Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 16 (Wednesday, January 29, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 29, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1712-S1719]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

IRAQ

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, President Bush last night warned the
American people to brace for war with Iraq. In his State of the Union
Address, he vowed that if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, the United
States will ``lead a coalition'' to disarm him.
Although the President stopped short of a declaration of war, his
message was clear: In his view, Saddam Hussein constitutes an imminent
danger to peace and security in the world, and the United States is
prepared to wage war, with or without the support of the United
Nations, to remove him from power. The chain of events that President
Bush set into motion last year when he inducted Iraq into what he
called the ``axis of evil'' appears on the verge of spilling over into
battle and bloodshed.
The President's remarks come amid a firestorm of protest from some of
our closest allies in Europe and the Middle East over the apparent
willingness of the United States to ride roughshod over the United
Nations and dictate to the rest of the world the terms of Iraq's
disarmament. The President in his State of the Union speech once again
made clear that Iraq will be dealt with on his timetable, at his hands,
according to his agenda.
Mr. President, I am fully cognizant of the danger presented by the
possibility of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons in the hands of
a ruthless dictator like Saddam Hussein. I am fully cognizant of, and
frustrated by, the fact that Iraq has consistently flouted the United
Nations mandates to disarm, and has apparently shown only token
cooperation with the current inspection regime. Iraq has much to answer
for, and the President is correct in demanding that Iraq respond to the
United Nations.
What concerns me greatly, however, is that this President appears to
place himself above the international mandates of the United Nations.
He has turned a deaf ear to the concerns of other nations and has vowed
that the United States will lead an assault on Iraq regardless of the
judgment of the United Nations. President Bush has

[[Page S1713]]

made the overthrow of Saddam Hussein a personal crusade, and in his
zeal to pursue his goal, he has failed to make the case to the American
people out there and to our allies abroad that the United Nations is
dragging its feet, that war is the only option left, and that war
cannot wait.
The President in his address alluded to tantalizing evidence that
Saddam Hussein is in collusion with al-Qaida and that Iraq possesses
weapons of mass destruction which it is hiding from the United Nations
weapons inspectors. But the President has yet to present that evidence
to the public or to demonstrate why it constitutes an immediate cause
for war. If the evidence is as compelling as the President indicates it
will be, surely the member states of the United Nations will close
ranks behind the United States and demand the forcible disarmament of
Iraq.
The President also set what appears to be a new deadline for the
United Nations. On February 5, he said, the United States will ask the
U.N. Security Council to convene to hear evidence of Iraq's illegal
weapons programs and its links to terrorist groups. I look forward to
learning the details of that meeting. I wonder why the President is
holding back for another week if he has such information today, and
perhaps has had it for some time. I am confident that the U.N. weapons
inspectors would welcome such evidence, not next week but today, so
that they could do their jobs more effectively. I wonder why the Senate
has not been given this evidence. I wonder why the American people, who
are being asked to send their sons and daughters, mothers and fathers,
brothers and sisters into the battle zone, have not been made privy to
this important evidence.
Perhaps the answer lies in the followup comment by the President,
when he said: ``We will consult, but let there by no misunderstanding.
If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people,
and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm
him.'' Despite all his comments to the contrary, it appears that the
President has predetermined that war with Iraq is the only recourse
left.
If war is the answer, the support of the international community is
essential. I believe that it would be a grave mistake for the United
States to preempt the work of the United Nations weapons inspectors and
initiate an invasion of Iraq without first seeking the express support
of the Security Council. The United States is already seen by many as
an aggressor in the Middle East. Speculation is rife in Europe that the
United States is pressing to invade Iraq to give the U.S. control of
the Iraqi oil fields. America's reputation in the court of world
opinion is in tatters.
Unfortunately, the President's State of the Union speech did little
to allay the worries of the American people or the international
community. The President signaled to the world that America is ready
for war with Iraq, but he did not explain why Iraq suddenly presents
such ``a serious and mounting threat'' to our country, our friends, and
our allies that war is the only option. How is it that the threat from
Iraq is more serious than the threat from North Korea? How is it that
the threat from Iraq appears to have eclipsed the threat from al-Qaida
to our own country and the threat from other terrorist organizations?
Nor did the President attempt to prepare the American people for the
possible consequences of war with Iraq--the terrible toll on the lives
on innocent Iraqis, the potential for hundreds or thousands of
battlefield casualties of American service men and women, the sharply
increased threat of terrorist attacks on America and its allies. The
President promised that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would liberate
the people of Iraq, but he made no mention of what the American people
could expect from a postwar Iraq. The President made no mention of the
burden the United States would have to bear to ensure that a postwar
Iraq did not devolve into chaos.

