[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 147 (Monday, October 20, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12864-S12866]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    OSAMA BIN LADEN AND SEPTEMBER 11

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, over the weekend, Osama bin Laden was 
again seen vowing that al-Qaida would launch suicide attacks against 
Americans and our allies. Frankly, it angered me to see these taped 
reports that again Osama bin Laden is threatening Americans.
  It has now been 771 days since al-Qaida launched terrorist attacks on 
American targets on September 11, 2001. For me, this report raised the 
question of why is Osama bin Laden still able to threaten this country? 
Why have we not been able to find him and bring him to account?
  I was reminded, in seeing these tapes, that just several weeks ago 
Newsweek magazine did a detailed analysis on where Osama bin Laden 
might be. They narrowed it down to Kunar province on the border between 
Afghanistan and Pakistan. They had detailed reports in that article of 
Osama bin Laden being seen in this area.
  It struck me at the time, if we have a pretty good idea of where 
Osama bin Laden is, why are we not flooding that area with American 
forces to take him out? Newsweek went on to report that:

       . . . bin Laden appears to be not only alive, but thriving. 
     And with America distracted in Iraq and Pakistani President 
     Pervez Musharraf leery of stirring up an Islamist backlash, 
     there is no large-scale military force currently pursuing the 
     chief culprit in the 9/11 attacks, U.S. officials concede.

  I find that alarming. Osama bin Laden led the attacks on this 
country. We know that. There is no doubt about it. If we are being 
distracted by Iraq, in my view, that is a serious mistake. I must say 
it is one that I very much feared one year ago when we were considering 
whether to attack Iraq. I voted against attacking Iraq at that time 
because I believed our top priority ought to be going after al-Qaida 
and Osama bin Laden.
  There has just recently been a report in the Boston Globe that says: 
As the hunt for Saddam Hussein grows more urgent, and the guerilla war 
in Iraq shows no signs of abating, the Bush administration is 
continuing to shift highly specialized intelligence officers from the 
hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to the Iraq crisis.
  I believe that is the wrong priority. I believe the priority ought to 
be al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden, and we ought to be going into this 
area that has been identified in seeking to find him and holding him to 
account.
  When I reflect on the decision to go into Iraq, I am reminded that 
many in the public believe that Iraqis were part of the 9/11 operation. 
In fact, 69 percent of the American people believe Saddam was involved 
in the September 11 attacks. Half of Americans believe that Iraqis were 
among the 9/11 hijackers.
  We know that is not the case. There were no Iraqis, none, zero, 
involved in the 19 who hijacked the planes in our country that turned 
them into flying bombs that attacked the World Trade Center and the 
Pentagon. Of the 19 hijackers, 15 were from Saudi Arabia, two were from 
the United Arab Emirates, one was from Egypt, and one was from 
Lebanon. Not a single one was from Iraq. Yet even now many Americans 
believe it was in fact Iraqis who attacked this country. In fact, more 
Americans believe most of the hijackers were Iraqis--21 percent--than 
the 17 percent who correctly stated none of the hijackers was Iraqi.

  We are making decisions here, and the American people are supporting 
decisions, and apparently they do not have the accurate information.
  Unfortunately, it is not hard to figure out why. In speech after 
speech, the President and his top officials have juxtaposed 9/11 with 
Saddam and Iraq, strongly implying there is a clear and direct link 
between Saddam and 9/11. To take only one of dozens of examples, as 
recently as last month Vice President Cheney again linked 9/11 with 
Iraq, describing Iraq as the geographic base of the terrorists who have 
had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11.
  This is the Vice President of the United States suggesting that Iraq 
was at the center of the attack on America on 9/11.
  The President himself was forced to correct the record just a few 
days later, when he said we have had no evidence Saddam Hussein was 
involved on September 11; no evidence.
  The record is overwhelmingly clear. We know who attacked us on 
September 11. It was not Iraq. There were no Iraqis. The people who 
attacked us on September 11 were al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden. In 
770 days, we have not yet held him to account. That has to be our 
priority.
  The President and his top officials have sought to link Saddam not 
just with 9/11 specifically but with al-Qaida more generally. They have 
cited three pieces of evidence to back that claim.
  First, the administration stated that one of the 9/11 hijackers, 
Mohamed Atta, met with an Iraqi agent in Prague in the spring of 2001. 
For example, last year the Vice President asserted:

       We have reporting that places him [Atta] in Prague with a 
     senior Iraqi intelligence officer a few months before the 
     attacks on the World Trade Center.

