[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 149 (Thursday, November 10, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12632-S12635]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            THE WAR IN IRAQ

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation for 
Senator Craig's comments. I think they are so appropriate as we 
approach Veterans Day tomorrow, November 11. As he said, it is 
important that we give gratitude to these soldiers. But it is also very 
important--maybe even more important--that this Senate and this 
Congress give our support to them, we back them up, we affirm them in 
the courageous service they are giving and not undermine what they are 
doing by thoughtless and unfair criticisms. That is what is on my heart 
today and I

[[Page S12633]]

want to talk about it a little bit. I think it goes to the core of our 
integrity and our personal self-discipline as Senators.
  I have to say, with great respect, that politics on too many 
occasions has overridden our commitment in this Senate to the soldiers 
who serve on the battlefield. We are a free and open society. We value 
and protect free and public debate in our country, and in the Senate 
one has the freedom to say or write almost anything he or she desires, 
whether wise or foolish. To secure and maintain that freedom and our 
other freedoms, on many occasions we have sent our soldiers to battle 
hostile forces around the globe.
  Over 1 million personnel have died in combat to preserve the freedoms 
and liberties we take for granted today. Young soldiers, volunteers, 
and draftees have been called over the years to defend the values and 
liberties our Nation cherishes. As Senators, we are a key part of the 
process by which this Nation authorizes hostilities and calls them up. 
If there is any maturity of judgment in us at all, we understand that 
such a decision, when we make it, is a grave one and we know the lives 
of our military personnel will be placed at risk when we send them out. 
History and common sense tells us so. Any Senator not understanding 
this is not fit for the office they hold.
  It is my view that there is and are no glorious wars. All war is bad. 
The Lord did not want His children to fight. But I am resigned to the 
fact that, throughout history, human efforts to maintain peace at any 
price have failed and that the option of war at certain times becomes 
better than the alternatives.
  Let me speak frankly about the war on terrorism. We in this Senate 
are not children led about like the Pied Piper of Hamelin by President 
Bush or Vice President Cheney. We are not and were not ignorant 
concerning the situation we found ourselves in after 9/11. We cheered 
President Bush's strong and determined response to terrorism at that 
time, and even when he warned us it would be a long, protracted, and 
bitter struggle, which he said repeatedly, the Senate promptly 
authorized the attack on the Taliban, who oppressed their own people in 
Afghanistan and who harbored and provided training for al-Qaida and 
Osama bin Laden. This Senate supported the President's demand on Mullah 
Omar that the Taliban cease these training bases and turn over bin 
Laden or face military action. We supported that. And when Mullah Omar 
and his oppressors refused, the Senate supported military action 
against the Taliban. When the war went so well, virtually everyone was 
pleased and said it was a good and proper thing we had done.
  We are proud of what is happening in Afghanistan today. We have 
soldiers there, as Senator Craig said, working directly with the people 
of Afghanistan to try to lift them up and give them a period of 
sunshine and peace, after decades of war. These good results happened, 
however, not because we voted to authorize force but because this 
Nation was able to call on great soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines 
to go into harm's way, facing what they had to know would be great 
danger, to execute the policy we voted for and that the President was 
authorized to execute.
  The military action in Afghanistan went well. But make no mistake, we 
Senators knew the mission was dangerous and most predicted far more 
casualties than occurred in that effort. The credit goes to our 
military's brilliant tactics.
  At this same time, Iraq was continuing its systematic, illegal, and 
unconscionable actions against its own people, against the United 
States, and against the United Nations--continuing violation of 16 U.N. 
resolutions. These resolutions in essence were a result of Iraq's plea 
for peace after the coalition forces ejected it from the nation of 
Kuwait. Surely this Nation has not forgotten that. Surely this Senate 
has not forgotten that. Surely we remember that Saddam's Iraq had, by 
surprise and brutality, attacked and occupied its peaceful neighbor 
Kuwait. At that time, with the United States in the lead, the coalition 
demanded that Saddam withdraw or face military force.
  In 1991, he refused and, in a brilliant strike, our forces, under the 
command of General Norman Schwarzkopf, forcibly ejected Saddam's 
military from Kuwait and liberated that nation. Then Kuwait's was a 
responsible voice on the world scene, as it is today.
  To stop the coalition forces from moving to Baghdad to remove him 
from office, Saddam made a series of agreements under the supervision 
of the United Nations. He did not keep them, of course. First he 
declared he had not lost the war but was in fact the victor. Such a 
statement was a clear indication of his plans to continue his drive to 
dominate that region and to lead a fight against the west. When a U.N. 
plan was developed to allow the sale of Iraq's oil so food could be 
made available to the Iraqi people, he cheated on the Oil for Food 
Program to rebuild his military and his personal palaces, leaving 
millions of his own people hungry.

