When the history books are written, let the record show there was
one
|
Why is she all by herself?
PHOTO COURTESY CONGRESSWOMAN'S
OFFICE
|
politician with a backbone when it mattered. Rep. Barbara Lee of Oakland,
California was the only member of the House or Senate on September
14 to vote against handing President George W. Bush vast authority
to commence war or wars against unknown terrorists and the countries
that aid them.
When the vote on Resolution 64Authorization for Use of Military
Forcewas called in the House that Friday night, Lee stood
tall even if she stood alone among the 421 members present. "I know
this use-of-force resolution will pass," Lee said. "There must be
some of us who say, let's step back for a moment and think through
the implications of our actions todaylet us more fully understand
its consequences."
Recalling the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that opened a Pandora's
Box in Southeast Asia we still haven't closed, Lee invoked the prescient
words of Sen. Wayne Morse. One of just two senators opposing that
resolution, Morse said: "I believe that history will record that
we have made a grave mistake in subverting and circumventing the
Constitution."
The congresswoman, who now has a police guard because of the death
threats she received after the vote, is a voice of reason and dissent
when almost all other voices being broadcastfrom Congress,
the White House and the mediaare irrational, ill-informed
and incendiary. The real question is not why Lee voted against HR
64 but why she was the only one of 421 representatives and 98 senators
to vote against it.
The resolution authorizes Bush "to use all necessary and appropriate
force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks ...
or harbored such organizations or persons." Although it contains
no requirement that Bush return to Congress to report on his activities,
HR 64 states that nothing supercedes the War Powers Act, which requires
a president to report and consult with Congress.
This deficiency bothered at least some House members, but not
enough. Democrat Pete Stark, another Bay Area congressman, told
the House: "I have real reservations about the resolution we are
considering today. It should contain explicit language ensuring
that the president reports to Congress and consults with us in planning
and executing a military response. But it does not." Stark nonetheless
voted with the herd.
Rep. Maxine Waters, another California liberal, has seldom been
afraid to speak truth to power. Whither Waters on HR 64? "The congresswoman
felt she had to give full resources to the president," says spokeswoman
Candace Tolliver, who adds that Waters "expects the president to
come back to Congress."
Michigan Rep. John Conyers, always a forceful counterweight to
congressional conservatives, was MIA when the vote was taken on
HR 64. Although he'd been in Washington earlier, Conyers was in
his district and unable to get back to Washington for the vote the
night of September 14, according to spokeswoman Danielle Brown.
"He's not saying how he would have voted," Brown says. Rep. Bernie
Sanders, the independent congressman from Vermont, stated for the
congressional record that "widespread and indiscriminate force could
lead to more violence and more anti-Americanism." Then Sanders voted
with the rest. In New York, erstwhile liberal Democrat Rep. Jerrold
Nadler seemed himself transmogrified by events. Proving that Bush
and his cadre of craggy advisors don't have a monopoly on rah-rah
rhetoric, Nadler declared from the House floor: "We must pass this
resolution. We must wage the war that has been thrust upon us. We
must do it resolutely, and we must be victorious and rid the world
of this scourge of terrorism."
Asked if Nadler was concerned by HR 64's lack of any reporting
requirement for Bush, spokesman Eric Schmeltzer replied: "He thinks
Congress is not in the business of micromanaging a war. We have
to give the commander-in-chief some leeway to defend the country."
Asked if Nadler now had confidence in Bush, whose legitimate claim
to the presidency is still debated, Schmeltzer said, "At times like
this you have to have trust in your commander-in-chief. We can't
have another election." At least that much is true. But if there
were another election, there is only one person with the intelligence
to understand that violence is at the root of our present predicament.
Barbara Lee for president. Imagine.
|