[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 106 (Thursday, July 17, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9576-S9578]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we in the Senate today had the experience
of participating in the joint meeting in the House Chamber listening to
Prime Minister Tony Blair. I opened the Senate this morning pointing
out that we would be welcoming and honoring our distinguished visitor
in this joint meeting. I mentioned that he is the fourth sitting Prime
Minister to address a joint session of the Congress, preceded only by
Winston Churchill, Clement Atlee, and Margaret Thatcher, three of
histories great leaders.
Today's historic tribute gave us the opportunity to reaffirm our
abiding friendship and our deep respect both for the man, Prime
Minister Tony Blair, as well as the people of the United Kingdom. Our
two nations have stood shoulder to shoulder to defend the free people
around the world.
We had the opportunity to meet with the Prime Minister before the
address. We were able to directly express our appreciation to the Prime
Minister and for him to reflect to the people of Britain for their
courage and their resolve.
As you sat in the majestic House Chamber and listened to those words,
I think we were all affected very directly because it helped elevate
the debate which seemed to have mired down in part of the way it has
been handled by the media but also the way it has been handled by a
number of our colleagues both in this Chamber and in the other Chamber.
The words from Tony Blair really did elevate it. There is just one
passage I want to quote from what the Prime Minister said today in the
Chamber:
And I know it's hard on America, and in some small corner
of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places
I've never been to, but always wanted to go. I know out there
there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily,
minding his own business, saying to you, the political
leaders of this country, ``Why me? And why us? And why
America?''
And the only answer is, ``Because destiny put you in this
place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is
yours to do.''
The Prime Minister continued:
And our job, my nation that watched you grow, that you
fought alongside and now fights alongside you, that takes
enormous pride in our alliance and great affection in our
common bond, our job is to be there with you.
You are not going to be alone. We will be there with you in
this fight for liberty. We
[[Page S9577]]
will be with you in this fight for liberty. And if our spirit
is right and our courage firm, the world will be with us.
I mention this passage because, as we sat there for that 30 minutes
or so, this passage where he mentions that ``destiny put you in this
place in history'' is one that just struck a chord.
I contrast that with the debate that has seemed to play out in the
media over the last week in regard to the quality and integrity of the
case made by President Bush for the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime.
I have to say, as I have heard people comment on the case that has
been made for this war, I have been increasingly disturbed. In part it
is because of the sound of shaking confidence by people who intend to
shake the confidence, or who want to instill or inject into the
American people self-doubt about America's mission in Iraq.
But when you stepped back and listened to the Prime Minister today,
all of a sudden you realized that a bloody tyrant no longer rules in
Iraq. It made you realize that a man who, without regret, murdered
members of his own family, as well as tens of thousands of his own
citizens, has now been removed from power. The perpetrator of one of
the past century's most gruesome crimes against humanity--the use of
chemical weapons on thousands of innocent Kurds--no longer is free to
pursue such weapons. The aggressor in the gulf war who, a decade ago,
invaded his neighbor, only to be driven out by a mighty coalition, no
longer threatens the volatile region of the Middle East.
Now all of this second-guessing is perplexing to me. If you look over
the last week, we have had things mentioned like Watergate, which was
referenced by candidates eager for the next election. You hear
candidates using words like ``impeachment'' being laid upon the table.
We have seen, over the last week, special e-mails going out from party
headquarters, saying: More money needed to fan the flames of
controversy.
Indeed, we know all these campaigns have begun, and there are many
people who seem to be eager to topple the leader. I mention all that
because of the contrast in what we heard today from Tony Blair, who
elevated the facts and the greater cause of liberty, in contrast so
much to what our media and the candidates have focused on. This whiff
of politics is in the air.
What bothers me about it is that there is a cost if we get in and
play a game of politics at this juncture in history. As I listened to
the Prime Minister today, I thought, what does this do to the
reputation of our country, to the position of our President? Prime
Minister Tony Blair helped put that into perspective today.
Indeed, the record is replete with the case against Saddam Hussein,
such as the mass graves. Our colleagues who have just come back from
Iraq so vividly described standing at these mass graves the size of
football fields--thousands of graves exposed. And really only now are
the thousands of widows and mothers and orphans--all victims, also--
able to openly grieve. Who will ever forget the pictures we have seen
of those desperate citizens of Baghdad, actually clawing at the ground
in a vain search for these hidden prisons that might hold their loved
ones. You see these images of mass graves.
Our colleagues have come back--and we have had two delegations over
there, and another one will be going shortly--with descriptions of the
unmistakable mark which these mass graves represent of history's
tyrants, the legacy of this regime, and the shame of anyone among us
who would have tolerated it for one day longer than we knew it to be a
fact.
As I listen to some of the candidates and colleagues and critics, it
leads me to ask: Are we deaf in some way to the plight of the Iraqi
people based on the facts that we know? Is the suffering of the Iraqi
people--when we think about those graves or about the thousands of
Kurdish individuals upon whom Saddam Hussein inflicted chemical weapons
of mass destruction--it makes you ask is our moral purpose as a Nation
so diminished that we do not see the justice of our own cause, that
larger purpose, that sense of liberty and fighting for liberty that
Prime Minister Tony Blair talked about today?