  He attacked his own people, brutally repressing the Shiites in the 
south and the Kurds in the north. He had earlier used poison gas, a 
weapon of mass destruction, against his own people, the Kurds. He 
effectively ejected U.N. inspectors and refused to provide assurance 
that he was not creating or was not in possession of weapons of mass 
destruction. He had previously promised not to possess or develop these 
weapons. He fired missiles regularly at American and British aircraft 
as they sought to enforce the no-fly zones to protect the Kurds and the 
Shiites from oppression.
  In response, President Clinton and President Bush authorized hundreds 
of military responses against Iraq, dropping bombs on military 
positions and carrying out missile strikes. Surely we have not 
forgotten--we were in a state of hot hostility with Iraq, leading up to 
our decision to remove him from power.
  The megalomania of Saddam, and his brutality, presented the decent 
nations of the world with a direct challenge. With the growth of 
terrorism that had culminated in the 9/11 attacks, and which threatened 
the peaceful world, it became clear that the reconstituting of Saddam's 
forces in violation of the United Nations could not be allowed to 
continue. Once again, our Nation led a huge international coalition to 
demand that he comply with the U.N. resolutions. The vote in this 
Senate to authorize that and to insist that he comply and use force if 
he refused to do so was 78 to 22, with a clear majority of our 
Democratic Senators in support to authorize military force with or 
without U.N. approval if Saddam refused to comply with these 
resolutions.
  Our decision was not taken lightly or in haste. The issue had been 
openly discussed for months. The Senate debate was full and free. Most 
felt there was no other option.
  I remember the Economist magazine of London said the embargo was 
failing. We either give up or fight. They concluded in their editorial: 
Our choice is to fight. The British Government reached the same 
conclusion, as did many others.
  Of course, our vote was consistent with the 1999 resolution of this 
Senate signed by President Clinton to make it the official policy of 
our Government to effect a regime change in Iraq, so bad had Saddam's 
actions become even at that time. Still, there was no rush to war. 
President Bush powerfully made his case abroad and at the U.N. 
Countless efforts were undertaken to bring Saddam into compliance, but 
they all failed. The demands on Saddam became more and more direct, the 
warnings more and more explicit, and his utter refusal to comply with 
the agreements on weapons inspections and other U.N. resolutions became 
more and more obvious. He had made up his mind. The stark reality 
became clear. He would not ever voluntarily comply.
  He thought he could break the coalition, that we would not invade, 
that he could continue on with his fantasy that Iraq, under his 
leadership, would dominate this whole region of the world. Please 
remember, the Senate vote consisted not just of a majority of the 
Democratic Members but it included the Democratic Party's Presidential 
candidate, its Vice Presidential candidate, its leader, its former Vice 
Presidential candidate, and then and current leaders. The decision was 
a bipartisan decision. Only then did we send our finest soldiers into 
harm's way--a bipartisan decision, after extensive debate by this body.
  Our soldiers, as a result of this process, were then directed to 
engage and

