[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 96 (Tuesday, July 13, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7947-S7948]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REPORT

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last Friday the Senate Intelligence 
Committee released a report on the CIA's threat assessments regarding 
Iraq conducted in the years prior to the liberation of that country. 
That the CIA overestimated the extent of Hussein's WMD infrastructure 
and underestimated the threat posed by al-Qaida prior to September 11 
raises critical issues worthy of debate and deliberation. 
Unfortunately, we are not having this debate.
  We know now that America was basically blind for over a decade 
throughout the Middle East, that we lacked agents in Iraq and 
Afghanistan or Arabic linguists or Middle east experts.
  We also know that there are structural problems that have frustrated 
the intelligence community's ability to provide the best possible 
information to political leaders. And we know these structural flaws 
led to inaccurate estimates that misinformed policy makers.
  Rather than working to fix the problems of the intelligence 
community, some Democrats are now issuing statements notably at odds 
with their prior positions.
  The Vice-Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator 
Rockefeller, accused the Bush administration of pressuring the CIA to 
come up with a certain viewpoint, even as he endorsed a committee 
report that concludes the opposite.
  The Senator from West Virginia went further and charged that: ``Our 
standing in the world has never been lower. We have fostered a deep 
hatred of America in the Muslim world, and that will grow. As a direct 
consequence, our nation is more vulnerable today than ever before.''
  Oddly, these charges are at variance with the sensible claims he and 
other critics of the President have said for years about the threat 
Saddam Hussein posed to the United States.
  In October 2002, Senator Rockefeller, then as now a member of the 
Intelligence Committee and privy to the sensitive intelligence data 
that administration officials use, gave a thoughtful speech defending 
his vote in favor of the use of force resolution. It was a very good 
speech. So let me highlight a few quotes from the speech of our good 
friend from West Virginia. He said:

       There is no doubt in my mind Saddam Hussein is a despicable 
     dictator, a war criminal, a regional menace, and a real and 
     growing threat to the United States . . .

  He went on to say:

       Saddam's government has contact with many international 
     terrorist organizations that likely have cells here in the 
     United States . . .

[[Page S7948]]

       We also should remember we have always underestimated the 
     progress that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the 
     development of weapons of mass destruction . . .

  The Senator from West Virginia continues:

       Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons 
     capabilities pose real threats to America today, tomorrow. 
     Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's 
     enemies and against his own people . . . At the end of the 
     day, we cannot let the security of the American people rest 
     in the hands of somebody whose track record gives us every 
     reason to fear that he is prepared to use the weapons he has 
     used against his enemies before . . .
       There has been some debate over how ``imminent'' a threat 
     Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I 
     also believe after September 11, that question is 
     increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons 
     that he has and the way they are targeted against civilian 
     populations, that the documented capability and demonstrated 
     intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further 
     evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can 
     we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.

  That was Senator Rockfeller back in 2002. I agree with what he said. 
Senator Rockefeller's assessment was a reasonable judgment at the time 
given Hussein's belligerence, his refusal to open his country to 
weapons inspectors, decades of intelligence collection, and the fact 
that not a single international intelligence agency believed that Iraq 
did not have WMD. Indeed, what we have found in Iraq indicates that 
Hussein maintained the capacity to produce chemical and biological 
weapons, even if he had destroyed or shipped out of country his 
stockpiles of WMD.

  Senator Rockefeller is not the only democrat to change his tune. 
Senator John Kerry, with Senator Edwards at his side, told the New York 
Times over the weekend that President Bush ``certainly misled America 
about nuclear involvement, and he misled America about the types of 
weapons that were there, and he misled America about how the would go 
about using the authority he was given.''
  But in March of 1998, the Senator from Massachusetts declared on the 
Senate floor that Iraq continued clandestinely to maintain its WMD 
stockpiles and programs. This is what he said in 1998.

       We do know that he had them [WMD] in his inventory, and the 
     means of delivering them. We do know that his chemical, 
     biological, and nuclear weapons development programs were 
     proceeding with his active support.
       We have evidence . . . that despite his pledges at the 
     conclusion of the war that no further work would be done in 
     these weapons of mass destruction programs, and that all 
     prior work and weapons that resulted from it would be 
     destroyed, this work has continued illegally and covertly.
       And, Mr. President, We have every reason to believe that 
     Saddam Hussein will continue to do everything in his power to 
     further develop weapons of mass destruction and the ability 
     to deliver those weapons, and that he will use those weapons 
     without concern or pangs of conscience if ever and whenever 
     his own calculations persuade him in is in his interests to 
     do so .  .  .
       .  .  . The United States must take every feasible step to 
     lead the world to remove this unacceptable threat.

  I have to ask: How can Senator Kerry claim he was misled by the 
current President into believing precisely the allegations he made back 
in 1998, when President Bush was Governor Bush?
  Those who hold Senator Kerry's view would have you believe that 
President Bush invented these allegations and forced this war upon an 
unwilling Congress. Far from it.
  Senator Edwards noted in 2002:

       As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly 
     believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's 
     about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, 
     Saddam Hussein has aggressively and obsessively sought 
     weapons of mass destruction through every means available.
       We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today . 
     . . I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a 
     clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our 
     interest around the world, and to the values of freedom and 
     democracy we hold dear.

  Now, I find it troubling that neither Senator Kerry, nor his running 
mate seems to recall his own prior assessments of the threats posed by 
the Hussein regime.
  I believe America is better off with Hussein gone, and I know the 
Iraqis are happy with his ouster and increasingly optimistic about 
their future. Unfortunately, some here in the Senate don't share their 
optimism.
  Equally perplexing is a partisan view of this United States economy. 
Just as partisans see no threat from Iraq now when they call it a 
threat a few years back, they see a Great Depression now when they 
would have called it a great recovery a few years back.
  They claim signs of this Great Depression are all around. But the 
cold, hard, inconvenient fact for their theory is that we have added 
1.3 million jobs so far this year. The unemployment rate has been 
dropping for a year, to 5.6 percent today. That is below the average of 
the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s, but the naysayers read it as proof 
of an economic collapse.
  They point to all sorts of signs of weakness in our economy, such as 
strongest annual growth in 20 years, low mortgage rates, low inflation 
rates and the highest productivity rates in half a century. The stock 
market has ``crashed'' upward by 40 percent in the last 2 years. NASDAQ 
has had a 70 percent gain! The ``human costs'' of this Great Depression 
are apparent, such as having the highest homeownership rate in United 
States history.
  This is the new speak of the Great Depression.
  We don't have a depression; what we have is political spin. We have 
political leaders who are trying to convince the American people that 
the economy is bad, that we have not gotten over the 2001 recession, 
the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the corporate scandals, or the 
uncertainties of war.
  Yet the facts say we are well on our way, and we won't rest until 
every American who wants a job, has a job.
  I understand the spin game in Washington. We can spin a lot of things 
in Washington, but a weak economy can't be spun as a strong one, and a 
strong economy can't be twisted as a weak one.
  Ant I can only hope my friends have not dizzied themselves so much 
that they cannot separate reality from politics or understand the 
difference between a recovery and a depression. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.

                          ____________________