[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 17 (Tuesday, February 26, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H537-H538]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CONGRESSIONAL WAR POWER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the war drums are beating, louder and louder. 
Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have been forewarned. Plans have been laid 
and, for all we know, already initiated for the overthrow and 
assassination of Saddam Hussein.
  There has been talk of sabotage, psychological warfare, arming 
domestic rebels, killing Hussein and even an outright invasion of Iraq 
with hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. All we hear about in the 
biased media is the need to eliminate Saddam Hussein, with little 
regard of how this, in itself, might totally destabilize the entire 
Middle East and Central Asia. It could, in fact, make the Iraqi problem 
much worse.
  The assumption is that, with our success in Afghanistan, we should 
now pursue this same policy against any country we choose, no matter 
how flimsy the justification. It hardly can be argued that it is 
because authoritarian governments deserve our wrath, considering the 
number of current and past such governments that we have not only 
tolerated but subsidized.
  Protestations from our Arab allies are silenced by our dumping more 
American taxpayers' dollars on them.
  European criticism that the U.S. is now following a unilateral 
approach is brushed off by the United States, which only causes more 
apprehension in the European Community. Widespread support from the 
eager media pumps the public to support the warmongers in the 
administration.
  The pros and cons of how dangerous Saddam Hussein actually is are 
legitimate. However, it is rarely pointed out that the CIA has found no 
evidence whatsoever that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks of 
9-11.
  Rarely do we hear that Iraq has never committed any aggression 
against the United States. No one in the media questions our aggression 
against Iraq for the past 12 years by continuous bombing and imposed 
sanctions responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of 
children in Iraq.
  The Iraqis' defense of their homeland can hardly be characterized as 
aggression against those who rain bombs down on them. We had to go over 
6,000 miles to pick this fight against a Third-World nation with little 
ability to defend itself.
  Our policies have actually served to generate support for Saddam 
Hussein, in spite of his brutal control of the Iraqi people. He is as 
strong today, if not stronger, as he was prior to the Persian Gulf War 
12 years ago.
  Even today, our jingoism ironically is driving a closer alliance 
between Iraq and Iran, long-time, bitter enemies.
  While we trade with and subsidize to the hilt the questionable 
government of China, we place sanctions on and refuse to trade with 
Iran and Iraq, which only causes greater antagonism. But if the 
warmongers' goal is to have a war regardless of international law and 
the Constitution, current policy serves their interests.
  Could it be that only by war and removal of certain governments we 
can maintain control of the oil in this region? Could it be all about 
oil and have nothing to do with U.S. national security?

[[Page H538]]

  Too often when we dictate who will lead another country, we only 
replace one group of thugs with another, as we just did in Afghanistan, 
with the only difference being that the thugs who we support are 
expected to be puppet-like and remain loyal to the United States, or 
else.
  Although bits and pieces of the administration's plans to wage war 
against Iraq and possibly Iran and North Korea are garnered, we never 
hear any mention of the authority to do so. It seems that Tony Blair's 
approval is more important than the approval of the American people.
  Congress never complains about its lost prerogatives to be the sole 
declarer of war. Astoundingly, Congress is only too eager to give war 
powers to our presidents through the back door by the use of some fuzzy 
resolution that the president can use as his justification. Once the 
hostilities begin, the money always follows, because Congress fears 
criticism for not ``supporting the troops.'' But putting troops in 
harm's way without proper authority and unnecessarily can hardly be the 
way to ``support the troops.''
  Let it be clearly understood: There is no authority to wage war 
against Iraq without the Congress passing a Declaration of War. H.J. 
Res. 65, passed in the aftermath of 9-11, does not even suggest that 
this authority exists. A U.N. resolution authorizing an Iraqi invasion, 
even if it were to come, cannot replace the legal process for the 
United States going to war as precisely defined in the Constitution. We 
must remember, a covert war is no more justifiable and is even more 
reprehensible.
  Only tyrants can take a nation to war without the consent of the 
people. The planned war against Iraq without a declaration of war is 
illegal. It is unwise because of the many unforeseen consequences that 
are likely to result. It is immoral and unjust, because it has nothing 
to do with U.S. security and because Iraq has not initiated aggression 
against us.
  Besides, the American people become less secure when we risk a major 
conflict driven by commercial interests and not authorized in a proper 
manner by the Congress. Victory under these circumstances is always 
elusive, and unintended consequences are inevitable.

                          ____________________