TOMORROW it will be exactly ten years since the massive Iraq war protests of 15 February 2003. More than one million people marched in London that day as part of an international series of protests that embraced between six to ten million people and incorporated more than 60 countries and 800 cities.
The demonstrations even reached Antarctica, where dozens of scientists on the American McMurdo Station held an anti-war rally on the ice. It was the largest anti-war mobilisation in history.
What was striking about these protests was not just their scale and their international dimensions, but the range of backgrounds, ideologies, religions and political persuasions of those who took part in them.....
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 6
GWB, DC and DR were these "outstanding" members.
I was posting, on Raging Bull, several anti-war, economic comments, so I do remember the how these comments were received and denigrated: "our need for energy will prevail"!
And, nowadays, thanks to the shale gas, America is becoming an energy exporter again but this new way of extracting (shale gas), should be improved in a short while before Amarica be facing the very expensive consequences as the actual way, the cheaper maybe, is quite polluting and attacks the groundwater.
Worse we are already short of drinkable water and I don't believe that we should, for energy reasons, feed for it Nestlé as well: quite enough when feeding oil and gas industries.
Starving from drinkable water is, as well, rather expensive and the actual way of extracting shale gas avoids taking into consideration the cost of pollution. This why shale gas is being sold UNDER its real cost. Time will come when people should pay for extracting and cleaning the shale gas at its cost PLUS the cost of the incurrred pollution we, presently, do not pay back.
Then the cost of a gallon will exceed 8 to 9 actual Dollars.
BEWARE!
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Titus Livius, one of the greatest of Roman historians, said:
All things will be clear and distinct to the man who does not hurry; haste is blind and improvident.
‘‘Blind and improvident’’—‘‘Blind and improvident.’’
Congress would be wise to heed those words today, for as sure as the Sun rises in the East, this country is embarking on a course of action with regard to Iraq that is both blind and improvident. We are rushing into war without fully discussing why, without thoroughly considering the consequences, or without making any attempt to explore what steps we might take to avert the conflict.
The newly bellicose mood that permeates this White House is unfortunate—unfortunate—all the more so because it is clearly motivated by campaign politics. Republicans are already running attack ads against Democrats on Iraq. Democrats favor fast approval of a resolution so they can change the subject to domestic economic problems.
Before risking the lives—I say to you, the people out there who are watching through those electronic lenses—before risking the lives of your sons and daughters, American fighting men and women, all Members of Congress—Democrats and Republicans alike—must overcome the siren song of political polls and focus strictly on the merits and not the politics of this most grave, this most serious undertaking— this most grave, this most serious issue that is before us.
The resolution—S.J. Res. 46—which will be before this Senate is not only a product of haste, it is also a product of Presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking—breathtaking—in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense. It reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the executive branch. This Constitution, which I hold in my hand, is amended without going through the constitutional process of amending this Constitution.
S.J. Res. 46 would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States—a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States.
This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President’s authority under the Constitution of the United States, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head.
Representative Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to William H. Herndon, stated: Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose—and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ‘‘I see no probability of the British invading us’’ but he will say to you ‘‘be silent; I see it, if you don’t.’’
The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.
If he could speak to us today, what would Lincoln say of the Bush doctrine concerning preemptive strikes?
In a September 18 report, the Congressional Research Service had this to say about the preemptive use of military force:
The historical record indicates that the United States has never, to date, engaged in a ‘‘preemptive’’ military attack against another nation. Nor has the United States ever attacked another nation militarily prior to its first having been attacked or prior to U.S. citizens or interests first having been attacked, with the singular exception of the Spanish-American War. The Spanish-American War is unique in that the principal goal of the United States military action was to compel Spain to grant Cuba its political independence.
The Congressional Research Service also noted the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962:
. . . represents a threat situation which some may argue had elements more parallel to those presented by Iraq today—but it was resolved without a ‘‘preemptive’’ military attack by the United States.
