[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 25, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9219-S9221]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague, 
Senator Boxer, for her excellent remarks, and those Senators from New 
Jersey and New York who joined her. She has made a very impassioned 
message. It is a correct message. I hope people listen.
  I also am deeply saddened by recent comments made by the President 
and Vice President which imply that Democrats are not protective of our 
Nation's security. Nothing is further from the truth.
  There is no shortage of courage and bravery and patriotism on this 
side of the aisle. We, too, have our heroes who prove that: Senator Max 
Cleland, Senator Daniel Inouye, former Senator Bob Kerrey, and Senator 
John Kerry, people who fought with bravery and distinction in major 
conflicts this Nation has had.
  Even to imply the Democrats are not interested in the security of the 
American people is not only wrong, but in the present pre-election 
period I believe it is also base.
  Last night, it was reported the Vice President went so far as to 
state that American security would be enhanced if a certain GOP 
candidate was elected to the House of Representatives. This very 
statement, carried by major newspapers, jaundiced any fair discussion 
in this pre-election period.
  One might ask why? The reason is both the President and the Vice 
President have an extraordinary bully pulpit with a very long reach. It 
makes up about 95 percent of everything that reaches the American 
public; the remaining 5 percent is scattered among whoever is able to 
receive it.

  If this debate is politicized in the heat of an election and the 
decision is made for the wrong reasons--out of fear; if we do not carry 
out the public trust that is invested in us and make the decision for 
the right reasons, then we betray our trust. And no election is worth 
doing that.
  I share the concern of the majority leader, and I hope it is not too 
late to end this politicization. But there is only one way. Shortly, we 
in Congress will begin debate on whether to authorize the President the 
authority to use force against Iraq. It is, in effect, a declaration of 
war. The President has sent a draft resolution. He made his case before 
the United Nations. Today he

[[Page S9220]]

seeks the support of the international community. Now it is our job, 
our constitutional duty, to debate this resolution. But we must do so 
in an atmosphere that is true. The decision to go to war is perhaps the 
most grave and significant decision any nation makes. It is a decision 
that must be made on its own merits, with a timetable determined by the 
cause and the case and not based on political considerations and 
upcoming elections. I believe that deeply.
  A declaration of war against Iraq is the most serious decision many 
Members will ever make as Senators. It is a life or death decision for 
the American men and women we put into harm's way, for the innocent 
Iraqi people who will be killed, for the repercussions it will have 
throughout the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and the Arab world, and 
throughout our own country and the rest of the world.
  Congress must not rush to judgment before it has had ample 
opportunity to answer the many questions that still remain regarding 
why a war, a preemptive war, should be fought at this time against 
Iraq. For example, what is the immediate threat to American security to 
justify an attack on another sovereign nation? How would such a war be 
conducted? How would we respond to Iraq's use of chemical or biological 
weapons, to an attack on Israel, or to a ricochet of terrorist 
incidents in our country and around the world? And what are our 
responsibilities for postwar stability once Saddam Hussein is ousted? 
How do we prevent civil war between the Sunnis and the Shias?
  No one questions that Saddam Hussein is an evil man, or the potential 
of Iraq acquiring the nuclear capability within the next 5 to 7 years 
is a possibility. We believe it is. There is reason to believe that 
Saddam Hussein has squirreled away biological and chemical weapons. But 
they are most likely close to civilians: in tunnels, under mosques, 
around schools and hospitals, and inside palaces or in mobile vehicles.
  This is not sufficient reason to preemptively attack another 
sovereign nation--for the first time in this Nation's history--without 
first being provoked by an attack against our homeland, our people, or 
our interests. It is not sufficient reason to put our service men and 
women in harm's way when there are real, viable options short of war 
left on the table. There is no question this country should take steps 
to disarm Iraq. Saddam Hussein, with chemical and biological weapons, 
represents a real threat to his own people, to the Middle East region, 
and to the international security. The question is, Is use of force the 
first option or the last option? In my view, it should be the last. In 
my view, working with the international community, doing all we can to 
disarm Iraq before jumping to military force, remains an option.
  If Saddam Hussein balks at inspectors, if he starts playing games, if 
he continues to thwart the will of the international community, then 
the use of force by the United States has a moral imprimatur and is the 
only remaining viable answer.
  There is no question that Iraq is in direct violation of 
international law, numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions, and that 
he poses a threat in the region. Nobody debates that. But there is no 
persuasive evidence that Iraq is prepared to unleash its biological or 
chemical weapons today. Although he used them against the Kurds in 1987 
and 1988, and against Iran in their decade-long war, he has not used 
them in over 10 years, and he knows what will happen to him if he does. 
He may be homicidal but he is not suicidal.

