[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 108 (Monday, July 21, 2003)]
[House]
[Page H7205]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AVOIDING ENTANGLING ALLIANCES AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF OTHER NATIONS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Harris). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the truth about whether or not Saddam
Hussein was trying to buy uranium from Niger has dominated the news for
the past several weeks. Many of those challenging the administration on
this issue are motivated more by politics than by policy. Some doing
the challenging were strongly in favor of going to war against Iraq
when it appeared politically popular to do so, but are now chagrined
that the war is not going as smoothly as was hoped.
I am sure once the alleged attempt to buy uranium is thoroughly
debunked, the other excuses for going to war will be examined with a
great deal of scrutiny as well. It is obvious that the evidence used to
justify going to war is now less than convincing.
The charge that Saddam Hussein had aluminum tubes used in
manufacturing nuclear weapons was in error.
A fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles capable of dispensing chemical
and biological weapons did not exist.
The 63,000 liters of anthrax and botulism have not been found, nor
have any of the mobile germ labs. There are no signs of the 1 million
pounds of sarin, mustard and VX gasses.
No evidence has been revealed to indicate Iraq was a threat to
anyone's security, let alone ours.
The charge that Saddam Hussein was connected to the al Qaeda was
wrong. Saddam Hussein's flaunting of the UN resolutions regarding
weapons of mass destruction remains unproven.
How could so many errors have occurred? Some say it was ineptness
while others claim outright deception and lies. There are some who say
it was selective use of intelligence to promote a particular policy
already decided upon. This debate, I am sure, will rage on for a long
time, and since motivations are subjective and hard to prove, resolving
the controversy will be difficult. However, this should not diminish
the importance of sorting out the truth from the fiction, the errors
from the malice.
One question, though, I hope gets asked is why should we use
intelligence cited by a foreign government as a justification for going
to war? One would think that with the billions we spend, we could fully
rely on our own intelligence-gathering agencies.
Another point of interest, lacking a coherent foreign policy, we
have support for war coming from different groups depending on
circumstances unrelated to national defense. For instance, those who
strenuously objected to Kosovo promoted war in Iraq. And those who
objected to Iraq are now anxious to send troops to Liberia. For some,
U.N. permission is important and necessary. For others, the U.N. is
helpful as long as it endorses the war they want.
Only a few correctly look to the Constitution and to the Congress to
sort out the pros and cons of each conflict and decide whether or not a
declaration of war is warranted.
The sad fact is that we have lost our way. A threat to national
security is no longer a litmus test for sending troops hither and yon,
and the American people no longer require Congress to declare the wars
we fight. Hopefully, some day that will be changed.
The raging debate over whether or not Saddam Hussein tried to buy
uranium, as important as it is, distracts from the much more important
strategic issue of what is the proper foreign policy in a republic.
Hopefully, we will soon seriously consider the policy of
noninterventionism in the affairs of others. Avoiding entangling
alliances and staying out of the internal affairs of other nations is a
policy most conducive to peace and prosperity and one the Founders
endorsed. Policing the world and nation building are not part of a
constitutional republic.
____________________