Mike Levin: “the more one hears of this debate in Congress and among the American people, the more puzzling it is that the approach…”

“the more one hears of this debate in Congress and among the American people, the more puzzling it is that the approach in the Spratt resolution was not adopted. The Spratt Resolution states clearly the need to act to totally disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction. It authorized the Use of U.S. Armed Forces within the framework of international collective action as embodied in U.N. Security Council resolutions seeking to disarm Iraq and providing for force by member states to ensure compliance. If that collective international effort fails, the Spratt resolution spelled out an expedited procedure for the President to seek the authorization to proceed unilaterally in a war against Iraq. So, why not the Spratt resolution? It would have far more effectively achieved the goal of the President that we speak today with one voice. The approach in the Spratt resolution would have maximized the chances of success in disarming Saddam Hussein and minimized the potential adverse consequences for the U.S. in going it alone, in terms of reactions throughout the world, stability in the region, cooperation in the war against terrorism and in broad participation in the aftermath of a war in Iraq. It would keep the pressure on the U.N. to act, avoiding the inconsistency in the Administration's approach of saying to the U.N. 'act,' 'be relevant,' 'hold Iraq to account' but potentially taking it off the hook in advance because the U.S. will go it alone.”