fwd: I would consider, and may, send him a thank you for this...don;t
think many of the others deserve thanks, since their statements were
mostly filled with crap about how saddam had to be stopped ( from what?)
but that this wasn;t the proper way to stop him...this guy puts it out
there...hooray for pete stark, and thanks to james vann for passing it
on...
fs


"One of the few members of congress during the debate, who
managed the courage and fortitude to disperse with the ubiquitous
genteel protocol and directly castigate "Bush" and his sinister motives.

Though Stark was reprimanded by the Chair following the statement,
hearing it before that band of sheep was tremendously refreshing."
james vann
_________

Statement of Rep. Pete Stark
Opposing H.J. Res. 114, Authorization for Military Force Against Iraq:

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.

I am deeply troubled that lives may be lost without a meaningful attempt

to bring Iraq into compliance with UN resolutions through careful and
cautious diplomacy.

The bottom line is I don't trust this President and his advisors.

Make no mistake, we are voting on a resolution that grants total
authority to the President who wants to invade a sovereign nation
without
any specific act of provocation.  This would authorize the United States

to act as the aggressor for the first time in our history.

It sets a precedent for our nation -- or any nation -- to exercise brute

force anywhere in the world without regard to international law or
international consensus.

Congress must not walk in lockstep behind a President who has been so
callous to proceed without reservation, as if war was of no real
consequence.

You know, three years ago in December, Molly Ivins, an observer of Texas

politics, wrote:  "For an upper-class white boy, Bush comes on way too
hard.  At a guess, to make up for being an upper-class white boy."

"Somebody," she said, "should be worrying about how all this could
affect
his handling of future encounters with some Saddam Hussein." How
prophetic, Ms. Ivins.

Let us not forget that our President -- our Commander in Chief - has no
experience with, or knowledge of, war.  In fact, he admits that he was
at
best ambivalent about the Vietnam War.  He skirted his own military
service and then failed to serve out his time in the National Guard.
And,
he reported years later that at the height of that conflict in 1968 he
didn't notice "any heavy stuff going on."

So we have a President who thinks foreign territory is the opponent's
dugout and Kashmir is a sweater.

What is most unconscionable is that there is not a shred of evidence to
justify the certain loss of life.  Do the generalized threats and
half-truths of this Administration give any one of us in Congress the
confidence to tell a mother or father or family that the loss of their
child or loved one was in the name of a just cause?

Is the President's need for revenge for the threat once posed to his
father enough to justify the death of any American?

I submit the answer to these questions is no.

Aside from the wisdom of going to war as Bush wants, I am troubled by
who
pays for his capricious adventure into world domination.

The Administration admits to a cost of around 200 Billion Dollars!

Now, wealthy individuals won't pay.  They've got big tax cuts already.

Corporations won't pay.  They'll cook the books and move overseas and
then send their contributions to the Republicans.

Rich kids won't pay.  Their daddies will get them deferments as Big
George did for George W.

Well, then, who will pay?

School kids will pay.  There'll be no money to keep them from being left

behind -- way behind.

Seniors will pay.  They'll pay big time as the Republicans privatize
Social Security and rob the Trust Fund to pay for the capricious war.

Medicare will be curtailed and drugs will be more unaffordable.  And
there won't be any money for a drug benefit because Bush will spend it
all
on the war.

Working folks will pay through loss of job security and bargaining
rights.

Our grandchildren will pay through the degradation of our air and water
quality.

And the entire nation will pay as Bush continues to destroy civil
rights,
women's rights and religious freedom in a rush to phony patriotism and
to
courting the messianic Pharisees of the religious right.

The questions before the Members of this House and to all Americans are
immense, but there are clear answers.  America is not currently
confronted
by a genuine, proven, imminent threat from Iraq.  The call for war is
wrong.

And what greatly saddens me at this point in our history is my fear that

this entire spectacle has not been planned for the well being of the
world, but for the short-term political interest of our President.

Now, I am also greatly disturbed that many Democratic leaders have also
put political calculation ahead of the President's accountability to
truth
and reason by supporting this resolution.

But, I conclude that the only answer is to vote no on the resolution
before us.
---------