[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 124 (Thursday, September 26, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1664-E1665]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                RESOLUTIONS TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST IRAQ

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 25, 2002

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress face few decisions as 
important for their constituents as the issue of war or 
peace—sending young men and women into combat. And now, 
protecting Americans from terror attacks in the U.S. is equally vital. 
These crucial questions truly call for us to put aside political 
calculation and do what is right and best for America. These issues 
also call for us to resist a rush to judgment. We must take time to 
ensure that they are carefully weighed and throughly aired.
  I oppose the resolution requested by President Bush that would give 
him a blank check to start a war against Iraq at any time and in any 
manner that he chooses. This clearly is too broad. It authorizes the 
President to act unilaterally no matter what the U.N. decides or does. 
That would abdicate congressional responsibility and is reminiscent of 
the equally open-ended Tonkin Gulf Resolution in 1964. It also fails to 
limit his authority to working within the U.N. framework on peaceful 
measures to enforce U.N. sanctions. Finally, the President's proposal 
embodies his alarming new doctrine of pre-emptive U.S. attacks on other 
nations even when they pose no imminent threat to the U.S.
  Instead, I join with many of my colleagues who support a more 
sensible, more justified and far less dangerous position: we advocate 
that the U.S. pursue inspections through the U.N., while continuing to 
deter Saddam Hussein, as we have been able to do for the past decade. 
To implement this view, we have introduced an alternative resolution 
endorsing President Bush's request for U.N. inspections.
  The Administration simply has not made the case that Iraq threatens 
the United States with weapons of mass destruction, and that we are in 
such imminent danger of attack that U.S. military action is either the 
prudent or the justified course. Everyone agrees that Saddam Hussein is 
a very brutal dictator. He has: ruthlessly repressed his own people; 
committed aggression in the past; violated U.N. sanctions; sought to 
develop weapons of mass destruction; and remained hostile to the United 
States.
  But that does not end the matter, for two reasons. First, the same 
could be said for any number of other countries, such a North Korea, 
China, and Iran. Will the U.S. attack each of them, and others, because 
some day they might be able to threaten us with weapons of mass 
destruction?
  Second, even if a “regime change” in Iraq is desirable, 
that does not justify taking military action when it would risk so many 
dangers to America. Attacking Iraq will increase rather than decrease 
the likelihood of Saddam Hussein's launching whatever weapons he does 
have against Israel, against our other allies, or against U.S. forces 
stationed in that region—a risk that even Secretary of Defense 
Rumsfeld acknowledged in recent congressional testimony. At present, 
Hussein is deterred by our threat of retaliatory destruction. He knows 
that, if he were to use weapons of mass destruction against us, then we 
would retaliate and destroy him. There is no evidence that Hussein 
seeks to commit suicide. But if we attack first, after announcing an 
intent to wipe him out, then what reason would he have to hold back?
  A U.S. attack poses other severe dangers:
  American military commanders fear it would dilute our fight against 
al Qaida. We have not yet captured those who killed thousands of 
Americans, and who, we know, are still trying to kill more. That is job 
number one.
  America's attacking Iraq alone would ignite a firestorm of anti-
American fervor in the Middle East and Muslim world and breed thousands 
of new potential terrorists.
  As we see in Afghanistan, there would be chaos and inter-ethnic 
conflict following Saddam's departure. A post-war agreement among them 
to cooperate peacefully in a new political structure would not be self-
executing. Iraq would hardly become overnight a shining “model 
democracy” for the Middle East. We would need a U.S. peacekeeping 
force and nation-building efforts there for years. Despite rosy 
predictions that the Iraqi people would welcome our soldiers and aid 
workers with open arms, they would be arriving after years of U.S.-led 
economic sanctions, followed by violent U.S. bombing and combat. They 
will be the constant target of local hostility and terrorist attacks.
  If we violate the U.N. Charter and unilaterally assault another 
country when it is not yet a matter of necessary self-defense, then we 
will set a dangerous precedent, paving the way for any other nation 
that chooses to do so, too, including those with nuclear weapons such 
as India and Pakistan and China.
  We will trigger an arms-race of nations accelerating and expanding 
their efforts to develop weapons of destruction, so that they can deter 
“pre-emptive” hostile action by the U.S. Do we really want 
to open this Pandora's box?
  The war, plus the need to rebuild Iraq and create a united, peaceful 
country, would cost billions of dollars badly needed at home. For 
millions of Americans, the biggest threat to their security in the lack 
of decent wage jobs, health insurance or affordable housing for their 
families. For senior citizens, it is their need to choose between 
buying enough food and buying prescription drugs. Indeed, most 
Americans are more frightened about security at our airports than about 
some strutting dictator thousands of miles away. Yet the Bush 
Administration's deficit budget won't even permit meeting the year-end 
deadline for installing new baggage and passenger screening systems to 
protect us against an immediate threat here at home.
  The huge costs of war and nation building, which will increase our 
deficit, along with the impact of the likely sharp rise in oil prices, 
will deal a double-barreled blow to our currently fragile economy.
  If it were plausible that we had to attack Iraq now, in order to head 
off strategic threats to the United States in the near future—and 
if alternatives had been exhausted, then that overriding concern might 
justify the risk of all these harmful consequences that are certain to 
follow U.S. military action. But the Bush Administration has not 
presented persuasive evidence that Saddam will soon be able to threaten 
America with weapons of mass destruction, or that he is likely to use 
them against us. Until then, a U.S. pre-emptive attack makes no sense, 
in light of the risks it would create and the clear harm it would cause 
to our national interests.
  In fact, it is precisely because they lack such evidence that the 
President, Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney have 
increasingly downplayed claims of an impending nuclear threat from Iraq 
and have switched to elaborating on what a bad person Saddam has been.
  But such a departure from the principles of our tradition—an 
unprovoked attack initiated by the U.S.—cannot be justified 
merely because we would prefer another regime in Baghdad, or because 
someday Saddam Hussein might present an actual strategic threat to U.S. 
security.
  In addition, Americans should ask the White House and the Congress 
about the timing of the vote on any IRAQ resolution. What's the rush? 
According to press reports, our military leaders have made clear they 
will not be ready to launch an attack for months, and would prefer to 
do so in January or February. Why, then, do we need to decide such a 
complex and consequential issue in a few days? Why cut short the 
national debate to which the American people are entitled? Is it 
because the Administration is aware that a growing number of Americans 
are troubled by all of the unanswered questions? Americans are puzzled 
why Iraq has suddenly become such a threat that the White House is 
prepared to go to war and shed the blood of American men and women, not 
to mention great numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians.
  They are right to ask. What has changed in the last six months or 
year that suddenly makes an attack on Iraq the leading item on

