Opinion: Congressional inaction on Iraq causes concern

Norman Solomon pointed up a massive failure by Congress in, willy-nilly, following the Bush administration's rush to war with Iraq. In accepting war as foreordained, as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee two-day hearing demonstrated the leadership is doing, Congress is failing its constitutional duty.

There are many concerns about the administration's rush to war, not the least of which is the morality of an unprovoked attack on another nation. But a concern we all should share, whether or not we believe a forceful "regime change" in Iraq is warranted, is Congress' quiescence. A few members have raised questions, but to all appearances, other than the two-day committee hearing, Congress will not act. Its members may awaken some morning, along with the rest of us, to news that the onslaught has begun. They will then, in turn, mourn with us as the body bags stream to Dover Air Force Base.

There are undoubtedly various reasons for members', and the leadership's, inactivity, including fear of being accused of being unpatriotic and undercutting the president and, perhaps, a belief that an attack would redound to Israel's favor. Whatever the reasons, Congress' inactivity amounts to acquiescence in the president's assumed writ for unrestrained, unchecked power in prosecuting the "war on terrorism."

The war in Afghanistan, in pursuit of those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, is plainly justified, even mandated, such that Congress did not need even to go through the motions of acting under the War Powers Act to validate it. But Afghanistan cannot become a model governing all cases where the war power is, or should be, at issue.

Whenever there is sufficient time, as here, and certainly whenever there is reason to believe the administration may be planning an unprovoked attack on another nation, as here, Congress should deliberate and decide whether or not we shall go to war, fulfilling its constitutional duty.

The need for Congress to act is not obviated by the president's calling Saddam Hussein "evil," which he is, or by loosely associating him with the terrorism against which Bush has "declared" war. We should send the brave men and women of our armed forces into the maw of hell that is war only when necessary to support a clearly defined, vital national interest. Hussein has not been shown to have been connected with the Sept. 11 attacks, and his potential for supporting future terrorism against the United States is just that -- potential -- that possibly can be thwarted short of a war to remove him.

In any event, Congress should examine this and the many other relevant questions and decide whether or not we shall go to war. Congress' failure to act would further weaken our democratic institutions in the name of the war on terrorism. And as has so often been observed, this would be a victory for the terrorists who would destroy us.
-- Paul F. Peters, South Pasadena

Hussein is a Hitler-like threat

I am amazing myself because I am about to agree with President Bush. I am a moderate Democrat and even in my moderation can find little about his policies that makes sense for the betterment of our nation and its environment -- except on Iraq.

I liken Saddam Hussein and Iraq to Hitler and Nazi Germany in the 1930s, when we continually ignored what was clearly a growing international threat because we didn't want to get involved. Cock-eyed optimist that I am, I regularly hope that we can learn from history rather than repeating it, particularly when repetition means the death of innocents. In my view, President Bush is correct in his assessment that the United States cannot once again ignore such an overt, egregious threat to the globe, as is Iraq.

But we must put the cowboy hat back in the closet and be very clever about how we proceed. I've always found that brains go so much further than brawn. Send in the cavalry so we can then look like the bad-guy aggressors? No way! Set Hussein up to hurt himself for us! Then go in for the proverbial kill.

We cannot stand with our heads in sand this time, and just watch as someone as clearly dangerous as Hussein, just like his historical predecessor, flaunts his disdain for civilized behavior.
-- Terri Benincasa, Oldsmar

Rethink idea of attacking Iraq

The Bush-Chenney plan to attack Iraq based on speculation is unacceptable. The idea that the Iraqis might be building weapons, or sometime in the future give them to some terrorist group that might use them against somebody we might like, is insane. This is not the basis on which America, the sole superpower, should ever go to war.

Baghdad is filled with 4-million to 5-million human beings: grandmothers, children, families, schools, hospitals, old people, just like our cities. It is a crowded city. The notion that the United States would contemplate a massive air attack on a crowded civilian city, is just plain nuts. That's not to mention how many casualties our troops may sustain.

If George W. Bush and Dick Chenney have any intelligence at all, they need to rethink this abomination.
-- Richard Cassidy, Tarpon Springs

Beware the cowboy mentality

Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba is 100 percent correct when he says the United States has no right to force a Pax Americana on the rest of the world. Many countries of the world are critical of the Washington administration's plan to invade Iraq. The catch phrase Washington uses is "weapons of mass destruction." Against who? Certainly not the United States.

