The decision to send our young men and women into battle, one of the most solemn duties given to us by the Constitution, is before the House today, because this resolution is most certainly a declaration of war.

It lacks the specificity of the last declared war, WWII, but it closely mirrors the open-ended authority granted to President Johnson under the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964.

‘The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.’

That’s it. That’s the key part of this resolution, despite all the whereas clauses.

So with this resolution Congress will pre-authorize the first ever pre-emptive war in the history of the United States; a war that may be fought unilaterally without a single ally; conducted without restraint or clear objective, potentially in violation of the UN charter and widely accepted international law.

I don’t believe that our nation’s founders would think that this was the proper use of our authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

What is so extraordinary about Saddam Hussein and the threat he poses that would justify this broad grant of authority?

What has changed in the two years since then-candidate Bush said that the United States would not be the world’s 911, the world’s police force, and that we would not engage in nation building?

There were the horrendous September 11th attacks against the US, but neither the US nor the British intelligence services can find the slightest link between Al Queda and Iraq. So that can’t be the reason.

The President went the United Nations three weeks ago, and he repeated during his speech in Cincinnati, a long litany of charges against Iraq. Most of them true.

Saddam Hussein is a brutal psychopathic dictator. He has committed crimes against humanity; he used chemical weapons against Iranian troops and against rebellious Kurds in his own country, killing tens of thousands; but that was during the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr., and the US turned a blind eye because Saddam Hussein was allied with the US against Iran.

Saddam Hussein has violated a number of UN resolutions, but all long before the last Presidential election, so something else must be behind this.

Is it his attempt to obtain nuclear weapons? Two other members of the axis of evil are much further along. Iran has a very well developed nuclear weapons program and much stronger ties proven to terrorist groups, including harboring members of al Quada. And of course N. Korea probably has nuclear weapons and certainly has two-thirds of an inter-continental missile, which has caused our rush to build star wars. Is that the reason? I don’t know.

Perhaps it’s because the president brought in a number of officials from his father’s administration who were frustrated that they didn’t get to go to Bagdad the first time when Colin Powell and George Bush Sr. stopped them short of that goal.

But these old men, these oilmen, none of whom has ever fought in a war, and most of whom have never served in the military are deaf to the very substantial concerns of Colin Powell, General Shalikashvili, General Clark and others who know war all too well.

They are deaf to the concerns of Middle East experts and Arabists at the State Department and in our Intelligence Services. They are deaf to the very vocal concerns of our allies around the world and concerns of millions of Americans who have doubts about this adventure. And they are blind to the potential repercussions and the Pandora’s box they will open with this war-- the first conflict fought under the new Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war.

Never has the United States of America launched a pre-emptive war. The prospect of the US pursuing a unilateral pre-emptive war with Iraq with little or no support from allies or the international community, in violation of international law and the UN Charter, is gravely disturbing. But the implications of a further application of this doctrine by the US or other nations is shocking.

Under the Bush doctrine, the US or any nation could launch a war against a threat or a perceived threat by another nation. Just think- India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, Russia and Georgia the list is long and alarming.

The proponents of this resolution would have us believe we have no option, but we do- continued containment, deterrence, and intrusive unfettered inspections.

There is a long list of the success of the last inspections rendered by Tony Blair to the Parliament, not by the Bush administration to the Congress: destruction of 40,000 munitions for chemical weapons; 2,610 tons of chemical precursors; 411 tons of chemical warfare agent; dismantling of Iraq's prime chemical weapons development and production complex at LAl-Muthanna; the destruction of 48 SCUD-type missiles; the destruction of the Al-Hakam biological weapons facility. The discovery in 1991 of samples of indigenously produced highly enriched uranium made them disclose their program and that led to the removal and destruction of the infrastructure for the nuclear weapons program, including the Al-Athir weaponization testing facility.

Intrusive inspections, despite the harassment, did work. We do have an alternative. We should return to that regime. We should go with our allies under the auspices of the United Nations. We should root-out and destroy his weapons of mass destruction.

We have an opportunity and a proven alternative before us-- unfettered inspections, destruction of arsenals. But it is not clear that is the sole objective of this administration.

War should be a last resort, not a first resort. Don’t vote to give a blank check to this administration. They are too determined to have this war, no matter what occurs.