Re: No War on Iraq (fwd)

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

Here is an answer I just received from our Austin Congressman, Lloyd
Doggett - I thought it might interest you and you have his email if you
wish to show him some support.--CH

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

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 18:19:09 -0400
From: lloyd.doggett@mail.house.gov
To: chenry@mail.la.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: No War on Iraq






             September 4, 2002


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

Dear Clement:

Thank you for expressing your opposition to an invasion of Iraq.
Based on the information available to me at present, I strongly
agree.  As Congress resumed, each member was permitted only one
minute to express views on any issue.  My remarks regarding our
shared concern are attached.

I believe one simple litmus test for such decisions should be: "Will
it make our families more secure?"  From what we know today, I
believe the apparent Administration approach fails that test, and
that a unilateral attack to topple a despicable dictator would be
viewed by many as an attack on Islam with all of the associated
prolonged danger to the world.

Since June, I have been one of 50 members seeking adoption by
the Democratic Caucus of the attached resolution limiting military
action against Iraq without the prior approval of Congress.   Earlier
this summer I joined a few colleagues in a letter to the President
requesting that he get congressional authorization prior to any
military action in Iraq.

In addition, when the House considered the "Cost of War Against
Terrorism Authorization Act" in July, four of us rose to question it.
Although we were constrained by a procedure that tightly limited
the time for debate and denied all amendments, I did extract
statements in the legislative record that narrowly limit use of this
money to the events of September 11 -- not the expansion of the
conflict to Iraq or elsewhere.

As President Bush's own special envoy to the Mideast said so
bluntly and correctly, "We need to quit making enemies that we
don't need to make enemies out of.  It's pretty interesting that all
the generals see it the same way, and all the others who have never
fired a shot and are hot to go to war see it another way."

I welcome your continued counsel.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett
September 4, 2002

Mr. Speaker, overshadowing all of our hopes and dreams for our
families and for our country is the daily talk of war.  This
Administration's apparent intent to launch a "go it alone" invasion
of another country is unprecedented in American history; it is
unprecedented in ignoring the warnings of military experts,
unprecedented in rejecting the advice of our allies and, most
importantly, unprecedented in the dangers posed for the safety of
American families everywhere.

At one time "regime change" was the now abandoned goal of our
foreign policy toward an island 90 miles off our shores.  Immediate
success is even less certain for a regime on the other side of the
world through a means uniformly rejected at present by the
countries of the region.  Of course, Saddam Hussein is a menace,
as was Libya's Muammar Qaddafi, as was Josef Stalin.  But able
policymakers of both parties found ways to contain such threats
without starting what could become another world war.

Mr. President, unite our country and the world to eliminate
weapons of mass destruction; do not divide us by making war the
first instrument of your foreign policy.

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.

In addition, I would appreciate your thoughts on other issues that
may be considered in Congress.  If you have not already, please
take a moment to visit my website at www.house.gov/doggett/
where you can complete my survey on-line.  Please keep me
advised of any federal matters in which I may be of assistance.



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