  That is what the Vice President said then. But what do we know now? 
The fact is, the CIA and FBI have concluded this report was simply not 
accurate because Mohammed Atta was in this country, in Virginia Beach, 
VA, at the time the Vice President had asserted he was in Prague. As 
the Washington Post reported on September 29:

       In making the case for war against Iraq, Vice President 
     Cheney has continued to suggest that an Iraqi intelligence 
     agent met with a September 11, 2001, hijacker months before 
     the attacks, even as the story was falling apart under 
     scrutiny by the FBI, the CIA, and the foreign government that 
     first made the allegation.

  Second, the administration has argued a senior al-Qaida operative, 
Al-Zarqawi, was seen in Baghdad. He may very well have been in Baghdad, 
but that doesn't prove anything about a formal link between Iraq and 
al-Qaida. We know senior operatives spent months in our own country 
prior to 9/11. That doesn't make the United States an ally of al-Qaida 
any more than the presence of an al-Qaida operative in Baghdad makes 
Saddam Hussein an ally of Al-Qaida.
  Third, the administration said al-Qaida maintained a training camp in 
northern Iraq. Again, this sounds convincing, but as the former 
director of the Strategic Proliferation and Military Affairs Office at 
the State Department's intelligence bureau points out, one finds this 
is not a very honest explanation: `` . . . I mean, you had terrorist 
activity described that was taking place in Iraq, without the mention 
that it was taking place in an area under the control of the Kurds 
rather

[[Page S12865]]

than an area under the control of Saddam Hussein.''
  On this map, this is the camp they were talking about. This is the 
Ansar al-Islam area. There was a terrorist camp here.
  This is a map of Iraq that shows very clearly that is an area 
controlled by the Kurds. The Kurds are our allies. This is an area that 
was not under the control of Saddam Hussein.
  If the American people are going to make sound judgments about who is 
responsible for what, and who we ought to hold responsible, and who we 
ought to prioritize for attack, it seems very clear to me the ones we 
ought to be attacking are al-Qaida. The ones we ought to be going after 
first and foremost are Osama bin Laden and his allies. Over and over, I 
believe the American people have been led to believe there is this 
strong link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. I do not think the 
facts bear out that connection.

  The President himself has now said Saddam Hussein has not been linked 
to September 11. Yet the majority of the American people believe that 
he was. That mistaken understanding is right at the core of what has 
been to me a serious mistake in the strategy in fighting this war on 
terror. Our first priority, our top priority, one we should not be 
distracted from, is going after Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. I don't 
think we should be distracted, chasing the mirage of terrorism being 
fundamentally a product of Iraq. I don't think the record bears that 
out.
  If there is not a strong connection between Iraq and al-Qaida, why 
have we repeatedly had that linkage made? I think there has been very 
little credible evidence of a direct connection between al-Qaida and 
Saddam Hussein. As a former State Department intelligence official said 
in the same Front Line interview:

       His [Secretary Powell's] own intelligence officials and 
     virtually everyone else in the terrorist community said there 
     is no significant connection between al-Qaida and Saddam 
     Hussein.

  If there is not a strong connection, why have we heard so many 
references linking the two? That is a question we all need to ask and 
try to answer.
  In addition to the link to al-Qaida, the President and his 
administration have also repeatedly indicated that Iraq had weapons of 
mass destruction. First the President suggested over and over there 
were close links between Saddam and al-Qaida, implying Saddam had 
something to do with the September 11 terrorist attack on this country. 
We now see that is a very weak case.
  Is there better evidence to substantiate the second set of claims 
used to justify war with Iraq, that Saddam Hussein was about to acquire 
nuclear weapons, and was producing chemical and biological weapons, all 
of which could be used for an imminent attack against the United 
States?
  First, on nuclear weapons, the President and top officials repeatedly 
warned of Saddam's efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. They 
buttressed these general claims with two very specific assertions. 
First, the President and his top officials said there was direct 
evidence of Saddam Hussein trying to buy uranium in Africa. In his 
State of the Union Address last January, President Bush told Congress 
and the American people:

       The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein 
     recently sought significant quantities of uranium from 
     Africa.

  That is what the President said then. But what do we know now? We now 
know that the CIA knew, months before the State of the Union Address, 
and months before the war on Iraq started, the allegation was simply 
not accurate; it was based on a crude forgery that did not pass the 
credibility test for CIA experts. Here is just one news story, ``Bush 
Claim on Iraq Had Flawed Origin, White House Says.''

       The White House acknowledged for the first time today that 
     President Bush was relying on incomplete and perhaps 
     inaccurate information from American intelligence agencies 
     when he declared in his State of the Union speech that Saddam 
     Hussein had tried to purchase uranium from Africa.

  Second, the President and his aides have repeatedly asserted Iraq had 
tried to purchase aluminum tubes that could be used to enrich uranium 
for nuclear weapons.
  The President said:

       Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to 
     purchase high-strength aluminum tubes, suitable for nuclear 
     weapons production.