We heard in this body all of the evidence on Iraq before the war. We
had the opportunity, through open hearings, closed hearings, classified
information. I clearly was convinced. I had the opportunity to sit in
my office, which is just probably 200 steps from where I am speaking
now, and listen to about 12 Kurdish physicians who came to visit the
United States. They came to see me because I am a physician. They
simply laid it out to me that they took care of thousands of people--
these are the physicians who took care of thousands of people who were
poisoned with chemical weapons from Saddam Hussein--thousands of
people, not 10 or 15, but thousands. They talked about the peeling of
skin. They talked about the suffocation. They talked about people dying
before their eyes.
They also told me they are still taking care of those people who
survived, although we know scores of thousands of people died from
these chemical weapons imposed or inflicted upon them by Saddam
Hussein; but, indeed, these doctors I talked to in my office months ago
are still treating some of the victims from that atrocity. Yet, at the
same time, we have heard discussions this past week with some
questioning whether this tyrant was capable of possessing and using
such weapons again.
There seems to be a disconnect over much of the discussion of the
last week. This week people said: After all, he declared himself free
of these weapons.
But as we all know, he denied again and again--and it was part of the
resolution--those inspectors the opportunity to prove him wrong. So I
am perplexed and bewildered by those who would accept the word of an
inhumane, callous, mass murderer at this point in time, and whose word
they seem to even be holding higher than that of the President of the
United States.
It is a travesty to me. It is nonsense, and it really comes back to
that basic question: Is there anybody in this Chamber who would
honestly dispute that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass
destruction; that he used weapons of mass destruction; and that he
never abandoned that course? I really don't think so.
We can take it a step further. Is there anybody in this Chamber who
believes that we would have been all, in some way, better off with
Saddam Hussein still in power? The answer is clear. Indeed, 9 months
ago, 77 Members of this Chamber voted to authorize the President to use
force in Iraq. In that resolution, we enumerated very clearly the many
reasons.
First, the Senate found--this was 9 months ago--that Saddam Hussein
was developing, did possess, and had used weapons of mass destruction.
That is No. 1.
No. 2, 9 months ago, based on the information that was available to
us and the briefings that we had, the Senate found that Iraq invaded
Kuwait in 1990. And after being driven back by an international
coalition, Saddam Hussein unequivocally agreed to eliminate all weapons
of mass destruction and to prove so to the world community.
No. 3, the Senate found that Saddam, in fact, used denial, used
deception, and used harassment to thwart efforts by international
inspectors to prove compliance with those terms.
Fourth, the Senate reiterated its finding from 1998 legislation that
Saddam Hussein had a continuing program to develop weapons of mass
destruction in material breach of his terms of surrender in the gulf
war.
Finally, and fifth, the Senate listed the myriad of United Nations
Security Council resolutions reaching the same conclusions that the
Senate had reached.
I wish to stress once again, because it is important to understand,
this was 9 months ago, and 77 Members of this Chamber voted with this
understanding. All of these findings were made on thorough intelligence
briefings. They were considered judgments by Members of this body, all
separate from any report about a uranium purchase from Africa, which
has tended to be the focus of people over the last week.
On October 9, 1998, 2 years before the current President was elected,
Senators then wrote to President Bill Clinton demanding military action
against Saddam Hussein. This is 1998. They wrote:
We urge you to take necessary actions (including if,
appropriate, air and missile strikes) to respond effectively
to the threat
[[Page S9578]]
posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs.
This was followed by a December 17, 1998, letter calling for the use
of military force again by then-President Clinton ``to compel
compliance or to destroy to the best of our ability Iraq's capability
to build and deliver weapons of mass destruction and threaten its
neighbors.''
What is incredible to me now is that some of those very same people
who signed those letters now are questioning whether an honest case was
made by President Bush that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The
very same people signed those letters. So I am moved to ask, What
reversed the conclusion that they had so confidently reached 5 years
ago? Was it in some way a change of facts or was it a change just in
the Presidency?
Yes, my implication is what we have seen over the last week is a
matter of politics, and I think, again, of the Prime Minister's visit
today and his message of what this war has meant to free people, yes,
in Iraq, but around the world. All of this is a serious matter. It
demands our attention. I say that because as I speak, we all know that
American soldiers, British soldiers, coalition soldiers stand in harm's
way. We all sort of stand in fear of turning on the television at
night, in the morning, or reading in the paper once again of tragic
casualties.
All of that speaks to me that we must redouble our efforts against
the small but determined enemy to stabilize Iraq. A democratic and
prosperous Iraq, just as the Prime Minister said today, will not only
change the Middle East, it will change the world for the better. It is
a worthy cause of our Nation and one that we simply will not--will
not--permit to fail.
Mr. President, I will, in the interest of time, probably have more to
say about this next week. This is the nature of the debate. Again, I
express my appreciation on behalf of the Senate to the Prime Minister
for joining us today.
____________________