Yesterday, I ran across an article in USA Today that should have created a firestorm of controversy. Apparently Congress has gone as weak in the knees over invading Iraq as a 14 year old school girl at an NSYNC concert�
�Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress are skeptical about the need for quick military action against Iraq and want President Bush to seek congressional approval first.
In interviews with USA TODAY and in recent public statements, key lawmakers � including seven of the eight who receive a version of the president’s daily intelligence briefing � expressed reservations about committing troops to a conflict that could cause high casualties and complicate the nation’s foreign policy.�
I guess when you�re busy shoveling out pork as fast as you can in an attempt to get reelected, the security of the United States doesn�t seem to be that important. So what if there�s a mentally unbalanced dictator out there who hates the United States, has supplies of chemical and biological weapons, is seeking nuclear weapons, and has ties to al Queda? Doesn�t the American public know this is an election year and that Congress can�t risk any American casualties or turmoil if their jobs are on the line?
USA Today goes on to list some of the ridiculous reasons that members of Congress have for putting millions of American lives at risk unnecessarily by allowing Saddam to continue to rule Iraq�
�House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss, R-Fla., says there is “insufficient information” to justify a vote for military action against Iraq.�
Insufficient information? What more information does Goss need beyond what he should already have? Does he need a tape-recorded message of Saddam Hussein saying, �I have poison gas and anthrax that I am going to give to terrorists so it can be used against the US?� Why does Goss think Saddam Hussein has willingly endured sanctions that cost Iraq billions and billions of dollars rather than allow UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq? Does he think Hussein is afraid the UN inspectors are going to be looking in his medicine cabinet when he�s not around? What more information does Goss need to convince him that Hussein has to go?
�Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham, D-Fla., worries that a “premature” attack could “fracture the coalition” of nations helping the United States combat terrorism.�
If the �coalition of nations helping the United States combat terrorism� isn�t with us when we actually want to invade a terrorist-supporting nation then what is the point of having the coalition? The coalition serves no purpose other than to achieve our goals. If you don�t believe that, ask yourself what the mighty �Gulf War Coalition� has been doing of late?
“Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., fears U.S. forces already are stretched to the limit.”
Wait a second, I thought we were supposed to be able to fight wars on two different fronts at the same time? If we don�t have enough men, equipment, or money to do so, how did that happen and what are we going to do about it? If we can�t even handle Iraq, a nation we rolled over in the Gulf War, then what happens when we move past Iraq to Iran, Syria, and North Korea? Moreover, this isn�t some optional removal of a dictator from a �Banana Republic�, this is a war that is every bit as important as WW2. We would have never considered letting the Japanese skate after Pearl Harbor because we thought our troops would be �stretched to the limit� fighting Germany would we?
�House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., has other priorities. “Our focus should be Israel,” he says.�
Israel and the Palestinians are engaged in a dispute that officially started in 1967, really started in 1948, and that has roots that go back thousands of years. To say that we should focus on that instead of taking the next logical step in the �War on Terror� is insanity because no matter what we do, this conflict will probably simmer for decades.
I am shocked that we already have members of Congress who�ve apparently lost sight of the terrible threat that faces America and the blow we suffered on 9/11. This sort of disgraceful wavering in the early stages of this war is not acceptable conduct for people who represent the United States of America. Furthermore, this war is �the� issue for many Americans and will be for years to come. Personally, if I had a choice between voting for a Ted Kennedy style leftie who was for the war and Trent Lott who seems to be wobbling, I would turn Trent Lott back into a private citizen without hesitation. My suspicion is that not only do the majority of Republicans feel that way, but even a large percentage of Democrats are of that opinion as well. You can expect those numbers to skyrocket if and when the next terrorist attack on American soil occurs. If there is anyone in Congress who wants to ignore the tide of political opinion, I�d suggest that they go ahead and come out definitively against the �War on Terror� before November so we can replace them with representatives who are serious about protecting the American public.