  That's what the President said then.
  But what do we know now?
  The International Atomic Energy Agency's director concluded this 
spring, before the war on Iraq started, that the tubes were for 
conventional artillery rockets. As the Washington Post reported:

       ElBaradei rejected a key Bush administration claim made 
     twice by the President in major speeches and repeated by the 
     Secretary of State that Iraq had tried to purchase high-
     strength aluminum tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium 
     enrichment. . . . El Baradei's report yesterday all but ruled 
     out the use of the tubes in a nuclear program. . . . ``It was 
     highly unlikely Iraq could have achieved the considerable 
     redesign needed to use them in a centrifuge program,'' 
     ElBaradei said.

  But the Bush administration did not stop with these specifics. It 
repeatedly asserted there was an imminent danger of Saddam acquiring 
and using nuclear weapons.
  In a speech 1 year ago, President Bush said:

       The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its 
     nuclear weapons program.

  The Vice President last March went even further, stating that ``we 
believe he has in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons.''
  That is what they said then. But what do we know now? We have 
occupied Iraq for 5 months. We have full, unrestricted access to the 
whole country and more than 1,000 investigators looking for illegal 
weapons. The Bush administration's chief investigator leading the 
search for weapons of mass destruction has found no evidence of any 
serious recent effort to build nuclear weapons. I think this quote from 
the October 3 Washington Post sums up the most recent finding:

       After searching for nearly six months, U.S. forces and CIA 
     experts have determined that Iraq's nuclear program was only 
     in the very most rudimentary state, the Bush Administration's 
     chief investigator formally told Congress yesterday.

  On nuclear weapons, specific allegations underlying the 
administration's claims had certainly been discredited before we went 
to war, and since the war we have found no evidence to support the more 
general claims of Iraqi efforts to reconstitute its nuclear weapons 
program.
  What about chemical and biological weapons?
  We all knew Iraq had possessed and had used chemical weapons in the 
1980s. We all knew intelligence had not conclusively demonstrated that 
all of these weapons had been destroyed. In fact, I must say I believed 
Iraq was likely to have chemical and biological weapons because we knew 
they did at one point. The United Nations investigators found them. But 
those weapons have not been found since. We have searched high and low 
for biological and chemical weapons. We may still find them. I think we 
have to ask ourselves, would that have justified a preemptive attack on 
Iraq? My own judgment is it would not. Why? The Soviet Union had 
weapons of mass destruction; we never launched a preemptive attack on 
them. China has weapons of mass destruction; we never launched a 
preemptive attack on them. You can go through country after country 
where we have decided to use containment rather than military assault.
  The President told us the Iraqi regime possesses and produces 
chemical and biological weapons. I believe he believed that, and there 
was reason to believe that. I don't diminish that argument. But the 
fact is we were wrong, or at least so far it appears we were wrong. I 
must say I believed--and I say it again--I believed they had chemical 
and biological weapons. But after searching for nearly 6 months, U.S. 
forces and the CIA experts have found no chemical or biological weapons 
in Iraq. We still may find them.
  That still leaves us with the question: Did their mere possession of 
such weapons justify a preemptive attack? What did our own CIA tell us? 
I remember those briefings, elements of which have been made public. I 
am not revealing any secrets. The CIA told us there was a low 
likelihood of an Iraqi attack on us or our allies unless we attacked 
them first.
  The point is simply this: We have not found biological and chemical 
weapons. We have not found evidence of a reconstituted nuclear program. 
We have not

[[Page S12866]]

found any serious links between al-Qaida and Iraq. Those were the 
fundamental reasons we went to war with Iraq. I believe it was a 
mistake to attack Iraq at the time we did. I believe it was a priority 
that simply did not make sense given the threat to this country.
  The imminent threat to this country is in the form of al-Qaida. The 
imminent threat to this country is the forces led by Osama bin Laden. 
It has now been 771 days since they attacked this country. Newsweek 
magazine reports they have a pretty good idea where Osama bin Laden 
is--right on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Yet there is 
no large-scale military operation underway to take out Osama bin Laden. 
I think the American people deserve to know why not. Why not? Why 
aren't we launching massive forces into the area identified as the 
place where Osama bin Laden is hiding? Have we been distracted by Iraq? 
I hope not. But the evidence I see is that the resources and the 
attention, which I believe should have been first directed at taking 
out Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida, are going to Iraq.
  I very much hope we will have answers to these questions in the 
coming days.
  The Senator in the Chair, whom I count as a friend in this body, is 
the chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Obviously he has knowledge 
none of the rest of us possess. As one Senator, I saw Osama bin Laden 
on these tapes again over the weekend and read the stories in the news 
magazines that said we have a pretty good idea where Osama bin Laden 
is. But we have not found him, leading to the suggestion that we have 
been distracted by Iraq. That disturbs me a great deal. I believe the 
overriding priority for this country and the national security of 
America is in holding Osama bin Laden to account, finding him, and 
stopping him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the distinguished Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I have heard a lot of speeches on the 
Senate floor about Osama bin Laden, about Iran, Iraq, and the Middle 
East. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I can only talk 
briefly about this matter, but I think it is important to note I was 
probably the first Member of Congress--at least to my knowledge and I 
believe anybody's knowledge--to mention the Clinton administration had 
better get on top of Osama bin Laden, or he is going to kill 
Americans. At one particular point in that period of time between that 
statement and when President Clinton left office, there was one time 
they could have captured Osama bin Laden, and he would have been turned 
over to them. They blew it, not realizing how important this matter 
was.

