The following articles are reprinted from the Hampshire Gazzette as a "fair use" for educational purposes. Copies of this article may be available from the source on-line or via mail. This website has no authority to grant permission to reprint this article. At times we copy an article, with attribution, rather than link directly to the source as media links are often unstable, e.g. the article moves from the source's linked page to an archive, thereby creating a bad link on this site.

[Web Editor's Note: As of this writing, October 8, 2002, Sen. John Kerry has not stated his position on the Senate resolution. An aide to Sen. Kerry informed Greg Crawford (a Traprock volunteer who has gathered letters for faxing to members of Congress), that despite receiving many hundreds of letters against the war versus only a couple in favor of war, Sen. Kerry remians undecided.]

Olver against; Neal undecided
Related story: Protesters oppose war on Iraq

By MARY CAREY, Staff Writer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, October 8, 2002 -- U.S. Rep. John Olver does not intend to vote for a compromise congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to wage war on Iraq, and U.S. Rep. Richard Neal remains undecided .

The U.S. House of Representatives will begin debating the resolution midweek. The Senate is expected to vote on it later this week.

Olver and Neal believe Congress will overwhelmingly endorse the use of military action in Iraq, though they are not sure what the final resolution will look like.
Olver is among a majority of Massachusetts congressmen who have said they will not endorse the resolution in its current form.

U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy has been a leading voice in the Senate against signing a resolution giving the president wide latitude to attack Iraq unilaterally and pre-emptively.
"There is time here to do something less than war," Olver said this week. "War really ought to be the last resort after all the other alternatives have been tried - not after the kind of drumbeat we have going now. There has been a crescendo."

Olver and Neal said they have been hearing overwhelmingly from constituents who do not want the United States to attack Iraq. Olver said he has gotten thousands of e-mails, phone calls and faxes - mail is still coming to him three weeks late, because of additional security measures following the anthrax scare last winter - and that only "four people out of a couple of hundred have said do it now."

Neal said anti-war protesters have made their sentiments known to him.

"There are those always who would like to use raw emotion and say do this or do that, and they have these knee-jerk positions. I think you're far better off weighing the evidence and offering a decision based on a magnifying glass of scrutiny," Neal said.

The Springfield congressman said he is trying to get as much information as he can before making his decision, probably by Wednesday.

"I've been to the White House; I've listened to (National Security Adviser) Condoleezza Rice. I've met with the CIA. I've talked to Tony Lake (a former national security adviser), and I've talked with the Committee on Armed Services in the House. There are experts that we have at our disposal, and I think hearing what people have to say on this is very important," Neal said.

"I don't buy the argument that you can never use military force. At the same time, I think for the purpose of credibility internationally that acting through the United Nations and the United Nations Security Council after unfettered, robust inspections is the way to proceed," Neal added.

Olver criticized Bush's proposed new foreign policy calling for the United States to act much more aggressively to protect the nation's status as the only military superpower in the world which the president has issued in conjunction with the call for a resolution on a war with Iraq.

"The consequences of that kind of policy need to be carefully and calmly explored rather than thrown upon Congress so close to an election. It immediately invites any other nation to assert its own right to use unilateral action. It just seems to me that a world where everyone is relying on that concept would be exceedingly more dangerous than it is today," Olver said.