The picture reminds me of the justification the White House used for the Vietnam episode. After a loss of 56,000 lives we left Vietnam. How many lives will be lost if we invade Iraq? When will we get rid of that "cowboy" mentality in Washington? As a veteran of World War II, I think the public should be alert to the propaganda being released about why we should be involved in Middle East problems.
-- Michael G. Young, New Port Richey

American people will not benefit

I'm very concerned that we will invade Iraq. It would not be good for the American people in many ways and could well become another Vietnam. Plus it would cut us off from oil, which would raise our gas prices.

All this would be good for the administration and its public relations, and good for the oil companies which would love another excuse to raise oil prices. It would be very bad for the American people.

It is important to write our congressmen and senators and tell them we are very much against this invasion, while the matter is still under debate and discussion. Once they have won a congressional approval, Bush will not be stoppable. It's all politics.
-- Michael Otto, Oldsmar

Israel will benefit, not U.S.

Your editorial opposing an American attack against Iraq (Iraq questions, Aug. 11) does not mention Israel. Israel is the one country in the region that fully supports such an attack and, given its powerful military, its participation would ensure military victory. You say a "relative handful of ideologues inside and outside the White House" make an invasion "seem all but inevitable." Interestingly, one characteristic most of these "ideologues" share is their staunch support of Israel.

A successful invasion of Iraq will rid the region of the tyrant Saddam Hussein. However, given the region's historic antipathy to the presence of Western nations, it will likely end by pitting the United States and Israel against the entire Arab world where the United States has extensive oil and other interests. I want to see the world rid of Saddam Hussein, but not at the expense of our wider regional interests. An invasion of Iraq will serve Israel's interests, but not America's.
-- Arthur L. Lowrie, Lutz

A troubling set of sacrifices

I was 5 years old when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. I remember this day very well, as our home was in the process of being remodeled, and the only quiet, undisturbed place in the house was the bathroom -- to which my mother took me and my sister to pray. I remember quite a lot about those war years -- much about fear, air raids, hiding under bridges if we couldn't get home at the sound of military planes overhead, etc.

Perhaps my most vivid memories are of pride in my country and the encouragement of our president (Franklin D. Roosevelt) to make sacrifices to keep our country strong. I remember the rationing cards, coasting down hills in neutral to save gas, making do without meat, victory gardens, raising chickens and absolutely worshiping anyone in a military uniform. Esprit de corps described not only the Marines, but every one of us; and we were glad to sacrifice for this great country.

What a difference I feel today. Nothing has been asked of me in the way of a sacrifice except to hush up and keep mum about the increasing restrictions of our liberties. Any criticisms seem tantamount to treason. We have not even been asked, as a nation, to restrict our consumption of fuel -- nor have the car manufacturers been urged to create more efficient cars. This very issue of fuel, oil, is at the root of our involvement in the Mideast.

We are not inspired to live lifestyles that will protect the environment. We are encouraged to keep building, to continue to encroach upon the ever diminishing world of nature, to go on polluting this magnificent land in which we are privileged to live -- to allow megacorporations to continue to damage our environment, our water and the air we breathe.

I am a genetic Republican, but, in the past few years, I have finally realized that their highly touted "values" are not those I wish to espouse. The sacrifices this party does encourage are in the form of a massive reduction in public services which all but the wealthy cannot afford to be without -- our schools, our health and our freedoms. I am deeply concerned, I am sad, and I am frightened!

Please, everyone, examine your world! Are you better off than you were two years ago? If your answer is no, go to the polls and vote your conscience this fall. To quote that wonderful line from John F. Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!"
-- Karen Maurer, St. Petersburg

Help for veterans is dumped

As a Navy veteran during the Korean conflict, I find it shameful that President Bush would reject a $275-million package for the Department of Veterans Affairs to reduce backlogs at the nation's VA medical centers. Thousands of deserving veterans are in need of this medical help and are not being cared for.

The president doesn't hesitate in approving financial aid to foreign countries along with military support. What a message to send. Come on, vets, let's hear from you. God bless America: We served to keep it that way.
-- Buddy Musto, Clearwater

Check your flags for wear

Attention Americans! It is time for you to do something for your country. Take a minute of your precious time, to go outside and take that raggedy torn dirty American flag off your vehicle.

You are not showing your patriotism by displaying your country's flag in such deplorable condition.
-- Audrey Yancey, Largo

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page