Article I, section 8, of the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war and to call forth the militia ‘‘to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.’’ Nowhere—nowhere—in this Constitution, which I hold in my hand—nowhere in the Constitution is it written the President has the authority to call forth the militia to preempt a perceived threat. And yet the resolution which will be before the Senate avers that the President ‘‘has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force’’ following the September 11 terrorist attack.
What a cynical twisting of words. What a cynical twisting of words. The reality is Congress, exercising the authority granted to it under the Constitution, granted the President specific and limited authority to use force against the perpetrators of the September 11 attack. Nowhere—nowhere— was there an implied recognition of inherent authority under the Constitution to ‘‘deter and prevent’’ future acts of terrorism. It is not in there. It is not in that Constitution. There is no inference of it. There is no implication of it for that purpose.
Think, for a moment, of the precedent that this resolution will set, not just for this President—hear me now, you on the other side of the aisle—not just for this President but for future Presidents. From this day forward, American Presidents will be able to invoke Senate Joint Resolution 45 as justification for launching preemptive military strikes against any sovereign nations they perceive to be a threat.
You better pay attention. You are not always going to have a President of your party in the White House. How will you feel about it then?
Other nations will be able to hold up the United States—hold up the USA—as the model to justify their military adventures. Do you not think, Mr. President, that India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, Russia and Georgia, are closely watching the outcome of this debate? Do you not think future adversaries will look to this moment to rationalize the use of military force to achieve who knows what ends?
Perhaps a case can be made Iraq poses such a clear and immediate danger to the United States that preemptive military action is the only way to deal with that threat. To be sure, weapons of mass destruction are a 20th century and 21st century horror the Framers of the Constitution had no way of foreseeing. But they did foresee the frailty of human nature. And they saw the inherent danger of concentrating too much power in one individual. They saw that. That is why the Framers bestowed on Congress—not the President—the power to declare war.
As James Madison wrote, in 1793:
In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture of heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man. . . .
That was James Madison: ‘‘the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man.’’
Mr. President, Congress has a responsibility to exercise with extreme care the power to declare war. A war against Iraq will affect thousands—if not tens of thousands, and even hundreds of thousands—of lives and perhaps alter the course of history. It will surely affect the balance of power in the Middle East. It is not a decision to be taken in haste, as we are being pushed today, as we are being stampeded today to act in haste. Put it behind us, they say, before the election.
It will surely affect the balance of power in the Middle East. It is not a decision to be taken in haste under the glare of election-year politics and the pressure of artificial deadlines. And yet any observer can see that is exactly, that is precisely what the Senate is proposing to do—the Senate and the House.
What a shame. Fie upon the Congress. Fie upon some of the so-called leaders of the Congress for falling into this pit.
The Senate is rushing to vote on whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. We don’t have time to ask why. We don’t have time to get the answers to that question: Why? Why is war being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort?
Why is Congress being pressured to act now, as of today, I believe 33 days before a general election, when a third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives are in the final, highly politicized weeks of election campaigns? Why?
As recently as Tuesday, October 1— this past Tuesday—the President said he had not yet made up his mind. As late as this past Tuesday, he had not yet made up his mind about whether to go to war with Iraq. And yet Congress is being exhorted, is being importuned, is being adjured to give the President open-ended—open-ended—authority now—give it to him now—to exercise whenever he pleases in the event that he decides to invade Iraq.
Where are we? Where are our senses? Why is Congress elbowing past the President to authorize a military campaign that the President may or may not even decide to pursue? Aren’t we getting a little ahead of ourselves?
The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.
It is now October in this year of Our Lord 2002. Four years have gone by in which neither this administration nor the previous one felt compelled to invade Iraq to protect against the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction, until today, until now, until 33 days before election day. Now we are being told that we must act immediately. We must put this issue behind us. We must put this question behind us. We must act immediately, we are told, before adjournment and before the elections.
