Early Friday morning, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to attack Iraq if he determines that Saddam Hussein has failed to comply with United Nations disarmament resolutions - whenever and in whatever manner he sees fit.
The resolution gives the president the power to use any means he deems "necessary and appropriate" to root out Iraq's alleged stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. This power can be - and most likely will be - exercised without the authorization and support of the United Nations. All but one Republican and a number of Democrats, including Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton from New York, voted in favor of this resolution. This sets a dangerous precedent, as the constitutional power of Congress to declare war has been compromised, and one man will now decide the best interests of an entire nation.
The constitutionality and prudence of such a resolution is very much in question. The framers of the Constitution specifically vested Congress with the power to declare war to insure that any decision to undergo significant military action was arrived at in a deliberative manner, involving a number of individuals. War should not be undertaken impulsively, at the whim of one person. The strongest opponent of this measure was Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.). As the lone senatorial voice of reason, his defense of principles of proper governance is both admirable and necessary. In affirming the resolution, Byrd said Congress has unwisely given a "blank check to the president of the United States to use the forces of this country - the military forces." By jeopardizing our system and checks and balances, the Iraq resolution violates the very tenets of democracy that this nation was founded on. In this sense, the resolution represents an abdication of responsibility on the part of the Congress - a responsibility gravely bestowed upon it by our founding document
The ultimate outcome of the resolution - providing Bush with a clear mandate to initiate military action in Iraq - does not reflect the divided nature of public opinion. In the weeks preceding the vote, tens of thousands of faxes, letters, calls and e-mails poured into Congressional offices decrying the move to war. A CBS/Gallup poll on the eve of the vote revealed an American public sharply divided on the issue. Liberal constituents targeted Senator Clinton, with protesters coming out in full force at her Washington office. This outcry was seemingly ignored by those purporting to represent the views of their constituents in an effort not to appear "soft on Iraq."
The concerns of constituents are not only being ignored, but also misdirected. While Bush is riding the popularity polls after 9/11, he is using poorly both time and money. Americans around the Beltway are currently living in fear of an elusive and lethal sniper, while overseas the reemergence of al-Qaida is visible in huge explosions on French oil tankers and at South Pacific resorts. The president's relentless drive to deal with Iraq is coming at the expense of more concrete problems. Whereas before thousands across the nation sent letters and made phone calls to their representatives against war with Iraq, their cries must now be directed to the Oval Office.
In defending her stance, Senator Clinton declared that her vote in favor of the resolution was not a vote for war; rather, "It is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president, and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort." The New York senator was right in recognizing the "awesome responsibility" given by the resolution. Bush's wise use of this power as a last resort, however, is far from certain. We can only hope that the president will take into consideration the voice of the nation in trying first for a peaceful solution mediated by a multitude of nations. Bombs must not become the default response for every problem facing our nation.
