Here’s an interview with Congresswoman Barbara Lee from Monday morning that better explains the basis for her peaceful resolution that she has introduced as an alternative to Bush’s resolution that calls for military action.
(I transcribed this myself off of my TIVO.)
We can not move forward to take pre-emptive military action against any regime… This doctrine of pre-emption is a very dangerous doctrine. We’ve supported and continue to support a doctrine of deterrence, disarmament and prevention.
Interview with Congresswoman Barbara Lee, 9/23/02 8:23 AM, KTVU Channel 2 San Francisco
Barbara Lee:
Let me just say one thing: Nuclear weapons are pointed in all directions. We must seek peaceful resolutions to conflicts in the world. I think we need to understand right now what is the purpose of this resolution and the United States’ Administration’s policy. Is it regime change or is it to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction?
Everyone agrees the world would be a safer place without Saddam Hussein. However, does that justify us going in and using this new doctrine of pre-emption to say it’s OK for China?
Ross McGowan:
If the Administration came to you and said: “Congresswoman Lee, we have hard evidence, and we show it to you, classified hard evidence that Sadam Hussein has nuclear weapons or is very close to developing those weapons, could you vote for military action against Iraq in that case?
Barbara Lee:
Inspections have worked in the past. During the 90’s when the inspection team was in Iraq, it not only was an inspection team, but it took on the mission of a Search and Destroy mission. That’s why the inspection process is very important. We can not move forward to take pre-emptive military action against any regime.
As I mentioned earlier, China and Taiwan. If China believes Taiwan is an imminent threat, with whatever evidence. Is it okay for China to nuke Taiwan? We have India and Pakistan. This doctrine of pre-emption is a very dangerous doctrine. We’ve supported and continue to support a doctrine of deterrence, disarmament and prevention.
Ross McGowan:
So what you’re saying is to go through the U.N., as the U.N. is talking about a resolution right now. Although, over the weekend, already, Saddam Hussein is messing around with the unconditional treatment of the inspectors…unfettered…
Barbara Lee:
We must move forward and insist that the inspection process move in…
Ross McGowan:
But how do you do that if they don’t know that there’s a consequence at the end?
Barbara Lee:
You do that through world pressure. Through working with our allies to insist on that. I think the President was right in going to the United Nations. The pressure is on Sadam Hussein to do that. I believe we cannot use this military option because, first of all, thousands of young men’s and women’s lives are at risk. Our own young men and women. Thousands of Iraqi civilians’ lives are at risk. Look at the cost: 100 to 200 billion dollars. What’s going to happen to education and social security, health care, housing.
Ross McGowan:
So we know. Then your vote is against the (Bush’s) resolution?
Barbara Lee:
I’m voting against the resolution. But let me just say that I’ve put forth my own resolution that I believe sets forth a track and a position that is reasonable.
Ross McGowan:
And you put through your resolution going through the united nations and letting them develop the resolution to go in and let the powers of the countries of the world determine what happens here?
Barbara Lee:
And for inspections. And I am saying that we have 26 members of Congress on that resolution.
Ross McGowan:
I think that most of the American people agree with you. They believe that maybe we should go into Iraq, but that first we should go through the U.N. and develop a resolution that will say “one more messing around on the inspections and military force will be used.”
Barbara Lee:
I think the American people are right and I think that we need to stop all of this military…madness at this point. It is provocative. Look at the peace and security issues in the Middle East and all over the world. What is going on in India and Pakistan and China and Taiwan now? What are they believing as being the next phase or the next wave of U.S. Foreign Policy? Are they getting ready also to mount these resolutions and positions to use force? We have to be concerned about that.
Ross McGowan:
Let’s say that the security council comes up with one resolution — that you allow inspectors, if there are any problems with that, military force will take place. In other words, the security council votes for this, it has the agreement of the nations of the United Nations…would then you support military action?
Barbara Lee:
What I’m saying is that I want to see what the United Nations comes up with.
Ross McGowan:
I’m saying if they did…
Barbara Lee:
That’s very hypothetical, and I’m not even concerned about “what ifs” at this point because this is a very dangerous and volatile situation and I believe that all of our efforts should be put forth to look at creative diplomacy and peaceful means to resolve this crisis. The military option is always there, but we have to be concerned as peace loving people, as people who want to see security throughout the world. We’ve got to be concerned about our first step. And that is what my resolution does, and I believe you’ll hear more democrats talking about this.
Ross McGowan:
When do you think this is going to be voted on in the U.S. Congress?
Barbara Lee:
Perhaps this week, perhaps next week. Of course, it’s very interesting that the session was cancelled for today. A session begins tomorrow night and then our sessions will cancel again on Friday. We have many appropriation bills that we need to move forward. We’ve got many issues that lay forth the unfinished business of this congress and of the agenda for this year.
