- The recent behavior of President George W. Bush and Vice
President Dick Cheney--specifically, the formulations presented by the
two, in draft resolutions before the U.S. Congress and the United Nations
Security Council, on the pending pre-emptive war on Iraq--manifest clinical
insanity. This judgment was stated urgently on Oct. 3 by Presidential candidate
Lyndon LaRouche, who challenged any other explanation for what the President
and the Vice President are doing. Bush and Cheney are launching a war of
aggression in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and in violation of post-World
War II codes of international law, including the Nuremberg precedents,
the London Charter of 1945, and the United Nations Charter.
-
- The type of pre-emptive invasion of Iraq being advocated
by Bush and Cheney is precisely the kind of war crime, for which 12 defendants
were convicted at the Nuremberg Trials of 1945. The principles of law,
recognized in the judgments of that first Nuremberg Tribunal, were adopted
by the United Nations General Assembly in 1950. This is the cornerstone
of the post-World War II order, centered around relations among sovereign
nation-states.
-
- Could a President of the United States, LaRouche asked,
who was not insane, proceed with such reckless abandon, to violate these
principles of law which have been the foundation of the post-war international
order? Never! He concluded that the United Nations Security Council must
recognize this reality. It should suspend the current debate over the insane
formulations included in the Anglo-American draft resolution--which carries
the implied threat to assassinate Saddam Hussein, and any number of Iraqi
scientists and engineers--in a sick replay of the Jacobin Terror in 1790s
France. The Security Council should instead declare that the President
and Vice President of the United States, by virtue of their actions before
the U.S. Congress and the United Nations, have demonstrated that they are
mad, and proceed from that standpoint, hoping that the insanity is temporary,
and that such bold actions by the Security Council might serve as a shock
of reality bringing the President and Vice President back to their senses.
-
- - The Courage of A Wartime Decision-Maker - This harsh
but honest assessment coming from Lyndon LaRouche, is of special significance.
Unless leading policy-makers in the United States and around the world
are willing to face up to the reality, that the President and Vice President
of the United States, by their actions, are judged insane, no adequate
mobilization to avoid impending war can be accomplished. There are few
statesmen alive today who demonstrate the courage of a wartime decision-maker;
to state the truth, because nothing short of the truth can secure victory--in
this case, a war-avoidance victory over the Bush and Cheney insanity, and
the neo-conservative and Christian Zionist looney-bin dominating U.S. foreign
policy and national security deliberations.
-
- This was a decision from which Lyndon LaRouche did not
shrink.
-
- Many leading policy-makers in Washington and around the
world will agree that LaRouche's assessment is both fair and urgent. Some
have already weighed in. The fact that most among them lack the personal
courage to state this reality--which, admittedly is not a good career move--is
of secondary importance. In every crisis of war and peace, it only requires
a small handful of individuals with unique leadership qualities, to step
forward and inspire others to act above their own self-estimates. All great
military leaders, in time of war, brought forth those qualities of courage
and creativity-under-fire in the men and women under their command. LaRouche
has taken the bold step, making it possible for others to act. This may
be the last best hope to avoid a needless and devastating U.S. attack on
Iraq, triggering a perpetual war and the likely early onset of a global
New Dark Age.
-
- - Byrd Says `Blind and Improvident' - Some of those same
wartime leadership qualities were, happily, on display on the floor of
the United States Senate on Oct. 3, where Robert Byrd, the 84-year old
West Virginia Democratic Senator and Constitutional scholar, delivered
his own courageous and compassionate attack against the Bush Administration's
doctrine of pre-emptive war. Byrd did not go so far; yet, he presented
the evidence, supporting LaRouche's diagnosis. LaRouche in turn commended
Senator Byrd for his actions, urging that the Bush Administration show
the intelligence to listen to the senior Senator's cogent arguments. Senator
Byrd, delivered a statement entitled "Rush to War Ignores U.S. Constitution,"
as debate opened on Senate Joint Resolution 46--introduced into the Senate
by Joseph Lieberman (D-Ct.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.)--authorizing the
President to use whatever force he deems necessary in Iraq or elsewhere.
Byrd began: "The great Roman historian, Titus Livius, said, `All things
will be clear and distinct to the man who does not hurry; haste is blind
and improvident.' `Blind and improvident,' Mr. President.... Congress would
be wise to heed those words today, for as sure as the sun rises in the
East, we are embarking on a course of action with regard to Iraq that,
in its haste, is both blind and improvident. We are rushing into war without
fully discussing why, without thoroughly considering the consequences,
or without making any attempt to explore what steps we might take to avert
conflict."
-
- Heart of the issue, seized on by Byrd, is that the resolution
violates the Constitution and international law. "The resolution before
us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of Presidential
hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the
nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of
the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to
launch a unilateral pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived
to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded
interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not
to mention the fact that it stands the Charter of the United Nations on
its head."
-
- Byrd quoted from a letter of then-Representative Abraham
Lincoln, who warned: "Allow the President to invade a neighboring
nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion... and
you allow him to make war at pleasure. The provision of the Constitution
giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it,
by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing
their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good
of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the
most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame
the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this
oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places
our President where kings have always stood."
-
- The question Byrd posed was: "If he could speak
to us today, what would Lincoln say of the Bush doctrine concerning preemptive
strikes?"
-
- - War Without End in Sight - "Think for a moment,"
Byrd asked the Senate, "of the precedent that this resolution will
set, not just for this President but for future Presidents. From this day
forward, American Presidents will be able to invoke Senate Joint Resolution
46 as justification for launching pre-emptive military strikes against
any sovereign nations that they perceive to be a threat. Other nations
will be able to hold up the United States as the model to justify their
military adventures. Do you not think that India and Pakistan, China and
Taiwan, Russia and Georgia are closely watching the outcome of this debate?
Do you not think that future adversaries will look to this moment to rationalize
the use of military force to achieve who knows what ends?... To be sure,
weapons of mass destruction are a 20th-Century horror that the Framers
of the Constitution had no way of foreseeing. But they did foresee the
frailty of human nature and the inherent danger of concentrating too much
power in one individual. That is why the Framers bestowed on Congress,
not the President, the power to declare war."
-
- Byrd warned that the United States, under the Bush doctrine,
would become a rogue state: "The principle of one government deciding
to eliminate another government, using force to do so, and taking that
action in spite of world disapproval, is a very disquieting thing. I am
concerned that it has the effect of destabilizing the world community of
nations. I am concerned that it fosters a climate of suspicion and mistrust
in U.S. relations with other nations. The United States is not a rogue
nation, given to unilateral action in the face of worldwide opprobrium."
-
- Unless, the President has gone mad.
-
- This will be printed in the Oct. 11 issue of the Executive
Intelligence Review, as part of a package of reports on the war drive and
what the U.S. global mission should be. To obtain a free sample copy of
the EIR, call, toll-free, 1-888-347-3258 and say, "I saw it on Rense.com."
|