In his State of the Union Address last year, the President declared a
global war on terror, and he called on all nations of the world to come
together to combat the curse of terrorism. In his speech last night,
the global war on terror got remarkably short shrift. ``We are working
closely with other nations,'' the President said. ``We have the
terrorists on the run.''
Unfortunately, having terrorists on the run means that terrorists
have escaped our dragnet and, according to intelligence assessments,
are actively plotting new attacks on the United States and its allies.
We still do not know the fate of Osama bin Laden. We may have him on
the run, but we also fear that he continues to pose a real and imminent
threat to the United States. And unlike Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden
has demonstrated his willingness to attack American citizens at home
and American interests abroad.
But instead of rallying the international community to the continued
need to cooperate in fighting global terrorism, the President's
policies and the President's rhetoric are polarizing the world.
Mr. President, I believe the Senate has a duty to speak to the issue
of war with Iraq, and I believe that the United States has a duty under
international law to work within the structure of the United Nations
charter. If we indict Saddam Hussein on the grounds that he has failed
to disarm in accordance with the United Nations resolutions, how then
can we turn around and act against him without United Nations support?
What signal does the United States send to the world regarding respect
for international law? The United Nations is acting responsibly. Iraq,
if not fully cooperating, is at least straitjacketed. America's allies
are calling on us to give the inspectors time to do their work. This is
not the time for precipitous action on the part of the United States.
For these reasons, I am today introducing a resolution urging that
the U.N. weapons inspectors be given sufficient time to complete their
work and calling for the President to seek a United Nations resolution
specifically authorizing the use of force before initiating any
offensive military operation against Iraq.
Now, it may come to be that war is the only way to subdue the
malevolence of Saddam Hussein. But that is not a decision for the
United States to make unilaterally. President Bush, in November,
galvanized the United Nations to act on the issue of Iraq. For that,
the President is to be commended. Now he must follow through on his
pledge to work with the United Nations. The United Nations has
demonstrated in the past 2 months that it is willing to act responsibly
and vigorously in addressing the issue of Iraq's disarmament. No one
could accuse chief weapons inspector Hans Blix of sugar-coating his
interim report to the U.N. Security Council on January 27. He made
clear that Iraq is not adequately cooperating on matters of substance.
He made clear his frustration with Iraq. But he did not slam the door
on the possibility of disarming Iraq without resorting to war.
As long as that door remains open even a crack, as long as Iraq is
not actively threatening its neighbors or the United States, as long as
the United Nations can maintain a stranglehold on Saddam Hussein's
ambitions, I believe that we have a duty to the American people to
strive to find an alternative to war. If war it must be, then it should
be a coordinated undertaking authorized by Congress and sanctioned by
the member states of the United Nations--not a preemptive strike
initiated by the President of the United States.

Mr. President, the consequences of war are incalculable. Before we
take such a momentous step, before we place the lives of American
military personnel and innocent civilians in harm's way, we should stop
to reflect on the possible consequences, and we should redouble our
efforts to find a peaceful solution to the disarmament of Iraq. If war
is the only recourse, it must be a war endorsed and fully supported by
the United Nations.
Mr. President, if it must be war, we may be lucky. I hope we will be.
But we may not be lucky. I think of the words of Croesus, when he said
to Cyrus the Great of Persia:

There is a wheel on which the affairs of men revolve and
its movement forbids the same man to be always fortunate.

Mr. President, I shall have more to say as the days come and go on
this matter that is so vital to the American people and to their
futures and to the futures of our children and grandchildren and their
children.

[[Page S1714]]

I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe I have time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I thank my friend from West Virginia for his eloquence
once again this afternoon. When the history of our time is written,
there will be many important chapters on the contributions the Senator
from West Virginia has made, certainly for his State, but I also think
there will be an important chapter that will be written about his
contributions to our Constitution as the principal guardian of the
Constitution in the Senate. He has done this on so many occasions. I
have admired him so much for that effort and the extraordinary insight
he has brought to all of us as a student of history.
All of us will remember very clearly the debates which were led by
the Senator from West Virginia some 3 months ago on the issues of war
and peace, and now once again, as we are coming to the most significant
time, and that is the decision-making that will be made at the United
Nations about whether we will continue with a course of inspections and
whether we will try and galvanize the world community behind a common
purpose, or whether we will go it alone. The Senator reminds us of the
dangers of going it alone, of the unforeseen challenges we will be
facing, and draws attention to the importance that this is a matter
that is debated and discussed in the Senate; that the people in West
Virginia, like the people in my own State, are eager to have more
knowledge, more awareness, more understanding as to exactly where we
are going and the circumstances of that commitment.
I thank the Senator from West Virginia so much for the thoughtful
resolution which I am proud to cosponsor and for the comment he has
made, which is that we will be back here again to talk about this issue
of war and peace.
As he has said on many occasions, there is no vote that is more
important than a Senator's vote on war and peace. There is no issue
more important that we address in the Senate. The Senator reminds us of
that very solemn obligation and responsibility we have on that issue
and has, in his resolution, found ways of giving expression to the
concerns of many of our fellow citizens.
I again thank him for all of the work he has done. I urge him to
continue to lead this body to a better understanding of exactly what
policy we are undertaking, what the risks are, and the challenges we
face with the real prospects of a war which may be initiated by the
United States, in which the United States may be effectively going it
alone with perhaps one or two of our allies. I thank him so much for
his attention and focus on this issue.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very able Senator for his
thoughtful and gracious remarks. I thank him also for his cosponsorship
of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution which I have just submitted. I
thank him for his contributions to that resolution.
It is my understanding he will be submitting a resolution. We have
discussed that as well, and I hope he will add my name to his
resolution. He can be sure that, the Lord willing, I will be speaking
on this matter from time to time, and I know that he will join me, as I
hope others in this Senate will join us. I think it is time for the
American people to hear more from the Senate. I do not think they have
heard enough from the Senate on this matter that is so vital to them,
to their loved ones, to their fortunes, and to their futures.