Why the rush? Is it our precious blood which will spew forth from our feeble veins? No. Those of you who have children, those of you who have grandchildren, those of you who have great-grandchildren should be thinking: It is the precious blood of the men and women who wear the uniform of these United States; that blood may flow in the streets of Iraq.
Yes, we had September 11. But we must not make the mistake of looking at the resolution before us as just another offshoot of the war on terror.
We know who is behind the September 11 attacks on the United States. We know it was Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network. We have dealt with al-Qaida and with the Taliban government that sheltered it. We have routed them from Afghanistan. We are continuing to pursue them in hiding. So where does Iraq enter into the equation? Where?
No one in the administration has been able to produce any solid evidence linking Iraq to the September 11 attack. Iraq had biological and chemical weapons long before September 11. We knew it then. We helped to give Iraq the building blocks for biological weapons. We know it now.
Iraq has been an enemy of the United States for more than a decade. If Saddam Hussein is such an imminent threat to the United States, why hasn’t he attacked us already? The fact that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States does not de facto mean that Saddam Hussein is now in a lock-and-load position and is readying an attack on these United States. Slow down. Think. Ask questions. Debate.
In truth, there is nothing in the deluge of administration rhetoric over Iraq that is of such moment that it would preclude the Senate from setting its own timetable and taking the time for a thorough and informed discussion of this crucial issue. What is the matter with us? We are the elected representatives. We are the most immediate elected representatives of the American people across this land. What is wrong with our taking the time to ask questions?
The American people want questions asked. It is not unpatriotic to ask questions. Why shouldn’t we ask questions? Why do we have to be rushed into voting on S.J. Res. 46? We should have an informed discussion of this crucial issue.
The President is using the Oval Office as a bully pulpit to sound the call to arms, but it is from Capitol Hill that such orders must flow. Read the Constitution of the United States. The orders must flow from Capitol Hill, not from the Oval Office.
The people, through their elected representatives in Congress, must make that decision. Why don’t we have time? Why don’t we take time? We make a huge mistake in deciding this issue in an effort to ‘‘get it behind us.’’ We are not going to get this issue behind us. It is not going to be put behind us.
It is here that debate must take place and where the full spectrum of the public’s desires, concerns, and misgivings must be heard. If Senators will have the backbone to speak out, to ask questions, to demand the answers to questions, the American people are waiting. They are listening. They want answers to their questions.
I hear no clamor to go to war from my people. I hear only the telephones incessantly ringing, saying: Keep asking questions. We want to know why. Stand up for us, Senator.
It is here that debate must take place. We should not allow ourselves to be pushed into one course or another in the face of a full-court publicity press from the White House. We have, rather, a duty to the Nation and to the sons and daughters of this Nation to carefully examine all possible courses of action and to consider the long-term consequences of any decision to act.
As to the separation of powers, Justice Louis Brandeis observed:
The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power.
No one supports Saddam Hussein. If he were to disappear tomorrow, no one would shed a tear around the world, other than possibly tears of thanksgiving. I would not. My handkerchief would remain dry. But the principle of one government deciding to eliminate another government, using force to do so, and taking that action in spite of world disapproval is a very disquieting thing.
Where does it end? What nation will be next? I am concerned that it has the effect of destabilizing the world community of nations. I am concerned that it fosters a climate of suspicion and mistrust in U.S. relations with other nations. The United States is not a rogue nation given to unilateral action in the face of worldwide opprobrium.
We are about to change the face of the United States, a nation which believes in liberty, justice, and human rights. What are we about to change? What is it going to be? What is the new image of the United States going to be? That of a bully, ready to draw both guns and start shooting immediately? This is preemptive action, isn’t it?
I am concerned about the consequences of a United States invasion of Iraq. It is difficult to imagine that Saddam Hussein, who has been ruthless in gaining power, ruthless in staying in power, would give up without a fight. He is a man who has not shirked from using chemical weapons against his own people. I fear he would use everything in his arsenal against an invasion force, or against an occupation force, up to and including whatever chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons he might still have.
