Area lawmakers set to back Bush on Iraq

[Bret Walker]

Posted on Thu, Oct. 10, 2002


Area lawmakers set to back Bush on Iraq
Though some worry about the level of world support, most say they will vote yes.

Despite some concerns about the low level of international support and the timing of an attack on Iraq, a majority of the local congressional delegation will support President Bush's war resolution.

Most local senators and representatives indicated they would vote to authorize Bush to use military force against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein if he deemed it necessary.

This week, The Inquirer asked members of the delegation three questions:

"Are you satisfied with the resolution as it is currently written and how will you vote on it, aye or nay?"

"Do you see the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq as imminent?"

"Do you think the President has provided a necessary level of proof that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction?"

Although some said they did not believe Hussein posed an immediate threat, many invoked Sept. 11 as reason to fear the consequences of delay. A number also said they hoped strong congressional support for Bush would send a message to the United Nations and U.S. allies, as well as to Hussein.

Still others said they would vote no, holding out for diplomatic solutions or more persuasive intelligence. Responses, A15.

It's that second to the last paragraph that intrigues me about this article, which appeared in today's Philadelphia Inquirer. "Although some said they did not believe Hussein posed an immediate threat, many invoked Sept. 11 as reason to fear the consequences of delay." So now September 11th has become a blank check, allowing the US to attack whomever they choose in the name of the war on terror. Basically, it's a "let's get them before they get us" mentality. According to Rahul Mahajan, author of The New Crusade: America's War on Terrorism, "Invoking September 11 without showing any kind of link between the government of Iraq and those attacks is just transparent manipulation. What [Bush] really means is that after September 11 he thinks he can get away with such a policy."

But what threat does Hussein really pose to the US? He doesn't have nuclear weapons capabilities; the U.N. inspectors verified that before they were removed from the country in 1998. Even if they did have it, they don't have a delivery system. My favorite quote on the day comes from Stephen Zunes, author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism and associate professor of politics at the University of San Francisco: "[Bush's claim that Iraq has the chemical and biological capacity to kill millions of people] is like saying that a man is capable of making millions of women pregnant. It's a matter of delivery systems, of which there is no proof that Iraq currently has."

Call me revolutionary, but I'm beginning to think that the Antichrist that Nostradamus spoke of in his prophecies is not a prince from the middle east, but an oil barron from Texas.