[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 87 (Friday, June 13, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1251]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page E1251]]
                 SADDAM'S BEHAVIOR JUSTIFIES LIBERATION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 12, 2003

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member wishes to commend to his 
colleagues the June 11, 2003, editorial from the Omaha World Herald, 
entitled ``The Right Thing.'' This editorial correctly notes that the 
atrocities committed by the horrific, repressive regime of Saddam 
Hussein were reason enough for liberating the people of Iraq.

           [From the Omaha (NE) World-Herald, June 11, 2003]

                            The Right Thing

       Amid all the talk about whether, or even if, substantial 
     numbers of weapons of mass destruction are going to be found 
     in Iraq, it is also important to ask how much it matters.
       Our assessment is that, yes, it does matter--in the sense 
     that strongly couched reports of such weaponry were at the 
     heart of the Bush administration's argument for toppling 
     Saddam Hussein. Yet we also believe that the answer to the 
     question, while instructive, is not pivotal. Ousting Saddam 
     will turn out to be an overarching good deed. It stands on 
     its own merits.
       At present, the purported weapons are not turning up. Does 
     this mean they just weren't there, or does it mean that 
     Saddam's regime and the Baath zealots that undergirded it 
     were exceptionally good at hiding them or destroying them or 
     spiriting them across international borders? Let's hope the 
     Pentagon's new weapons-hunting team, slated to take over the 
     search soon, will provide definitive answers.
       Four months ago, Secretary of State Colin Powell made an 
     impassioned case before the U.N. Security Council that the 
     weapons existed, along with equipment for making more. We 
     said then that if one-half or even one-fourth of what Powell 
     was asserting were true, there would be a strong case that 
     the Iraqis weren't complying with U.N. mandates. At this 
     point, there has been no hard evidence that the existence of 
     even those fractions will be borne out. In addition (as we 
     said then), the evidence of a Saddam-al Qaida link was iffy.
       Fair enough. But we also went on to say that Saddam 
     nonetheless should be ousted.
       We stand by that. Saddam's behavior was that of some sort 
     of devil incarnate. He murdered tens of thousands of his own 
     citizens, starved others, tortured and maimed unknown numbers 
     more, snubbed agreed-upon arms inspections and other mandates 
     after the Gulf War of 1991 and attacked aircraft attempting 
     to enforce ``no-fly'' zones.
       We also said earlier that there were three scenarios for 
     Saddam's departure. In descending order of desirability, they 
     were abdication, liberation of Iraq by a U.N. force or 
     liberation via a U.S. attack, aided only by allies.
       The last of these three was what played out. That's 
     unfortunate, but this is an imperfect world. Now that world 
     wants to know: Did the U.S. administration, in company with 
     Britain's Tony Blair, (1) get the weapons allegations right 
     at the time when they were articulated; (2) err in assessing 
     the evidence; or (3) just plain confabulate in order to drum 
     up popular support?
       If it turns out to be the last of those three, then the 
     U.S. and British administrations will take their lumps in the 
     marketplace of public opinion and perhaps at the polls as 
     well. We're not saying that's what happened; time will sort 
     such matters out. But it ought to go without saying that 
     Americans and Britons don't need to be ``spun'' (``conned,'' 
     in older terminology) in order to do the right thing.
       The right thing: Ousting Saddam was that. Exactly that. He 
     was a murderer and a brutal oppressor who helped destabilize 
     a whole region and robbed his people of a generation of 
     progress. On that basis, Americans and Britons--along with 
     others in the international community who will now seek to 
     help Iraqis back to their rightful place in the world--have 
     nothing to apologize for.

                          ____________________