Iraq is not Afghanistan, impoverished by decades of war, internal strife, tribal conflict, and stifling religious oppression. Though its military forces are much diminished—and ours are somewhat diminished—Iraq has a strong central command and much greater governmental control over its forces and its people. It is a large country that has spent years on a wartime footing, and it still has some wealth.
Nor do I think the Iraqi people would necessarily rise up against Saddam Hussein in the event of a United States invasion, even if there is an undercurrent of support for his overthrow. The Iraqi people have spent decades living in fear of Saddam Hussein and his network of informers and security forces. There has been no positive showing, that I know of, in the form of riots or large and active internal opposition groups, that popular sentiment in Iraq supports a governmental overthrow or the installation of a democratic or republican form of government. There is no tradition of democracy in Iraq’s long history. There is, however, a natural instinct to favor the known over the unknown, and in this instance the United States is an unknown factor.
The President and his Cabinet have suggested that this would be a war of relatively short duration. If that is true—which I doubt—why would the Iraqi populace rush to welcome the United States forces? In a few weeks, they might have to answer to the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s security forces. A prudent Iraqi would just put his or her head under the bed covers and not come out until the future became clear. Who knows, we might be lucky. We have been pretty lucky thus far in some of our adventures. We might be. But we might not be lucky. A United States invasion of Iraq that proved successful, and that resulted in the overthrow of the government, would not be a simple effort. The aftermath of that effort would require a long-term occupation.
The President has said he would overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a new government that would recognize all interest groups in Iraq. This would presumably include the Kurds to the north and the Shiite Muslims to the south because the entire military and security apparatus of Iraq would have to be replaced. The United States would have to provide interim security throughout the countryside.
This kind of nation building cannot be accomplished with the wave of a wand by some fairy godmother—even one with the full might and power of the world’s last remaining superpower behind her.
To follow through on the proposal outlined by the President would require the commitment of a large number of U.S. forces—forces that cannot be used for other missions, such as homeland defense—for an extended period of time. It will take time to confirm that Iraq’s programs to develop weapons of mass destruction are well and truly destroyed. It will take time to root out all of the elements of Saddam Hussein’s government, military and security forces, and to build a new government and security elements. It will take time to establish a new and legitimate government and to conduct free and fair elections. It will cost billions of dollars—your dollars, the taxpayers of America—to do this as well. And the forces to carry out this mission and pay for this mission will come from the United States. There can be little question of that.
If the rest of the world doesn’t want to come with us at the outset, it seems highly unlikely that they would line up for the follow-through, even though their own security might be improved by the elimination of a rogue nation’s weapons of destruction.
So if the Congress authorizes such a mission, we must be prepared for what will follow. The Congressional Budget Office has already made some estimations regarding the cost of a possible war with Iraq. In a September 30 report, CBO estimates that the incremental costs—the costs that would be incurred above those budgeted for routine operations—would be between $9 billion and $13 billion a month, depending on the actual force size deployed. Prosecuting a war would cost between $6 billion and $9 billion a month. Since the length of the war cannot be predicted, CBO could give no total battle estimate. After hostilities end, the cost to return U.S. forces to their home bases would range between $5 billion and $7 billion, according to the CBO. And the incremental costs of an occupation following combat operations varies from $1 billion to $4 billion a month. This estimate does not include any cost of rebuilding or humanitarian assistance.
That is a steep price to pay in dollars. But dollars are only a part of the equation. There are many formulas to calculate costs in the form of dollars, but it is much more difficult to calculate costs in the form of human lives—in the form of deaths on the battlefield and death from the wounds and diseases that flow from the den of battle.
Iraq may be a weaker nation militarily than it was during the Persian Gulf war, but its leader is no less determined and its weapons are no less lethal. During the Persian Gulf war, the United States was able to convince Saddam Hussein that the use of weapons of mass destruction would result in his being toppled from power. This time around, the object of an invasion of Iraq is to topple Saddam Hussein, so he has no reason to exercise restraint.