  As a matter of fact, we now know he is behind terrorist activities 
all over the world, especially in our country and especially in the 
Middle East. We have had more than ample unclassified information, and 
person after person, group after group has tried to infiltrate our 
country to cause terrorist activities within this country, in each case 
tied back to Osama bin Laden.
  We also know he has escaped Afghanistan and with the help of certain 
friends probably is residing somewhere in northeastern Pakistan but no 
one really knows. To make a long story short, we do not just have the 
right to go into northeastern Pakistan and conduct a major warfare 
search for Osama bin Laden without the permission of the Pakistanis. 
Everyone knows that. That relationship is a very important 
relationship.
  We also know Osama bin Laden is not just dedicated against the United 
States of America but against anyone that stands for freedom. 
Particularly, he is against his own fellow Arabs in Saudi Arabia and 
other parts of the Middle East. It is apparent that many claims are 
made that some of the terrorism that happens in the Middle East is 
caused by al-Qaida, inspired by none other than Osama bin Laden. There 
is also no question that there have been ties to Saddam Hussein.
  But be that as it may, anyone who tries to make out the case that we 
should not be in Iraq is ignoring decades of facts. Anyone who tries to 
pin the Iraqi matter strictly on whether or not Osama bin Laden had 
weapons of mass destruction is ignoring an awful lot of matters that 
indicate that if the United States did not act, it would be only a 
matter of time until it would be too late to act and there would be 
many thousands of others killed, networks set up, deterioration 
throughout the Middle East, which is, as a whole, strictly important to 
the United States of America, as well as other countries in the world.
  I get a little tired of hearing people in the Senate criticizing 
President Bush for stopping these people for letting it be known 
throughout the world that we will not put up with acts of terrorism, 
that we will hit them where it hurts for doing what has been done in 
Iraq. Anyone with any brains has to realize there are so many facts 
there you do not even need weapons of mass destruction today to show 
what we have done there has placed a huge dent in terrorism around the 
globe and has rocked Osama bin Laden back on his heels. Yes, he is 
still capable of making an occasional television announcement. He is 
still capable of acting like he is more important than he is. But the 
fact is, we have put a big dent in his terrorist operations around the 
world.
  That is not to say we should not stay vigilant, that we should not do 
everything in our power to make sure that terrorism is fought not just 
in our land but all around the world. One has to look pretty far to 
look beyond the terrorist incidents of Saddam Hussein, his sons, and 
the Baathists in Iraq. All that is important in the Middle East as well 
as in other parts of the world. I will not take time to go through the 
fact that 10 years ago, the U.N. even verified he has the capacity to 
make weapons of mass destruction, was making weapons of mass 
destruction, used them against his own people, et cetera, et cetera.

  It seems strange to me we have to go through this every day, with 
people lambasting the President, who literally has stood up the way he 
should stand up, ignoring the fact that many in the country of Iraq are 
thrilled we are there, bringing peace and stability, decency, honor, 
freedom, education, health care, infrastructure, and other matters to 
benefit that nation. Naturally, those who love terrorism, those who 
love hatred, are not going to like him. Instead of condemning the 
President for crass political reasons at that, we ought to be thanking 
him for having the guts to stand up and to take these actions that have 
long been overdue.
  I have a lot more to say, but I let it go at that today. It is 
demoralizing to me to see a lack of support by some on the other side 
for what has been necessary for foreign affairs action. It used to be 
that offshore we supported whoever was President. I guess that was 
because most of the time the President was a Democrat. I guess it is 
different when there is a Republican President. All we have had are 
attempts to undermine everything President Bush is trying to do with 
probably the best foreign policy team I have seen in my 27 years in the 
Senate, composed of people who complement each other, who have cross-
currents of belief, who basically come behind the President and support 
what is being done in ways that I don't think any other group of people 
could have done, certainly not as well as they have done.

                          ____________________