As far as the Lord enables me to do so, I intend to have more to say
on this subject. I thank the Senator. I know he will have more to say.
Again, I thank him for his remarks and for his cosponsorship of the
resolution.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, may I be reminded when I have 3 minutes
remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so inform the Senator.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last October 16, President Bush signed
Public Law 107-243 which authorized the President to use military
force, if necessary, to defend our country.
I voted against that resolution and war with Iraq because I was not
persuaded that Iraq posed an imminent threat to our national security
and because of my belief that war with Iraq, especially without broad
international support, would undermine our ability to meet the gravest
threat to our national security--terrorism against the United States by
al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.
Circumstances have changed significantly since Congress approved that
resolution last October. In the months that have passed, events have
only strengthened my belief that this is the wrong war at the wrong
time.
In those 3 months, al-Qaida has escalated its campaign of terror.
North Korea has revived its nuclear weapons program. And United Nations
inspectors are now on the ground in Iraq.
There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. He
invaded Kuwait. He oppresses the Iraqi people. He murders his
opponents. He has gassed his own people. He has defied the world
community.
So I commend President Bush for going to the United Nations and for
working with our allies to put inspectors on the ground again in Iraq.
The inspectors are making progress. Rather than commit American troops
to war with Iraq at this time, we should give the inspectors our full
support and assistance, including our best intelligence information, to
strengthen their disarmament efforts.
There are many other questions that must be answered before we go to
war:
Will war increase the chances of injury and harm to American citizens
if Saddam Hussein, with his back pressed against the wall, decides to
use chemical or biological weapons? What will a postwar Iraq look like?
Who will govern? How long will our troops need to stay? How many will
need to stay?
What will be the impact on the war against terrorism? Will we be
increasing support for al-Qaida?
What will be the impact of our allies in the region? Will stability
be undermined?
How will our Nation be able to manage three foreign policy crises at
the same time--the war against terrorism, the crisis with North Korea,
and now war with Iraq?
When Congress voted on this issue in October, the President had not
yet decided to go to war. The President said war was the last resort.
He said we would work with the international community to obtain Iraq's
disarmament. Clearly, we have not reached that last resort. Inspectors
are on the ground in Iraq, and the international community wants the
inspections to continue; yet, the President is poised to pull the
trigger of war.
I am delighted to work with Senator Byrd on this issue, and I am a
cosponsor of his resolution. We share the goal of ensuring that war
will be the last resort; that if we do have to go to war in Iraq, it
will be with the support of Congress, the American people, and the
international community.
In light of the changed circumstances since the previous votes by
Congress, I am submitting another resolution supporting the inspection
process and requiring the President to obtain approval from the
Congress before committing American troops to war.
This decision may well be one of the most important that any of us
will make.
So much has happened since Congress voted to authorize force last
October. On November 8, the United Nations Security Council unanimously
approved a resolution that demanded unprecedented access to suspected
weapons sites in Iraq. The passage of this resolution demonstrated the
resolve of the international community to disarm Saddam, and was soon
followed by the arrival of several hundred weapons inspectors in Iraq.
On January 27, the inspectors submitted a report to the Security
Council about Iraq's cooperation with weapons inspections. Chief
weapons inspector Hans Blix stated that Iraq has so far cooperated
``rather well'' but that additional cooperation is necessary. The
director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency said
inspectors ``have found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear
weapons program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s'' and
that inspectors ``should

[[Page S1715]]