Now, we are being told by the White House, let him be assassinated: The cost of one bullet would be much less than the cost of a war. Now this Nation is embarking, isn’t it, on a doctrine of assassination of other leaders of the world? Is the ban on assassinations being lifted? What do we hear from the
White House? Are we going to revert to the age of the Neanderthals, the cavemen?
The questions surrounding the wisdom of declaring war on Iraq are many, and they are serious. The answers are too few and too glib. This is no way to embark on war. The Senate must address these questions before acting on this kind of sweeping use-of-force resolution. We do not need more rhetoric from the White House War Room. We do not need more campaign slogans or fundraising letters. We, the American people need information and informed debate, because it is their sons, it is their daughters, it is their blood, it is their treasure, it is their children, men and women who are killed in the heat of battle.
Before rushing to war, we should focus on those things that pose the most direct threat to us—those facilities and those weapons that form the body of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program. The United Nations is the proper forum to deal with the inspection of these facilities and the destruction of any weapons discovered.
If United Nations inspectors can enter the country, inspect those facilities, and mark for destruction the ones that truly belong to a weapons program, then Iraq can be declawed without unnecessary risk or loss of life. That would be the best answer for Iraq. That would be the best answer for the United States. That would be the best answer for the world. But if Iraq again chooses to interfere with such an ongoing and admittedly intrusive inspection regime, then, and only then, should the United States, with the support of the world, take stronger measures.
This is what Congress did in 1991 before the Persian Gulf war. The United States at that time gave the United Nations the lead in demanding that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait. The U.S. took the time to build a coalition of partners. When Iraq failed to heed the U.N., then and only then did Congress authorize the use of force. That is the order in which the steps to war should be taken.
Everyone wants to protect our Nation. Everyone wants to protect our people. To do that in the most effective way possible, we should avail ourselves of every opportunity to minimize the number of American troops we put at risk. Seeking, once again, to allow the United Nations inspecting regime to peacefully seek and destroy the facilities and equipment employed in the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program would be the least costly and the most effective way of reducing the risk to our Nation, provided that it is backed up by a credible threat of force if Iraq, once again, attempts to thwart the inspections.
We can take a measured, stepped-up approach that would still leave open the possibility of a ground invasion if that, indeed, should become the last resort and become necessary. But there is no way to take that step now.
Mr. President, I urge restraint. Let us draw back from haste. President Bush gave the United States the opening to deal effectively with the threat posed by Iraq. The United Nations embraced his exhortation and is working to develop a new and tougher inspection regime with firm deadlines and swift and sure accountability. Let us be convinced that a reinvigorated inspection regime cannot work before we move to any next step. Let us, if we must employ force, employ the most precise and limited use of force necessary to get the job done.
Let us guard against the perils of haste, lest the Senate fall prey to the dangers of taking action that is both blind and improvident.
Mr. President, a paraphrase of Jefferson would be that the dogs of war are too vicious to be unleashed by any one man alone; that the Framers of the Constitution thought the representatives of the people in the legislative branch ought to make these determinations.
Let us sober up. Let us sober ourselves. Let us take hold of ourselves. Let us move back from this engine of haste and destruction, this desire to get it over, this desire to get it behind us before the elections.
Here we have a resolution, S.J. Res. 46, nine pages of beautifully flowered ‘‘whereases,’’ nine pages. Here we have a resolution by which the Senate of the United States and the House of Representatives would be abdicating, pushing aside our responsibility to make decisions about going to war.
This is an abdication of our responsibilities. Here it is; what a shame; what a rag; it is enough to make those eagles up there scream, the eagles beside the clock—for a period that is unlimited in time. Hear me, hear me now, listen to this resolution on which we are going to vote. For a period of time that is unlimited, the President of the United States is authorized to make war anywhere he determines is in some way linked to the threat posed by Iraq—anytime, anywhere, and in any way.