For the life of me, the Republican’s are really developing a strategy to try to box the Congress in to begin to pass this resolution very quickly.
Ross McGowan:
Before the election…
Barbara Lee:
Yeah. And I don’t think it’s a partisan issue. It’s got to be non-partisan. These are issues of war and peace, life and death.
Wow. Unbelievable. Let’s parse this interview:
(1) “Inspections have worked in the past. During the 90’s…”
If this worked so well, then why are there any issues today? Maybe the question one should ask Barbara is inspections worked so well for whom? Saddam? It forstalled anything harsher in retaliation throughout the 90s. And let’s NOT conveniently forget who put an end to those ‘effective’ inspections once it no longer suited his needs.
(2) [Regarding consequences for Iraq’s actions] “You do that through world pressure.”
No… you do that by making them pay a price more significant than bombarding them with leaflets like her party’s leader (Bill Clinton) did after Saddam shut down the inspection. When will some people learn that a global villiage contains a spectrum of people – including some who will take every advantage of every single thing they can and those who are too fearful to do the hard and ugly things necessary to keep them in check?
(3) “I think the President was right in going to the United Nations.”
Same here. Totally.
(4) “Look at the cost: 100 to 200 billion dollars. What’s going to happen to education and social security, health care, housing.”
Ever notice how a chief resource of someone with a weak argument is to clutter the issue with non-relevant points? So how should one take this… if the price of maintaining peace or helping overrun citizens suffering under a dictatoship exceeds some amount, we should just concede? Stick to the issue at hand ma’am.
(5a) “If the Administration came to you and said… we have hard evidence… could you vote for military action… ?”
[waiting for a straight answer]
(5b) “Let’s say that the security council comes up with one resolution — that you allow inspectors, if there are any problems with that, military force will take place….would then you support military action?”
[waiting for a straight answer]
(5c) “I’m saying if they did…”
[finally getting a straight answer]
“The military option is always there, but we have to be concerned as peace loving people…”
FINALLY. Now we really get to the core of this congressperson. After talk of consequences, talk of money spending on military instead of domestic concerns and talk of putting the UN first in this issue, she reveals where she really stands:
Threaten all you can, but remember that it’s only an empty threat. In other words, talk the talk but never ever walk the walk.
Does anyone really think that we ALL are not peace loving people? That we ALL are fearful of how ugly and violent things may get? And that includes the current administration.
One question Barbara: You’ve expressed how we should be concerned as a _peace_ loving people. But how about as a _freedom_ loving people?
Dear Lisa:
Although you wish for the United States to dictate to the U.N. as well as the entire world, I recommend against it. Why? It’s not fair for anyone to have that power over everyone else. Do you disagree?
>If this worked so well, then why are there any issues today?
Here’s an example of your preening ignorance. The inspection regime did work — in fact, it destroyed 90-95% of Iraq’s weapons arsenal. Why are there issues today? 1) Because the inspection regime ended with the U.S. making the decision to pull out the U.N. teams (not the U.N., who had the actual authority for this decision by the way); and 2) because the smirking chimp (excuse me, “Global Strongman George Bush”) says there are issues — without providing any proof. Repeat that to yourself — without providing any proof. How’s that feel? Good? I don’t believe him or his henchmen, although you might. The rationales change, the rhetoric escalates, and — still — there is no proof offered to the citizens of this or any other country.
This is no reasonable way to deal with the problem. Re-institute enforced U.N. (non-U.S.-spy) inspections and weapons destruction, and if there’s a problem, gather the necessary evidence and convince our U.N. to follow with armed forces. Be an upstanding, cooperative global citizen instead of the world’s jack-booted secret policeman. Simple.
Love,
Vanessa
Lisa,
The process you advocate has been a failure for 12 years. Now we’re moving on to what works.
Iraq will be a vastly different place a year from now. American military might will be the cause of change. 1 year of force surpasses 12+ years of inaction.
Don
Iraq is in gross violation of the UN oil for food program and is using that money to re-build their weapons programs. Iraq is in violation of the cease fire accords from the first Gulf War. Iraq regularly fires surface to air missiles at coalition aircraft patrolling UN mandated “no-fly” zones. Iraq attempted to assasinate a former US President. The list could go on and on, but these items are sufficient for this US citizen to suffice as “casus belli” regardless of what the UN or the rest of the world have to say. All governments are not equally just, just as all civilizations are not equally “civilized”. To equate the Chinese intentions to Taiwan with US intentions torward Iraq is absurd. China is a communist totalitarian police state which wishes to subjugate the people of Tawian under their governance, Taiwan incidentally being a democracy whose citizens have voted to remain independent. Also, what imminent threat Tawian pose to China? If China did invade Taiwan, we would be right to wage war against China and seek “regime change” there as well.
Barbara Lee is more dangerous than her peace loving clueless leftist rhetoric would imply…
http://www.goptoday.com/html/092701.html