[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 115 (Thursday, September 12, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8553-S8554]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about 
politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 
years, Saddam Hussein has aggressively and obsessively sought weapons 
of mass destruction through every means available. We

[[Page S8554]]

know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used 
them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each 
day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability--a 
capability that could be less than a year away.
  I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear 
threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the 
world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.
  Saddam has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally 
against his neighbors and against his own people. Iraqi's destructive 
capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, 
and poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel.
  What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. 
Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything 
to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility 
that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can 
doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass 
destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can 
hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam 
would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.
  Iraq has continued to develop its arsenal in definance of the 
collective will of the international community, as expressed through 
the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 
cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and ignoring as many as 16 U.N. 
Security Council resolutions--including 11 resolutions concerning 
Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.
  These U.N. resolutions are not unilateral American demands. They 
involve obligations Iraq has undertaken to the international community. 
By ignoring them. Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the 
United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a 
mockery of the very idea of international collective action which is so 
important to the United States and our allies.
  The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do 
whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq 
armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam 
Hussein. The United States must lead an international effort to remove 
the regime of Saddam Hussein and to assure that Iraq fulfills its 
obligations to the international community.
  This is not an easy decision, and its carries many risks. It will 
also carry costs, certainly in resources, and possibly in lives. After 
careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far 
greater than the risk of action.
  As we set out on this course, we must be as conscious of our special 
responsibility as we are confident in the rightness of our cause.
  The United States has a special role of leadership in the 
international community. As America and its allies move down this path, 
we must do so in a way that preserves the legitimacy of our actions, 
enhances international consensus, and strengthens our global 
leadership.
  First, this means making the strongest possible case to the American 
people about the danger Saddam poses. Months of mixed messages, high-
level speculation and news-leaks about possible military plans have 
caused widespread concern among many Americans and around the world.
  I am encouraged that the President has overruled some of his advisors 
and decided to ask for the support of Congress. From the support of 
Congress, this effort will derive even greater and more enduring 
strength.
  Second, the Administration must do as much as possible to rally the 
support of the international community under the mandate of the United 
Nations Security Council. We should tap into the strengths of existing 
alliances like NATO to enforce such a mandate. And let me be clear: 
America's allies deserve more than just token consultation. The Bush 
administration must make a full-court press to rally global support, 
much like the impressive effort President Bush's father made to rally 
the first international coalition against Saddam in the fall of 1990. 
If they do, I believe they will succeed.
  If, however, the United Nations Security Council is prevented from 
supporting this effort, then we must act with as many allies as 
possible to ensure that Iraq meets its obligations to existing Security 
Council resolutions. After all, that's what the U.S. and its NATO 
allies did during the 1999 war in Kosovo, when a U.N. Security Council 
resolution was impossible.
  Third, we must be honest with the American people about the 
extraordinary commitment this task entails. It is likely to cost us 
much in the short-term, and it is certain to demand our attention and 
commitment for the long-haul. We have to show the world that we are 
prepared to do what it takes to help rebuild a post-Saddam Iraq and 
give the long-suffering Iraqi people the chance to live under freedom.
  Working with our allies, we have to be prepared to deal with the 
consequences of success--helping to provide security inside Iraq after 
Saddam is gone, working with the various Iraqi opposition groups in 
shaping a new government, reassuring Iraq's neighbors about its future 
stability, and supporting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives. 
This is a massive undertaking, and we must pursue it with no illusions.
  Ensuring that Iraq complies with its commitments to the international 
community is the mission of the moment. Rebuilding Iraq and helping it 
evolve into a democracy at peace with itself and its neighbors will be 
the mission of many years.
  Unfortunately, the administration's record to date gives me cause for 
concern. They must not make the same mistakes in post-Saddam Iraq that 
they are making in post-Taliban Afghanistan, where they have been 
dangerously slow in making the real commitment necessary to help 
democracy take root and flourish.
  Finally, the administration must show that its actions against Iraq 
are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security around 
the world.
  We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass 
destruction--the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to 
obtain them. We must do much more to support the many disarmament 
programs already in place to dismantle weapons and prevent access to 
weapons-grade materials in Russia and the former Soviet states; we must 
fully fund Nunn-Lugar; and we should work hard to forge international 
coalition to prevent proliferation.
  We must be fully and continuously engaged to help resolve the crisis 
between Israel and the Palestinians. Disengagement was a mistake. The 
United States cannot deliver peace to the parties, but no agreement is 
possible without our active involvement.
  We also must have a national strategy for energy security, working to 
strengthen relationships with new suppliers and doing more to develop 
alternative sources of power.
  And we must do far more to promote democracy throughout the Arab 
world. We should examine our overall engagement in the entire region, 
and employ the same kinds of tools that we used to win the battle of 
ideas fought during the Cold War, from vigorous public diplomacy to 
assistance for democratic reform at the grassroots.
  The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of 
inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the 
sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9/11, the choice 
could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we 
surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and 
take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event--or, if 
weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse--to address the 
clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

                          ____________________