Henry Hyde, RIP

"In the world you will find tribulation, but be of good cheer, for I have overcome the world."

John 16:33

...back in the 80s', he helped pass a law that made it much harder for deadbeat dads to skip out on their child support payments.

Then Mr. Hyde lost his potion and couldn't turn into Dr. Jekyll any more.

Hey, the joke was there. I had to take the opportunity. ;-)

For whatever its worth the following was perhaps Hyde's last mark on today's world events. Ironically, much of the reasoning that follows and the aftermath of our invasion will continue to unfold. Perhaps we might want to reflect on Hyde's words of 2002 and looking back, see how well they apply to our situation today.

Opening Statement by
Chairman Henry J. Hyde
Markup of H. J. Res. 114,
Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq
October 2, 2002

"The United States is once again confronted with the specter of Saddam
Hussein armed with an arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly
even nuclear weapons.
This is a sobering prospect, but we should not focus our attention
solely on his instruments of destruction. Instead, we must recognize
that the threat lies in Saddam himself.
We need not make a case against Saddam Hussein. He has condemned
himself with a clarity far more stark than his most bitter opponent
could pronounce.
In 1980, he attacked Iran and initiated a decade of warfare that
killed and wounded over one million people, a conflict that included
his use of chemical weapons on Iranian troops. In 1990, he invaded
Kuwait and imposed a brutal occupation on that country, laying waste
to everything within reach when his forces were finally driven out. He
has indiscriminately used chemical weapons on unarmed civilians in his
own country, and he has slaughtered any who have opposed him.
Given this record, there can be no doubt that, once armed with weapons
of even greater destructive power, he will have little reluctance to
use them.
The threat to U.S. interests is obvious, but we are not the only
target. The entire world should understand the danger that Saddam
poses to everyone and should welcome any opportunity to end it before
he is ready to strike. Despite the extensive criticism that has been
directed at the Administration, I believe that the President and his
advisers have gone to extraordinary lengths to enlist the cooperation
of the world community, including that of our allies and the United
Nations.
The response, however, has been a disappointing one. Many of our
critics apparently refuse to recognize the danger for what it is.
We can see this attitude in the eager reaction to Saddam's latest
promise of cooperation which has, at least initially, accomplished its
purpose of undermining the fragile beginnings of a consensus that at
long last something must be done.
But we would be fools indeed if we believed that Saddam can be
trusted.
He has cynically broken all of his previous promises of cooperation,
and there is no reason to believe that his latest statement is
anything more than an attempt to delay and divide us. He will only use
the time the world grants him to further his plans and preparations.
This is hardly an unprecedented situation. Is it really necessary to
remind ourselves that the world watched as Hitler boldly proclaimed
his objectives and openly armed his forces? Willfully blinded and
seduced by hope, his intended targets only guaranteed the catastrophe
they so greatly feared would descend upon them.
This is an undeniable reality, but we are confronted with an even
greater danger than that posed by Saddam. Despite clear and repeated
warnings, it appears that much of the world does not understand that
we have entered a wholly new and increasingly perilous era, one with
new and harsher rules.
Through repeated usage, the term, "Weapons of Mass Destruction," has
become almost banal, but the unimaginable destructive power these
represent requires our constant focus and a determination to do what
we must to defend ourselves.
The problem is not merely that a murderous tyrant such as Saddam may
be in possession of these weapons. In the aftermath of September 11th,
we must accept that he has been joined by many others of an even more
fanatical purpose. Terrorists willing to commit suicide in order to
kill large numbers of innocents cannot be stopped by the familiar
conventions of deterrence. Their possession of weapons of mass
destruction must be equated with a certainty that these will be used
against us.
To assume that these terrorists and others will remain unarmed by
Saddam is an assumption with a deadly potential. A first strike could
well be the last strike.
We cannot shield ourselves with hope. We must not guess the world into
annihilation.
What then must we do?
The President has demonstrated his determination to act to remove this
threat and has asked the Congress for an authorizing resolution. But
we have yet to reach unanimity on that resolution.
It is reasonable to ask for proof that Saddam is planning to attack
us. The temptation to deny the boundless dimensions of the menace he
poses to us is a strong one, but this must be abandoned in the
recognition that he himself has broadcast his intentions.
It is a matter of record that his relentless pursuit of weapons of
terror and of mass slaughter is decades-old. But it was only in the
aftermath of the Gulf War in 1991 that we were able to directly
measure the intensity of that determination. The revelation that he
was within six months of possessing an operational nuclear device, a
fact that our best intelligence had been unable to uncover, was
riveting in its implications.
He is restrained in his efforts to do us harm only by the limits of