Get that. That is what this amounts to. This is a blank check, nine pages. A blank check. A blank check with whereas clauses serving as figleaves. That is what it is, a blank check with beautifully flowered whereas clauses serving as figleaves. This is a blank check. There it is.
Look at it, nine pages, a blank check that does not simply remove us as representatives of the people from decisionmaking about the use of force now or the use of force in Iraq. It removes us as representatives of the people from making decisions about the use of war so far in the future as we can see. It removes us. You cannot make anything outside of it. It is plain.
I know it is obfuscated and it is all sugar-coated with these figleaves of ‘‘whereases.’’ That means, let’s say in the year 2014, the Congress will have no role in determining whether military force should be used in some country linked with Iraq or some purpose related to Iraq. The President can send military forces into war wherever he determines, and it may not be the President we now have. It undoubtedly will be another President because this goes on into the future, as far as the human eye can see.
Under the Constitution, we are abdicating the congressional power to the President of the United States. He can send military forces into war wherever he determines it is in some way related to the ‘‘continuing threat’’ posed by Iraq. This resolution, this power, this blank check, does not terminate if the regime is changed in Iraq. This resolution, this power, does not terminate if inspectors are allowed throughout Iraq. This resolution does not terminate if Iraq is disarmed and all of its weapons and weapons facilities are removed. No. The power goes on. You better read it—read it and weep.
This resolution says that we, the Congress of the United States, are turning over our constitutional responsibility to the President for as long as there is some threat as the President determines; use whatever military forces he wants; wherever he wants to use them; as long as he determines it is necessary to react to the threat posed by Iraq and those working, no doubt, with Iraq, others that he can see as their allies.
Do we want to do that? Do we want to abdicate congressional responsibility under the Constitution of the United States to this President or any President of any political party? Is that what we want? Do we want to be able to just wash our hands of it and say it is all up to the President; we turned it all over to the President?
This resolution—it is nine pages—changes the constitutional presumption that the Congress makes the determination about whether to go to war and for the foreseeable future gives it to a single person elected by a minority of the people.
Ronald Reagan, for example, was elected by one-fourth of the eligible voters of this country. So we turn this momentous power, this unimaginable power, over to one person, the President of the United States, elected by a minority of the people. The whereas clauses are pretty. Oh, they are pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty whereas clauses, but they are just window dressing. That is all. They are just figleaves.
All that is necessary is the President’s own determination. Why do we take up all this space? Why do we take up nine pages? Why waste all this paper? It is nine pages of beautifully phrased ‘‘whereases.’’ If we want to pass this resolution, we can pass it by cutting it down to one sentence. That is all we need, one sentence. We do not have to have all of this window dressing, all this sugar coating, on this bitter pill. One sentence is all we need. One page is all we need.
That sentence could simply say, and it would be legally the same as this document—hear me—we could say the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States for as long as he wants, wherever he wants, and in any manner he wants, without any approval by Congress, as long as he determines it is necessary to defend against a threat posed by Iraq, in his own determination.
Let me read that again. Let’s dispose of the 9 pages. All we need is one sentence in order to do exactly what the 9 pages would do. All that is necessary is the President’s own determination. We can save a lot of space. We can save a lot of paper if we want to pass this resolution by cutting it down to one sentence, and that sentence could simply say—and it would be legally the same as this 9-page document—the President is authorized to use the Armed Services of the United States for as long as he wants, wherever he wants, in any manner he wants, without any approval by Congress, as long as he determines it is necessary to defend against a threat posed by Iraq, in his own determination. Nothing else is needed but that sentence.
The rest of it is of no legal consequence, just window dressing. That is the blank check part of this resolution.
Let us guard against the perils of haste, lest the Senate fall prey to the dangers of taking action that is both blind and improvident.
I yield the floor.