.house.gov/doggett