be able within the next few months to provide credible assurances that
Iraq has no nuclear weapons program.''
The U.N. report demonstrated that the inspection process is working.
The inspectors are building their case, and Saddam Hussein is feeling
the pressure of the international community. Nothing in the report
suggests that war now is the only option to disarm Saddam. Clearly, the
inspections should continue.
It is wrong for the administration to beat the drums of war. There is
time for thoughtful deliberation about whether war now is the right
priority for our Nation and we in Congress have a responsibility to the
Constitution and the American people to act again on this all-important
issue of war or peace.
The administration has totally failed to make the case that Saddam
Hussein is an imminent threat to our security. No evidence, no proof,
no ``smoking gun,'' no intelligence has ever been released to suggest
we must launch a pre-emptive strike in order to defend America from an
unprovoked attack. Instead of making its case, the administration
simply says, ``Trust us. We know more than you do.''
Many experts believe that Iraq--especially without provocation--does
not represent an imminent threat to our security. In fact, it may well
be just the opposite. On October 7, CIA Director George Tenet released
an unclassified assessment in a letter to the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence that suggested Iraq would only be a threat if the
United States attacked it first.
The letter said, ``the probability of [Saddam Hussein] initiating an
attack [on the United States] would be low.'' It also said, ``should
Saddam Hussein conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be
deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting
terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve . . . [chemical and
biological weapons].''
In spite of U.S. assertions that we have secret evidence of Iraq's
WMD program, we have been transferring this information at a painfully
slow pace. It is only this month, that we finally began to hand over
``significant intelligence.'' The administration promises the release
of new information and all of us hope that it will be more convincing
than what has been made available so far.
Secretary Powell will go to the Security Council to share
intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program on February
5. But if the United States has significant intelligence, we should
share it with the U.N. inspectors today. We should not wait a further
week. If our goal is disarmament, we should do everything possible to
assist the inspectors.
The disarmament of Saddam Hussein is essential. But the
administration has not made a persuasive case that the threat from Iraq
is so immediate that it justifies resort to war now when the
inspections process is obviously making progress. Clearly, we have not
reached the last resort.
Our Nation faces another threat that is much more immediate: the
possibility of new al-Qaida terrorist attacks. A unilateral invasion of
Iraq would not advance our war against terrorism--it would undermine
it. Our highest national priority is to wage the unfinished war against
al-Qaida and wage it effectively.
In the last 4 months there have been deadly new al-Qaida attacks
worldwide, which have slaughtered hundreds. A French tanker was
attacked in Yemen, a nightclub bombed in Indonesia, a hotel destroyed
in Kenya, missionaries murdered in Yemen. The frequency and ferocity of
these attacks is increasing. It is only a matter of time before they
strike America again.
The administration would like us to believe that Saddam Hussein is
public enemy No. 1, ignoring the fact that Osama bin Laden is still at
large. Chilling new evidence has arisen suggests that he is planning
new attacks.
At home, we still remain vulnerable. Last October, a Council of
Foreign Relations task force chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and
Warren Rudman warned that ``America remains dangerously unprepared to
prevent and respond to a catastrophic attack on U.S. soil.''
Another Task Force representative told a Senate Judiciary
Subcommittee that ``a war with Iraq . . . elevates the risk in the near
term of an attack on the United States . . . [and] will likely consume
virtually all the nation's attention and command the bulk of the
available resources, leaving little left over to address our many
domestic vulnerabilities.''
For some time, the administration engaged in a complicated spin job
to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden
are co-conspirators. According to this view, waging war on Iraq is part
of the war against terrorism. Last September, our Secretary of Defense
went so far as to claim publicly that he had ``bulletproof
confirmation'' of links between Iraq and al-Qaida.
But the administration has never presented any of this
``bulletproof'' evidence. Most regional experts believe it is highly
unlikely that fundamentalist al-Qaida leaders would ever find much
common cause with the secular dictator Saddam Hussein. Last October,
CIA Director George Tenet even conceded that the administration's
understanding of the al-Qaida Iraq link was ``evolving'' and based on
``sources of varying reliability.'' The administration claimed again
this week that they have new evidence of those ties, but so far we have
only seen a rehash of old allegations and unreliable anecdotes.
As the administration emphasizes the threat from Iraq, it gives less
attention to other countries that pose an even more immediate threat to
our security.
The greatest proliferation threat comes not from Iraq, but North
Korea. North Korea is much more likely and capable to develop, use and
sell these weapons. But unlike Iraq, North Korea probably already has
nuclear weapons. Unlike Iraq, North Korea has no nuclear inspectors on
the ground to verify disarmament.
North Korea has a long and well-documented history of selling its
military technology, especially ballistic missiles, to whoever will pay
the highest price. Desperate and strapped for cash, it is the country
most likely to sell or transfer weapons of mass destruction to
terrorists or nations that support terrorism.
In its single-minded focus on Iraq, administration officials at first
refused to acknowledge that a nuclear crisis even existed. Only very
recently has the Administration begun to devote the attention this
crisis deserves.
Nevertheless, the administration continues to focus on Iraq. They are
now suggesting an easy war, with few casualties. But our military
leaders, especially those with significant combat experience are
skeptical. On December 18, a press report said that the commandant of
the Marine Corps is concerned that civilian leaders in the Pentagon are
underestimating the risks of war, and that military chiefs have
challenged the optimistic view that Saddam Hussein's government will
collapse soon after a military campaign begins.
In December, we heard dire new forecasts about what war with Iraq
would actually be like. U.S. intelligence officials warned that Saddam
Hussein may pursue a ``scorched earth'' policy if the war goes badly.
They said that Hussein may try to destroy Iraq's oil fields, power
plants and food facilities.
In the Armed Services Committee, we heard testimony from General Hoar
and others about the dangers to our troops of urban guerilla warfare.
War will be a disaster not just for the soldiers who suffer and die,
but for the vast numbers of innocent civilians who will be affected. In
December, the media reprinted a confidential U.N. planning document
predicting a humanitarian crisis in the wake of war with Iraq. U.N.
officials also predicted a halt to Iraqi oil production, serious
degradation of Iraqi transportation, sanitation and power facilities,
and the ``outbreak of diseases in epidemic if not pandemic
proportions.'' The document also predicted a flow of up to 900,000
refugees.
War will not be as easy as the administration would like us to
believe. It may well turn into the first great humanitarian catastrophe
of the 21st century.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. KENNEDY. The debate giving the President authority to use force
against Iraq occurred over 3 months ago. Since then, circumstances have
changed so significantly that Congress