[[Page E1665]]

the Administration's agenda? All of the reasons now being cited by the 
White House—Hussein's bad character, his past behavior, the 
outstanding unfulfilled U.N. resolutions and his continued pursuit of 
strategic weaponry—were equally true back then.
  I would hope that this headlong rush to judgment does not have 
anything to do with the November elections.
  I expect the Bush Administration to present very soon some 
conveniently last-minute “new evidence” in order to support 
its promised new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessing Iraq's 
capabilities. It is very odd that, as of last week—so many months 
after Iraq had become the leading headline issue—the 
Administration had still not completed an all-source, inter-agency 
assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and future capacity:
  Is this because the White House knew it would be unhappy with the 
result?
  Is it because the Administration was unable to pressure all of the 
intelligence agencies to reach the “right” conclusions?
  Is it because the White House has been pressing the Intelligence 
Community to find some new “evidence” that could be 
artfully interpreted to support Administration policy?
  Mr. Speaker, It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that one or more 
of these considerations played a role in the otherwise inexplicable 
delay. Therefore, I have asked the Chairman and Ranking Member of the 
House Committee on Intelligence to vigorously investigate what dissents 
any of the intelligence agencies may have registered from the NIE's 
overall conclusions, from its component findings and from its 
assumption—either in the final document, or in earlier comments 
on discussion drafts.
  This summer, several major newspapers reported that senior officers 
at the Pentagon, including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not 
believe that Iraq posed a sufficient threat to the U.S. to warrant the 
risks and the costs of a war. Now they apparently have been brought on 
board a White House war train that is about to leave the station. Why 
have they suddenly reversed their position? I trust their initial 
professional judgment.
  In these tense times, we should keep in mind the recent warning from 
another military leader, General Anthony Zinni, who was Marine 
Commandant and also has headed our Armed Forces Central Command, which 
guards our interests in the Middle East. He currently is a key advisor 
on that region to the Administration. General Zinni reminded us that 
military commanders, who know the full horrors of war are hesitant to 
plunge ahead unless the national interest is clearly at stake, while 
those who have never worn a uniform or seen combat often are the ones 
who most easily and enthusiastically beat the drums of war.

                          ____________________