[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 50 (Thursday, March 27, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E603-E604]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 EXPRESSING SUPPORT AND APPRECIATION FOR THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF 
       THE ARMED FORCES PARTICIPATING IN OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. JESSE L. JACKSON, JR.

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, March 20, 2003

  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that 
our young men and women, who are putting their lives on the line in 
Iraq, have my unequivocal support. I will do everything in my power as 
a member of Congress to see to it that they have everything they need 
to win this war and return home safe and sound to their families. We 
can only hope and pray that this war will end quickly, and a minimum 
number of American, British, and Iraqi civilian and military lives are 
lost, destroyed or maimed for the rest of their lives.
  While the troops have 100 percent of my support, when appropriate, I 
will continue to articulate the grave concerns I have about the

[[Page E604]]

policies that sent them there. That is why I cannot ``express . . . 
unequivocal support and appreciation ... to the President ... for his 
firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military 
operations in Iraq as part of the on-going Global War on Terrorism.'' 
There is no convincing evidence that Iraq was involved or connected to 
Osama bin Laden, AI Qaeda or the events of September 11, 2001--despite 
President Bush's many failed attempts to morph the two, in order to 
convince the American people that there is such a connection.
  Most Americans think that when our young men and women are risking 
their lives on the battlefield that Democrats, Republicans and 
Independents in this House would come together in a non-partisan manner 
to support our troops--because everyone does support them. An 
appropriate resolution supporting our troops in the Senate passed 
earlier by a vote of 99-to-0. But the Republican extremists in the 
House have no shame and no limits. They will politicize the blood of 
our soldiers if they think they can gain a political advantage. They 
have never met an issue they were unwilling to ``wedge.'' That's what 
Section 1 of this resolution is designed to do--create a wedge issue. I 
have no problem with Sections 2 and 3.
  Many Democrats, myself included, separate support for the troops from 
support for the President's policy. But the Republicans deliberately 
joined the two so they could make it a political wedge issue. 
Therefore, if you vote ``for'' the resolution it appears that you 
support the President's policy. But if you vote ``against'' the 
resolution, the Republicans intend to paint you as against our troops 
and unpatriotic in future elections. In other words, the Republicans 
have deliberately tried to set a ``Catch 22'' trap. Thus, to avoid the 
``damned if you do and damned if you don't'' wedge issue the 
Republicans created, I am voting ``present'' on an issue for only the 
second time since I came to Congress on December 12, 1995.
  I do not support the President's policy in Iraq. Indeed, I filed a 
federal lawsuit to stop the President from going to war in Iraq without 
a declaration of war from Congress. I believe the President's actions 
in Iraq are unconstitutional and in violation of international law. 
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says Congress alone--not the 
President--has the power to declare war. The October resolution was not 
a declaration of war! Indeed, I believe that not just going to war 
without a declaration of war, but the attempt to cede such war-making 
powers to the President in the October Resolution was unconstitutional. 
And there is nothing in U.S., UN or other international law that 
justifies the unprecedented doctrine of preemption--preemptively 
attacking another sovereign country without first being attacked, or 
without presenting convincing evidence to the American people and the 
world that such a threat or attack is imminent.
  Therefore, I am concerned about a UN-ignored, but U.S.-led preemptive 
policy that has weakened the United Nations, weakened the structures of 
``collective security,'' and weakened the rule of international law.
  As the wealthiest and only superpower in the world, the U.S. has the 
most economic and military interests in the world. The United Nations, 
collective security, and the rule of international law have well-served 
those U.S. interests. Weakening any of them increases the threat to 
U.S. interests at home and abroad.
  So today, even as I give our young men and women in Iraq my 
unconditional support, I also renew my dedication to strengthening the 
United Nations, collective security, and the rule of international law. 
They help guarantee peace and security in the world and, when fully 
utilized, make it less likely that American service men and women may 
have to be sent to possibly make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of 
our country in the future.

                          ____________________