[[Page S1716]]

must consider the issue of war and peace again.
The administration is also not adequately considering the massive
political commitment that will be required to Iraq's long-term
reconstruction. If we wage this war without allies, the United States
will assume a massive and lonely responsibility to rebuild Iraq,
preserve its territorial integrity and prevent chaos. Going to war
alone will impose massive new responsibilities that could extend for
years, if not decades.
The Senate debated giving the President authority to use force
against Iraq over three months ago. Since then, circumstances have
changed so significantly that Congress must consider the issue of war
and peace again.
Since our debate last fall, we have finally implemented, with our
allies, an active process to verify Iraq's disarmament. That process is
working and should be allowed to continue. We must help this process
along and give persuasive intelligence information to U.N. weapons
inspectors.
It is possible that the inspections process will fail or that new
evidence will be uncovered about the threat from Saddam Hussein. But
under the current conditions, I continue to believe that this is the
wrong war at the wrong time.
If we rush to pull the trigger against Iraq, we will invite
catastrophe and condemnation. America, which has long been a beacon of
freedom for people around the world, will turn into a symbol of brute
force and aggression. The world may come to see us as a dangerous rogue
state, needing to be contained and deterred. This is not the America
that Abraham Lincoln called ``the last, best hope of mankind.'' War now
would be alien to our values, contrary to our interests, and must not
be waged.
Mr. McCAIN. I ask that I be recognized for up to 20 minutes.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask for a point of clarification. I was waiting in
the queue. I have no objection to the Senator from Arizona going first.
I ask unanimous consent that directly following Senator McCain, I be
granted a privilege of the floor for 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
MR. McCAIN. Mr. President, over 3 months ago, I worked with Senators
Lieberman, Warner, and Bayh to manage the resolution authorizing the
use of military force against Iraq on the floor of the Senate. Over the
course of 8 days, we held a thorough, comprehensive, and honorable
debate that allowed all sides to express their views quite thoroughly.
Seventy-seven Senators then voted to authorize the President to use our
Armed Forces to ``defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq'' and ``enforce all
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.''
The resolution, which now has the force of law, was entitled the
``Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of
2002.'' One provision stated, ``Consistent with . . . the War Powers
Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to
constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of
section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.'' Congress has spoken, and
its message could not be clearer.
The Senator from Massachusetts spoke repeatedly and at length over
the course of the Congressional debate on Iraq. He spoke eloquently and
passionately, in the great tradition of the Senate. At the end of the
day, his views did not prevail, but he made an important contribution
to the debate.
That debate is over. After a months-long period in which the Bush
administration went to the Security Council--as the Senator called for
last fall, secured a new Council resolution demanding Iraqi compliance
with it s disarmament obligations--as the Senator called for last fall,
and pursued patient diplomacy while educating the American public about
the threat Iraq poses to our interests--as the Senator called for last
fall, I agree with him that ``much has changed in the many months since
Congress last debated war with Iraq.''
What has changed is that the Administration has pursued the careful
diplomacy the Senator had urged on it and has refrained from using
force unilaterally against Iraq. The President has worked to make the
case for Iraqi disarmament to America and the world. The administration
was able to unite the Security Council behind our demand that Iraq
disarm or be disarmed. And the administration has worked diligently to
assemble a coalition that will stand with us in the event military
action is necessary.
Iraq has provided more evidence of its intentions, and its defiance,
by its failure to provide anything resembling an honest declaration of
its arsenal of banned weaponry, and its failure to cooperate
substantively with the U.N. inspectors, as Hans Blix has stated. By its
own actions, Iraq has placed itself before the world in material breach
of the Security Council resolution the Senator from Massachusetts
demanded the administration seek, and honor, in the congressional
debate last fall. I agree with the Senator, much has changed.
As the President said last night, ``The dictator of Iraq is not
disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.'' The price of his
deception, if allowed to continue unchecked, could have catastrophic
consequences for the United States which none of us, no matter how
we voted on the Iraq resolution, could ever countenance.