  Likewise, there is no persuasive evidence that he possesses nuclear 
weapons today. He may be trying to gain these weapons, but he remains 
years away. So instead of rushing to war, I believe we should proceed 
in a calm, methodical, and nonpolitical manner. The United States 
should work through the United Nations Security Council--as the 
President himself suggested in a September 12 speech to the United 
Nations and as Secretary of State Colin Powell is now trying to do to 
obtain full and unconditional access for arms inspectors, and hopefully 
accompanied by a United Nations military force.
  We should seek the complete destruction of Iraqi weapons of mass 
destruction and the means to deliver them. This approach should be our 
first option, not window dressing or an option to be dismissed out-of-
hand. And we should do this not for idealistic reasons but because it 
is in our national security interests to do so.
  Indeed, the benefit of pursuing a multilateral approach was seen 
clearly when Saudi Arabia suggested that, if the United States were 
working through the United Nations, it would grant U.S. forces access 
to its bases. Action against Iraq becomes much more complicated, from a 
military perspective, if there are no landing or flyover rights in 
other Arab countries; and managing the aftermath becomes much more 
difficult if we find the entire Arab world against us.
  So I believe that if the United States fails in its efforts to compel 
Iraqi compliance with a United Nations inspection, verification, and 
destruction regime--either because other countries threaten a veto in 
the Security Council or the United Nations is unable to muster the 
muscle and will to enforce its own resolutions--then the United States, 
with or without willing partners in the international community, must 
be prepared to go it alone.
  But we must be clear. If we go to war, it should be to force Iraq to 
disarm.
  This time, too, it is critical that the United States stays the 
course on the war on terror.
  In every book you read on Osama bin Laden, you see that he believed 
that we would never stay the course in a war against him. We would hit 
a camp once and then disappear. As happened before, we would go to 
Somalia, get into trouble in Mogadishu, and we would turn tail and run. 
Bin Laden bet on that. He cannot be right about that. We have much to 
do to win this war.
  Many of those who perpetrated the September 11 terrorist attacks 
remain at large, including two-thirds of the al-Qaida leadership; the 
Taliban and its leader, Mullah Omar; not to mention thousands of 
terrorists sympathetic to al-Qaida worldwide, including in our own 
country.
  Afghanistan remains a fragile and unstable country. The United States 
must continue our efforts to rebuild this country. We cannot repeat 
what was done to it since 1979. We must continue our efforts to rebuild 
Afghanistan, the Afghan economy, to assure that the Taliban and al-
Qaida do not return to power there--because they will if they can. We 
must protect and stabilize the Government of Hamid Karzai. And any 
effort in Iraq must not detract from our war on terror.
  The President has rightly pointed out that the war on terror will be 
a long and hard-fought battle, and it is not just against al-Qaida. It 
is Hezbollah, which equals al-Qaida in its reach, in its viciousness, 
in its malevolence, and its evil. We must not take our eye off this 
ball. The President must come forward to explain not only how we fight 
this two-front war without allowing one front to jeopardize our 
interests in the other, but also what we would do in the event of a 
major strike against Israel.

  I have come to this floor before and indicated that there is ample 
evidence that rockets are being shipped out of Iran, through Syria and 
into southern Lebanon--Katyusha rockets with extended range anywhere 
from 8,000 to 10,000, to hit Israel's industrial zone north of Haifa, 
should we attack Iraq.
  What do we do then? What is our commitment, and what will the other 
Arab States do? I think we ought to know this. I think as prudent 
leaders, as part of a debate in the greatest deliberative body in the 
world, we ought to know these things before going into it, so there are 
no surprises.
  Finally, it is critical that if and as we consider any use of force 
against Iraq that we have a clear understanding of the aftermath. Who 
would do the rebuilding? Who would pay for it? Who would run any new 
government? And could that government provide security? Could it 
prevent a bigger and more brutal battle between the Sunni and the Shia.
  That is not a question to overlook. Read the history on Iraq. You 
will see the brutality and the viciousness, the attack of one tribe on 
the other that has characterized Iraqi history from the time of ancient 
Mesopotamia. There are a lot of grievances out there to be settled, big 
grievances between the Shia majority and the ruling Sunni Baath party 
minority.

[[Page S9221]]

  As General Shalikashvili made clear in his recent testimony before 
the Senate Armed Services Committee, planning for a post-conflict 
situation, winning the peace, is every bit as important as planning for 
the conflict itself.
  And until the planning for post-war Iraq is in place--and it is not 
now--we should not rush to initiate combat. In fact, every general with 
whom I have talked--and I have talked with several--has urged caution. 
Every general with whom I have talked, privately, believes this war 
could end up being much more difficult than some expect it to be.
  So to simply rush ahead and authorize the President to use force now, 
before these questions are answered, and without an imminent threat--
save what some hope to gain from this issue in the elections--would be 
a grave error.
  Congress must debate these issues fully, thoroughly, on a schedule, 
and with a timetable driven only by the merits of the issues. We must 
then move forward to pass a resolution tailored to the specific 
circumstances and giving the President the proper authority he needs to 
safeguard U.S. national interests.
  So much is at stake here. American lives are at stake. We do not know 
how many, but I know one thing: It is not going to be like the gulf 
war. This war will be in cities. This will be street to street and 
house to house. We might send in the B-2s, the B-52s and the 117s, and 
they might drop huge numbers of laser-guided missiles and precision 
bombs. We will kill a lot of people. And then do we risk what may 
happen with the chemical and biologicals squirreled away? Do they go up 
in those attacks? Or are they released over innocent people? I have 
never heard one person discuss this, and it is time that we do so.
  We are not a mercenary nation. This is not our heart. It is not our 
soul. And we have never engaged in a preemptive attack on another 
sovereign nation.
  It may well be that untold numbers of lives are at stake elsewhere in 
the Persian Gulf, in the Middle East, and yes, right here in the USA.
  Matters of war and peace, of life and death, must not be held in the 
grip of shortsighted, partisan rancor. I for one refuse to make them 
so. I respectfully suggest the Administration do the same. The stakes 
are simply too high.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if 
in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________