his ability to do so, and he is racing to free himself from those
limits. With every day, the onslaught that he is preparing for us
approaches ever closer.
For those convinced of Saddam's murderous intentions, the debate has
centered on whether or not we should focus our efforts on assembling a
coalition of friends and allies and seek the enhanced legitimacy that
approval by the United Nations might render to our actions.
But I believe that is the wrong debate. We all agree that these are
desirable things and that we should do all in our power to secure
them. I believe the President and his Administration have done and are
doing just that.
But the real question, the one which should occupy us, is one of far
greater consequence: On whom does the final responsibility for
protecting ourselves rest? Is it ours or do we share it with others?
Are decisions regarding our fate to be made in common with others?
I believe the answer is unavoidable.
We have no choice but to act as a sovereign country prepared to defend
ourselves, with our friends and allies if possible, but alone if
necessary. There can be no safety if we tie our fate to the
cooperation of others, only a hope that all will be well, a hope that
eventually must fail.
For more than half a century, whatever safety and security has existed
in this world has been there largely because America has been unafraid
to act against threats, and to act alone if necessary. The perception
that we are resolved to do so has prevented many assaults on that
security and continues to do so today.
On many occasions we have been joined in our efforts by our friends
and allies and, more rarely, have enjoyed the world's approval. But
often we have not, and still we acted.
If we are to have a chance of averting conflict in Iraq, a simple
resolve on our part will not be sufficient to the task. For the great
danger we face with Saddam is ambiguity.
Saddam has often miscalculated in the past. His flawed judgments have
resulted in wars that have killed hundreds of thousands of people. For
that reason, any ambiguity regarding our course of action and our
determination to act alone if need be risks yet another miscalculation
on his part and a false grant of safety to call our bluff.
Vigorous debate in our deliberations is not only permissible - it is
essential. The question before us and our country is too great to
demand acquiescence. But the result of that debate cannot be to
condition our actions on the approval of others, for we might wait for
an approval that may never come. Far more important is that we cannot
even appear to be waiting for others. For to do so would be to fatally
convince Saddam that we might wait forever.
The sight of dissension, of irresolution, in the Congress cannot but
contribute to the potential for miscalculation.
However desirable the cooperation of our friends and allies may be,
the merest hint of any doubt that we will act alone if necessary
cannot but reinforce Saddam's calculation that we will not act at all.
To risk giving him even the faintest hope that we can be restrained or
delayed by others in our search for consensus, may well be a deadly
one, for his gamble might bring ruin upon us all.
I speak of the sight of dissension, for we must remember that our
debate is not for ourselves alone, and that our audience is not
confined to this room. The world is watching us. Our allies are
watching us.
Our enemies are watching us. Saddam is watching us. They are looking
for signs of indecision in our resolve, searching for the fatal sign
of weakness that will come from binding ourselves to act only in
concert with others. The voice of indecision would cut through any
wording in which we might attempt to secret it, however artfully
phrased and cleverly contrived we might render it.
We do not have the luxury of pretending not to see the danger
confronting us. All of our choices are difficult ones, but our only
real option is to act.
Over a century ago, in another conflict, Lincoln said that "we cannot
escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be
remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or
insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial
through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to
the latest generation."
Those same words apply to us here today.
A century ago, Britain stood majestically at the height of her power.
Within 40 years, the knife was at her throat, and she survived only
because we were there to rescue her. But there is no one to rescue us.
We cannot entrust our fate to others, for others may never come. If we
are not prepared to defend ourselves, and to defend ourselves alone if
need be, if we cannot convince the world that we are unshakably
resolved to do so, then there can be no security for us, no safety to
be purchased, no refuge to be found.
In the name of those brave souls, both living and departed, who
purchased our freedom, let us now act."

Your comment about deleting comments about the commet policy made me laugh; it reminds me of an old "Star Trek" spoof called "Command Decision Crisis" where Spock is held captive by the female Romulan commander. She's about to execute him, and he keeps going on about the Right of Statement, while she keeps saying "No statements about the Statement." and "Prisoners have no right to the Right." until she finally shouts "Shut up!"

He lifts his eyebrow and says "Commander, we were endevoring to have a rational discussion. Shouting is not necessary."

Anyway, I wonder how many rightwingers currently lauding HH remember the backstory of The Four Bobs. Actually, it made me think better of HH, though it probably had the opposite effect on your side of the fence.