The Senator from Massachusetts apparently believes we should revoke
the President's authority as Commander in Chief to order our Armed
Forces to defend American national security against the threat posed by
Iraq, as enshrined in the Constitution and authorized in law by
Congress, unless and until there is clear evidence of an imminent Iraqi
threat of attack on the United States. But in the world we live in,
there is no such thing as knowledge of imminence of attack. Had we
known what was to happen to our country you September 11, 2001, there
is no American leader who would not have acted to prevent it.
Every one of us in this body had contemplated what could have
happened had the September 11 terrorists employed weapons of mass
destruction. We cannot abide a world in which outlaw regimes deeply
hostile to American are free to develop weapons which, in the hands of
dictators and terrorists, would be used against us. As long as those
dictators reign, and as long as terrorists plot to strike us, the
threat can be understood to be imminent, because we don't know when the
next attack will happen--and as long as we don't act we can say with
certainty that there will be another attack.
Speaking of the nexus between rogue states with deadly arsenals and
the terrorists with whom they conspire, the President said, ``If this
threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all
words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the
sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not
an option.''
While I respect my colleague's differences with the administration
and with a substantial majority of the Congress on the matter of Iraq,
I believe the case for action to disarm Saddam Hussein has only become
more compelling since Congress debated the authorization to use force
against Iraq last fall.
When I heard earlier today--as the word gets out around here--that
the Senator from Massachusetts might come to the floor and propose
another resolution to be debated, I must say I was of two minds. I
thought this would be another marvelous opportunity to debate this
amendment, this entire situation, because in the intervening months, as
I have stated, Saddam Hussein has proven he is not in compliance not
only with the Security Council resolutions but going all the way back
to 1991 when he was required, according to Security Council Resolution
687, to comply within 15 days and has not. He has violated some 12 or
13 Security Council resolutions. I thought this would be a great
opportunity because there is no doubt in my mind we would prevail again
if a vote were held.
I also, on the other side of the coin, believe if we start a debate
all over again that lasts for another week or 2 weeks, or whatever it
is, surely we would be plowing the same ground. But also, would we be
sending a signal that the American people are not united? Would the
outcome of the vote be basically the same? Would Senator Lieberman or
Senator Bayh decide to

[[Page S1717]]

vote against the resolution that they so fervently and eloquently
supported on the floor of the Senate? I don't think so.
Another thing about this terrible and difficult decision the
President may have to make--which is the most difficult that any
President of the United States is faced with, the dispatch of young
Americans into harm's way--the President knows full well that even
though we will win an overwhelming victory, young Americans will lose
their lives.
I believe that conflict will be short. I believe that in 1991 when I
debated this same situation where we contemplated previously the
subject of military action against Iraq, colleagues on the other side
of the aisle, including Senators who will speak and have spoken in
opposition, said: It will be another Vietnam; the body bags will be
coming back; we should not do this; this is terrible; let's delay;
let's give peace a chance.
The conflict was short. We freed the nation of Kuwait, and for a
period of time we had peace in the Middle East without significant
threats to the United States national security. Now we have to finish
the job, perhaps.
I say two things. One, I regret and grieve the loss of any American
lives that might occur as a result of this military action. But our
interests are threatened, as the President said last night.

