[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 36 (Thursday, March 6, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H1657-H1658]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          WINNING WITHOUT WAR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page H1658]]

  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I offered President Bush, as did so many 
others here, immediate bipartisan support for the war on terror, but 
regime change in Baghdad, rather than disarming Iraq, represents a 
diversion from that bipartisan effort.
  Not only do we have continuing concerns about Osama bin Laden, but 
also we have grave concerns about the looming nuclear threat from North 
Korea, which does have long-range missiles. This threat was 
deliberately hidden from this House until after our vote on Iraq.
  The Korean peninsula crisis worsens by the day with Administration 
mismanagement and neglect heightening the far greater danger from this 
xenophobic, despotic regime. The Administration has a ``Don't Talk, 
Don't Tell'' policy that is steadily narrowing our options and 
increasing the risk of what could easily become a devastating conflict.
  Just yesterday, former Defense Secretary William Perry and former 
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright warned that North Korea could be 
headed toward ``serial production'' of nuclear weapons.
  I believe that the Administration's fixation with regime change in 
Baghdad is diverting precious intelligence and other resources that we 
need to protect American families from what is a very genuine threat. 
Despite its clever marketing campaign, and it has been clever indeed, 
attempting to link 9/11 with Saddam Hussein, as of this very moment, 
the Administration has not offered one shred of evidence to make that 
connection stick, nor has it demonstrated why Iraq represents any 
greater danger of attacking our families today than it did on September 
10, or since the time we were supplying them aid.
  Today, we have crisscrossed Iraq with weapons inspectors. It does not 
even pose such a threat that its next-door neighbor, Turkey, is willing 
to challenge it.
  The Central Intelligence Agency, in reports that we forced out of the 
Administration, has indicated that the real threat to our families 
would come with an invasion to Iraq and the danger that any weapons of 
mass destruction might spread and affect us.
  Overthrowing a single tyrant, in what many will perceive to be a 
crusade against Islam, will ultimately jeopardize families across 
America as we create a generation of terrorists. Further attacks will 
only reinforce those here in America, who are determined to ensure our 
safety by trampling our civil liberties.
  Attacking Iraq is apparently the first step in implementing a 
dangerous new security policy that dramatically alters a half century's 
bipartisan reliance on containment that has served to protect us from 
villains as bad as Saddam Hussein. America will now attack first with 
preemptive strikes in what could spiral into wars without end because 
other countries are likely to copy our model.
  Fighting wars as a first choice, not a last choice, is a formula for 
international anarchy, not domestic security. A quick draw may take out 
the occasional tyrant, but it comes at the cost of destabilizing the 
world, disrupting the hope for international law and order, and, 
ultimately, it makes all of us unsafe.
  True security certainly requires a strong military and a willingness 
to use it. We are strong enough to conquer Iraq and others, but we must 
be wise enough to rely on our many other strengths to rid the world of 
dangers. Ultimately, imposing our will by force unites our enemies and 
divides our allies. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld may dismiss our major 
partners as ``Old Europe,'' but many yearn for ``Old America'' that 
collectively and successfully worked to prevent and remove threats to 
peace and ensure the safety of our families.
  This is not a choice between ``war'' and ``appeasement.'' Rather, the 
better alternative is to isolate Saddam Hussein and unite both his 
neighbors and our allies behind an aggressive inspection and weapons 
destruction program.
  We know that the real cost of war is paid in blood. But Americans are 
already paying for this war at the gas pump. And with so few allies, 
hundreds of billions of our tax dollars that could be spent on the 
needs of Americans will be spent abroad.
  A robust debate in an elected Congress on whether war should be waged 
with Iraq is the sign of a strong democracy. Unfortunately, this year, 
that debate took place in Turkey, not here in the U.S. House of 
Representatives.

                          ____________________