Authorizing Limited Use Of Armed Forces In Libya
What? We don't have enough wars going on? A war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan? We need one more war? We have to wage war against another nation which did not attack us? We have to wage war against another nation which does not represent an…
What? We don't have enough wars going on? A war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan? We need one more war? We have to wage war against another nation which did not attack us? We have to wage war against another nation which does not represent an actual or imminent threat to the United States?
Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that I have been all over this country, and I haven't had a single person come up to me to tell me, ``You know, Dennis, what America needs is another war.'' The last thing we need is to be voting to go to war. There are plenty of reasons to oppose the war in Libya:
It's unconstitutional. Article I, section 8 has given the Congress the power to declare war.
It's illegal. The War Powers resolution was passed over Presidential veto to allow the President latitude to respond when there is an imminent threat to the U.S. while retaining the constitutional duty of Congress. Even the President's top legal advisers at the Pentagon and the Department of Justice determined that the War Powers resolution applies to the war in Libya.
Another reason is that Americans don't want this war. A poll taken at the beginning of the month by CBS found that six in 10 Americans do not think the United States should be involved in a conflict within Libya. Just 30 percent of Americans in that poll thought the United States was doing the right thing by taking part in the current military conflict. A majority of Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike think the U.S. should not be involved in Libya.
Next, this war is a distraction. Our flailing economy demands the full attention of Congress and the President. The American people have little patience, or less, especially for a war of choice.
Then there is the cost of the war, Mr. Speaker. We've spent $750 million so far. If we keep going on, it will cost billions.
We have to end this war. Vote against this authorization.
I want to thank the gentleman and also associate myself with his remarks just now. We were told this is about protecting civilians. It has become a cover for regime change. And just because we can change a regime with military power doesn't mean we should do it. And using military action doesn't mean that you're going to achieve the objectives that maybe you haven't even clearly defined.
Furthermore, if our allies make a mistake, do we follow them? If our allies are going out of the war, why should we go in? Right now, you have China's foreign minister saying we hope the two parties in the conflict can attach importance to the country and the people's interest and earnestly consider the international community's relevant resolution plans, quickly cease hostilities, and resolve the Libyan crisis through political channels.
Amr Moussa, the outgoing head of the Arab League, said this 2 days ago: Now is the time to do whatever you can to reach a political solution that has to start with a genuine cease-fire under international supervision.
The President of South Africa said a few days ago that this is about regime change, political assassination, and foreign military occupation.
Vote against this resolution.