I also want to say a word about post-Saddam Iraq, since that has been
referred to continuously by those who oppose any military action under
any circumstances.
The people of Iraq are subjected to one of the most brutal,
repressive, God-awful regimes in the world today. Last week's New York
Times told stories of warehouses where people were hung from hooks, of
rape, of torture, of murder. Claire Shipman did an interview with one
of Saddam Hussein's previous mistresses. He derived some kind of
pleasure watching films of people being tortured.
These are bad people, a bad regime that has killed and oppressed its
own people; a complete and total police state. Where are the advocates
for human rights?
I promise you there are many of us, at the time of the fall of Saddam
Hussein, who will devote American effort and treasure to the
construction of a democratic, freely elected, free society in Iraq, and
give those people a chance to enjoy the human rights that it is our
fundamental belief is the endowment of all men and women.
As far as the expense is concerned, I am sure any new Iraqi
Government could cover those expenses. But shouldn't we give those
people an opportunity to enjoy their God-given rights rather than
continue under the dictatorship of this brutal, mad dictator? He is the
only one I know of who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own
citizens.
Yes, I will admit, if he wasn't constructing these weapons of mass
destruction, and his relentless pursuit of them, we probably wouldn't
do anything about it. But this is an interesting nexus of our national
interests and our national values. Our values are that all men and
women are created with certain inalienable rights. Our interests are
threatened by the certain knowledge that, sooner or later, Saddam
Hussein would acquire these weapons and use them. There has been no
evidence that would indicate the contrary.
I sort of regret we are coming to the floor to begin a debate that
may last for some days, whether the Senator from Massachusetts
withdraws his resolution or not. I hope not. I hope the Senator from
Massachusetts will recognize that time was over 3 months ago, and the
process moved on, a process of constant consultation with the American
people, and with the United Nations Security Council, and a speech that
I think was remarkably eloquent last night to the American people by
the President of the United States.
But I want to say I believe some time from now we will be pleased as
Americans that we placed this responsibility in the hands of the
President of the United States; that he acted with maturity; that he
acted with great and sound judgment, and the world some time from now
will be a far better place--not only for Americans but also for Iraqi
citizens.
I yield the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins) The Senator from California.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator
from Arizona for his comments. He certainly is one who does know about
war, and I believe he also believes that war should be a last resort.
I also thank the distinguished Senators from West Virginia and from
Massachusetts for introducing this legislation which I have decided to
be a cosponsor. Because of my support for the resolution which gave the
President authorization for use of force, I felt I probably should come
to the floor and explain my rationale for supporting the resolution
offered by the Senator from West Virginia.
Essentially, Hans Blix's report Monday to the Security Council made
it clear that, although there has been progress, Iraq is not fully
living up to its obligations, nor is it fully cooperating. Then the
President, in last night's State of the Union Message, made clear, I
think, some outstanding questions.
The first question is: What has Iraq done with 500 tons of Sarin,
mustard gas precursor chemicals, and VX nerve agents? That tonnage is
missing. It has not been declared. It has not been revealed or has not
been found.
The second question is: What has really happened to the 8,500 liters
of anthrax which Iraq has stated it unilaterally destroyed in the
summer of 1991? But it cannot document that.
And third, what of the 650 kilograms of bacterial growth media? Those
are critical items.
These are key and serious issues the answers to which clearly provide
the evidence as to whether Iraq possesses chemical and biological
weapons.
The fourth item is the U-2 plane. The United Nations, as we all know,
has access to a U-2 plane to gather intelligence. However, Iraq has
refused to provide it safe overflight. This remains another issue of
major non-cooperation.
So the administration is correct in saying that Iraq needs to be
immediately forthcoming and immediately cooperative with the
inspectors. These issues need to be resolved. These are mega issues
from anyone's point of view.
As long as the inspectors believe there is sufficient access and as
long as Iraq has said, specifically Tariq Aziz, that Iraq will even
offer greater cooperation, I would say there ought to be a period of
time where Iraq provides to the world and to the inspectors, the
answers to these questions. I think it is vital.
If Iraq is found to pose an imminent threat to the United States,
then clearly we have to take action--with others I hope, if we can. But
right now that is not the case. If, indeed, after consultations with
the Security Council, the administration has clear evidence that Iraq
is continuing an illegal program to produce chemical and biological
weapons, or nuclear weapons, or possesses these weapons, the time has
really come to make it public.
What the President did, in my view, was present very clearly, not
only to the Congress of the United States but to the entire world,
significant questions that need to be immediately addressed. Iraq must,
in fact, step up to the plate.
The reason I believe this resolution--which essentially asks for time
for inspections to continue, essentially urges a second vote at the
Security Council--is right is because I believe this situation must
stand on its own. The degree of threat and the degree of violation must
be separately evaluated. But it is also part of a much bigger scenario
and I want to spend time discussing that scenario here today.
I believe America's national security policy stands at a crossroads.
I believe in the wake of 9/11, last year was fundamental in terms of
the administration's articulation of what constitutes, to my mind, a
brand new approach to foreign policy by the United States. Within about
8 months last year, the administration put out three separate
documents. One of them was the National Security Strategy. The second
was the Nuclear Posture Review. The third was the Doctrine of
Preemption as represented in the President's speech at West Point.
Although individually each may appear innocuous, taken together these

[[Page S1718]]

documents are revolutionary. They posit a world in which the exercise
of U.S. military power is the central organizing principle for
international affairs in this new century. These documents, in fact,
put forward a litany of ways in which the United States will make
military activism and adventurism the basic tool for pursuing national
security.
First, the National Security Strategy quite pointedly moves the
United States away from the concept of deterrence and, to a great
extent, substitutes preemption in its place.
Secondly, the administration's Nuclear Posture Review is
extraordinarily provocative and dangerous. It blurs the line between
the use of conventional and nuclear weapons. It suggests that certain
events might compel the United States to use nuclear weapons first,
even against non-nuclear states. And it calls for the development of a
new generation of United States nuclear warheads, including ``mini-
nukes.''
As was well documented in the press last year, the Review also
discusses contingencies in which nuclear weapons might be used,
including--and I quote--``a North Korean attack on South Korea or a
military confrontation over the status of Taiwan'' in which our
adversaries do not necessarily use nuclear weapons first.
The Review also addresses contingencies in which the United States
might use nuclear weapons not in retaliation to a nuclear strike on the
United States but to destroy enemy stocks of chemical or biological
arms.
Karl Rove was specifically asked that question on television on
Sunday, and he did not answer the question.
This Review also states that in setting requirements for nuclear
strike capabilities, distinctions can be made among immediate,
potential or unexpected contingencies, and that North Korea, Iraq,
Iran, Syria and Libya are among the countries that could be involved in
these immediate, potential or unexpected contingencies.
That is what makes what is being suggested here in Iraq--if you look
at it, in its total expression--so troubling.
The fact of the matter is that several of the nations cited in the
Nuclear Posture Review's contingencies lack nuclear weapons. Using
nuclear weapons against them would be constitute first use. Under the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the United States has agreed not to
use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state unless that country
attacks the United States ``in alliance with a nuclear weapons state.''
And finally, the doctrine of Preemption--which we may be seeing for
the time with Iraq--asserts a unilateral right for the United States to
preempt a threat against our Nation's security.
The doctrine says:

[T]he United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive
posture as we have in the past. . . . We cannot let our
enemies strike first.

