Editorial: They hear us now

Published on February 29, 2008

It's good to know that our legislators are listening to constituent concerns about U.S. foreign policy.

In early November 2006, Amherst Town Meeting passed a resolution that urged the U.S. government to pursue a diplomatic solution with Iran, rather than military action, to end the sabre-rattling between the two countries.

Copies of that resolution were sent to Amherst's congressional delegation, President George W. Bush, and others. The concerns expressed have been echoed in other communities and by groups and individuals mistrustful of the Bush administration.

The White House rushed into war with Iraq on the basis of faulty evidence. In an effort to avoid a repeat performance, the Pioneer Valley's congressmen, along with other like-minded members in the House of Representatives, are gathering support for four similar bills reaffirming that only Congress can declare war and requiring specific Congressional approval for the United States to attack Iran.

First District Congressmen John Olver, of Amherst, and Richard Neal, of Springfield, who represents the Second District, were in Hadley last week to explain these bills to constituents. Olver told the group of 200-plus attendees at the Hadley American Legion that there isn't enough support yet in the House to bring any version of the bill to the floor. The votes may not be there yet, but the number is growing.

America needs to protect itself and be wary of foreign powers that would seek to do us harm. That's basic security. However, our congressional delegation's latest efforts are a worthy attempt to make the office of the president accountable to the Constitution and the people.

Congress, under the Constitution, has the power to declare war. However, presidents, especially since World War II, have used their role as commander-in-chief to wage wars President Harry S. Truman used this power in the Korean War, calling it a "police action"; President Lyndon B. Johnson used the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to expand our presence in Vietnam, and George Bush used U.N. Resolution 1441 and a vote of Congressional support to make war upon Saddam Hussein and Iraq in 2003.

The United States' relationship with Iran is not a new one. As with other shortsighted foreign policy initiatives - backing known killers such as Saddam, Osama bin Laden and Chile's Pinochet, for example - the U.S. has had a hand in manipulation of Iranian affairs. Two of the results were the Iranian Revolution of 1978, when the Islamist wrested power from a pro-Western shah, and a continued, deep-seated mistrust of the American government.

As the U.S. military death toll in Iraq nears 4,000, we now know that the case for war was a fabrication. In March of 2003, there were no weapons of mass destruction; there was no relationship between Saddam's Iraq and the terrorist group al-Qaida; and there were no freedom-loving people looking to throw roses at the occupiers' feet. There were also no tough questions from Congress. Now, al-Qaida has a strong foothold in the country, and every Iraqi civilian's death is a potential recruit for terrorism. We must make sure that this scenario does not repeat itself in Iran or anywhere else.

Neal told residents gathered in Hadley that he's concerned about the potential of President Bush manipulating evidence against Iran, as with the run-up to the Iraq War. He noted the intelligence report that Iran had stopped its quest for uranium enrichment which the Bush administration kept under wraps for several years. Last Friday, the U.S. government gave more information to the International Atomic Energy Agency, allegedly showing continued efforts on Iran's part to weaponize nuclear material. The veracity of that information is unclear, at best.

The IAEA is scheduled to issue a report in March that will outline Iran's nuclear capabilities, which should give a clearer picture as to what that country can and cannot do.

Rarely is there a case for having too much information, especially when war is at stake. We urge the two congressmen to press their case for constitutional checks and balances, fight for answers from the president, and continue listening to constituents who want less war and more peace.