|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||||||
|
Editorial - October 2002 |
||||||||
|
One-sided Iraq vote empowers new doctrine October 14, 2002 - The vote empowering President Bush to use armed forces in Iraq was surprisingly strong when you consider the traditional justification of a military strike against another nation. Only three North Carolina representatives voted against the move: Reps. Eva Clayton, David Price and Mel Watt, all Democrats. The House member representing Lincoln County, U.S. Rep. Cass Ballenger, R- Hickory, supported the move, along with other Republican House members: Reps. Richard Burr, Howard Coble, Robin Hayes, Walter Jones, Sue Myrick and Charles Taylor. In all, 81 Democrats and 216 Republicans supported the resolution and 126 Democrats, six Republicans and one independent opposed it. U.S. Sen. John Edwards, who, as a presidential contender should have a grasp on the seriousness of the vote, favored the move, along with U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms. In the Senate the resolution passed 77-23. It was a strangely one-sided vote on a measure that authorizes the U.S. to attack a nation that has not raised a weapon on our homeland, nor on our allies. In fact, it is unprecedented in our history. Our nation has never instigated a war with the express purpose of toppling a leader simply because we consider him a threat at some future date. The vote, coming on the eve of the fall elections, fully supports the Bush administration’s new policy of making preemptive strikes rather than responding to an armed attack. Ballenger issued the following statement after the vote “I support President Bush in his policy toward Iraq. I believe that Saddam Hussein and his corrupt Iraqi regime are a threat to the security of the United States and the world. When a ruthless dictator such as Saddam secures weapons of mass destruction, no positive outcome is possible. It only serves to extend the suffering of the Iraqi people and leads to greater instability throughout the Middle East and beyond. “In giving President Bush the authorization to use force against Iraq , the House serves notice to the world that the United States is serious in dealing with this threat.” Ballenger goes on to condemn Iraq for failing to honor its obligations to UN inspections under the terms of surrender of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. He also asserts that there is a connection between al-Qaida and Saddam. Most Americans share the view that Saddam is an evil, murderous, despot who poses a serious danger to those around him. No doubt about it. But most Americans would probably also share another view: that U.S. forces and their allies would quickly and furiously smash Saddam’s regime to kingdom come at the first sign of any weapon of mass destruction. For Saddam, deploying weapons of mass destruction would be an invitation to sudden death. The Bush administration admonishes those who would wait for something to happen. Wait for the smoking gun, they say, and you’ll see a mushroom cloud. But world opinion on Saddam’s ability to launch nuclear war is divided. And, much of what we are saying about Saddam and Iraq can be said about other foreign leaders and their military. There is no question that we can overthrow Saddam. But are we prepared for the response from the radical elements of an Arab world that has already shown its penchant for death and destruction. The slogan “Be sure you’re right, then go ahead,” was attributed to American frontiersman Davey Crockett. We hope he’s not turning in his grave.
|
||||||||
|
© 2001 Lincoln Times-News |
||||||||
|
|