Further on:

The greater the threat, the greater the risk of inaction--
and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory
action to defend ourselves.

Taken at face value, this means the United States holds for itself
the right to strike against another sovereign nation--wage war, if you
will--even in the absence of a clear and present danger, an immediate
threat or provocative action, but based solely on the perception of a
sufficient threat.
I deeply believe the administration's course in these areas stands in
contrast to the successful bipartisan tradition of supporting a world
ordered by law, with capable international institutions and reciprocal
restraints on action.
But the administration's emphasis on unilateral action, its dismissal
of international law, treaties, and institutions, and its apparent
focus on the military, especially as documented in the National
Security Strategy, the doctrine of Preemption and the Nuclear Posture
Review, have created widespread resentment in the international
community.
I believe that these documents are the clearest statements in writing
of the administration's long-term intentions, and I find them
questionable and seriously disturbing.

I must also tell you that Secretary Powell essentially said to me:
Well, the Nuclear Posture Review really isn't operative. But,
nonetheless, that is a doctrine that was released. It is serious in its
ramifications. And the way this relates to Iraq is Iraq may be the
first test case. If there are chemical and biological weapons--and
there very well might be--does this then justify the use of a nuclear
weapon to destroy them? The Nuclear Posture Review puts this on the
table as an option. I think we need to know.
So I ask these questions because I think they must be asked. And this
is as good a time as any.
If we are going to depend on the might of the sword to right wrongs,
and in so doing risk committing our own wrongs, how are we better off?
Coalitions, alliances, treaties, peacekeepers, inspection regimes--
all can and have been successful instruments in deterring adversaries,
safeguarding American lives and U.S. security interests, and in
resolving disputes, conflicts, and crises.
So, Madam President, I remind this body that since World War II,
there has been strong bipartisan support of a United States which has
embraced international cooperation, not out of vulnerability or
weakness but from a position of strength.
House Joint Resolution 114, which I supported, and which authorizes
the use of force against Iraq, specifically calls for a Presidential
determination, that--and I quote--``reliance by the United States on
further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either will not
adequately protect the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq or is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions
regarding Iraq.''
That finding, that determination, required by our resolution--for
which 77 of us voted--has not yet been made. The evidence has not yet
been laid out. The conclusions have not yet been drawn.
What happened to the missing anthrax, the missing botulinum toxin,
the missing VX nerve agent, the missing precursor chemicals, has not
yet been determined. So that is why I come to the floor to say that it
is critical that Iraq fully cooperate. It is critical that the
inspectors be allowed to continue.
If Iraq does not come clean, if Iraq does not submit the
documentation as to the disposition of these chemicals and biological
agents, then a legitimate conclusion can be drawn. But the reason I
believe arms inspections must be given a chance to succeed and must
continue is that I believe Iraq is just one small part of a larger sea-
change in U.S. national security policy. It is a small part of the
doctrine of Preemption, in which we move against a perceived or real
threat. It is a small part of the Nuclear Posture Review, which says
the United States would countenance the use of nuclear weapons against
hard and deeply buried targets or biological or chemical weapons.

So I believe that restraint is the proper course. It means that
diplomacy is a prudent course, and it means that if international law--
if international bodies are to have any relevance in this new
millennium--then the Security Council itself must respond.
It is my deep belief that in the long run a foreign policy oriented
toward cooperation and consultation will prove to be a more effective
guarantor of U.S. national security than one of unilateral impulse and
confrontation.
Let us remember that we are currently engaged in a war on terror. It
is a war that, if we are to win it, will require the cooperation of our
friends and allies.
There is no doubt in my mind that if the United States acts
precipitously against Iraq, Taliban and al-Qaida fighters in the
hinterland of Afghanistan are gathering today and are prepared to
strike against our forces there and against the government of Hamid
Karzai.
And let us recall that beyond Iraq, there are a host of other
challenges--the situation in the Middle East, the nuclear crisis on the
Korean peninsula--that require international cooperation and action. So
I am deeply concerned that if we are not careful in our approach to
Iraq, if we do not present a just case, if we do not build an
international coalition, we may well precipitate the very events we are
trying to prevent. For example, a preemptive unilateral attack against
a Muslim nation may well create a divide between the United States and
the Muslim world so deep and so wide that it

[[Page S1719]]

will bring with it negative consequences for decades, and unforeseen
ones.
I deeply believe that if Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass
destruction, it poses a real threat to the entire international
community; and there is no doubt, as the President pointed out, that
Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator.
But at this point I believe it would be a tremendous mistake for the
United States to unilaterally attack Iraq, and I urge the
administration to go slow, let the inspectors do their work, and build
that international coalition. War should be a last resort, not a
foregone conclusion.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.

____________________