Which Laws do the Democrats Wish to Repeal?
By Mary Mostert (11/23/06)
What exactly is the Media and the Democrats’ definition of “Winning the War in Iraq? After all, on August 14, 1998 the Senate passed a resolution on Iraq 94-6 , authorizing and urging the President of the United State to “to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations” as listed in the Resolution. After it was signed by President Clinton, that bill become Public Law 105-235. Unless it is repealed the current president is required by the U.S. Constitution to enforce that law.
On October 11, 2002, the 107th Congress passed H.J. 114 (now Public Law 107-243 .) by a vote of 77 to 23 which declared “It is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. -This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’’.
The only Republican who voted against that resolution, Lincoln Chafee, of Rhode Island, was defeated in the November 7th election. The new Democrat Majority Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, voted for it as did Senator Joe Lieberman who was beaten in the Democrat primary by a challenger who opposed the Iraq war. Lieberman was re-elected as an Independent.
Until repealed, President Bush is REQUIRED BY LAW to “to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations.” In Public Law 107-40 President Bush was specifically given “authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force.”
None of those Congressional resolutions require the President to prevent a future civil war or to completely occupy and pacify the country. After all, we all seem to believe today that George Washington won the American Revolution, in spite of the fact that the majority in New York State were supporting the British, not the American patriots, and that there was continuing conflict between the Northern States and the Southern States until civil war broke out in 1861 – which was 85 years AFTER the signing of the Declaration of Independence and 74 years after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
Compared with how long it took the Americans to write a Constitution and a four year civil war fought to finally settle their disagreements over whether it would be one nation or two nations, the Iraqis appear to being moving at lightening speed. They already have decided they will remain one nation, in spite of some very strong temptations especially by the Kurds and the Shiites, to break up the country, have already written and adopted a Constitution and held elections to chose their leaders.
George Washington became the commander in chief of the US Army in 1775 but did not become its first president until the first nationwide election of 1789, fourteen years later.
To decide whether or not the war in Iraq is “won” I would think people, and the media, would go back and look at the purpose of going into Iraq as outlined in resolutions passed by Congress. After all, the President’s job, as defined by the U.S. Constitution, is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, Commission all the Officers of the United States and be the commander in chief of the Army and the Navy.
So what exactly do those Public Laws require the President of the United States to “execute?” Public Law 107-40, which Congress passed five years ago, authorized the president “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
President Bush has done what that resolution required him to do. In fact, since there have been no terrorist attacks in the USA since 911, it would appear that President Bush is doing a good job of implementing Public Law 107-40 and that he has actually WON the war as defined in the resolution.. While Iraq was not directly, as a state, involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, there very definitely were Al Qaeda senior officers in Iraq, who were being aided financially by Iraq.
Now, my question is: which of these laws of the land is it that the Democrats now want to repeal or have the President of the United States to ignorel? Do the Democrats think they have enough votes in Congress to repeal the 2002 Iraq Resolution which states “the national security interests of the United States” requires “the president of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region?”
That is far more extensive than just preventing terrorist attacked on the United States and its properties. How can the president “restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region” by withdrawing US troops? Peace and security is restored when wars are won, not by leaving the battlefield.
On the other hand, winning a war doesn’t mean all problems are solved, or even that peace is restored, which is why we still have troops in Germany and Okinawa 60 years after WWII was won and why there was a military occupation by the Union army of the Southern States for 12 years after the Civil war, in spite of George Washington winning the American Revolution years before.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Mary Mostert