[[Page S12634]]

defeat one of the world's largest armies, to effect a regime change in 
Iraq. The men and women of our military heard their Nation's call, as 
they have for so many years. They responded with professionalism, 
courage, and determination. The challenge was great. The initial 
hostilities and military actions went exceedingly well, but it was very 
dangerous and there were important threats that they faced throughout 
that effort. Saddam's forces were vast, but they collapsed relatively 
quickly in the face of our aggressive forces executing General Frank's 
superb battle plan. While the effort was fraught with dangers, as our 
media told us every night, and indeed there was considerable tough 
fighting, our soldiers were again magnificent. We all rejoiced to see 
the Iraqi celebrations break out.
  Some said, What happened to the celebrations? They were there. We saw 
them on TV, to see the fall of the statue of Saddam. The coalition then 
set about to help this exhausted nation, brutalized by decades of 
oppression, rebuild itself with freedom and prosperity.
  While the initial military conflict went better than we could have 
hoped, our vision for a prosperous and democratic Iraq is still on 
track. But it definitely has presented more difficulties than most of 
us anticipated. It has been hard. It has been difficult. Suicide 
bombers persist in their hateful bombings. Terrorists are still active 
against our forces and the people in Iraq, attacking their own people. 
Still, despite the violence, initial elections were completed with blue 
fingers held high and a separate election ratified the Constitution. 
Now the first democratic elections are set for December and are on 
track.
  Vicious, terroristic suicide bombers remain. While they will be able 
to inflict suffering and fear on the people of Iraq and death on our 
soldiers, their efforts are and must be doomed. The terrorists offer no 
hope, no plan, no vision. They simply desire, like Saddam, to seize 
power and run Iraq for their own purposes, to control the reins of 
power for their own radical and twisted purposes.
  But, our military personnel, soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen, 
all one force, have performed magnificently. I have been to Iraq three 
times, and visited with active, Guard and Reserve units. I talked to 
the soldiers and we are so proud of them. They have not whined or 
advocated retreat. They want the war to be successful. Every day they 
go out on patrol placing their lives on the line to carry out the 
policies and directions we, the Senate, the House of Representatives, 
and the President gave them. Our soldiers know their civics. They are 
placing their lives on the line for America. Because in this Republic, 
the proper governmental authorities of the people have spoken.
  Consistently, they tell me, their parents, and their friends that 
they believe in what they are doing. They know the Iraqi people want a 
better life. They, by countless acts of kindness and courtesy, amid the 
violence and strain of war, work to create good will, to explain 
democracy, and promote harmony. They want to help the Iraqi people to 
have a better life, and then, then they want to come home.
  You bet they want to come home. But they truly desire that our noble 
goal, their mission for a better Iraq, be realized.
  Who, more than our soldiers, knows the dangers from hidden and sneak 
attacks? Who knows the reality on the ground better than they? 
Certainly not the television networks constantly focusing on violence 
and contention who drop in and bug out.
  But, colleagues, the greatest concern our soldiers have is that this 
Senate, our Congress, will lose its nerve and pull back before the job 
is done. You see, losing our nerve will undermine what they have 
accomplished by blood and sweat.
  While remarkably steadfast and determined, they do not like what they 
see and hear from Congress or the media. Their successes ignored, the 
problems exaggerated. Their errors are highlighted. I am particularly 
concerned that our Senate debate in recent months has become infected 
by personal animosity and political venom. The rhetoric coming out of 
Congress is astounding. It was somewhat understandable last year, when 
we were in a Presidential election campaign, that the political 
language would be overheated. But, now, after the American people have 
affirmed President Bush's leadership by reelecting him with the first 
majority vote for President in many years, there seems to be a blind 
force driving some of my Democrat colleagues to prove their votes for 
military force in Iraq were wrong, and that our election was not an 
affirmation of our Nation's bipartisan Iraqi policy, but that this 
policy was a result of ``lies.'' What false and damaging rhetoric this 
is. I urge my colleagues to remember that the world, our enemies, and 
our soldiers fighting for our policies are listening. While there were 
intelligence failures, our leaders did not lie us into war. We Senators 
heard the same intelligence estimates and we voted to authorize war. 
The truth is this: We all heard the intelligence and we authorized 
those hostilities. Some of the intelligence was wrong, but it was not 
wrong that an unleashed Saddam, freed from his box, would again become 
a dangerous threat to world peace. That is a true fact. That is a 
strategic issue we faced. As we wrestle over the intelligence failures 
that occurred, we must not overreact. This Senate should never parrot 
the false charges of our enemies. If we make errors, confront them 
honestly and fix them. But undermining our Nation's position in the 
world, encouraging the enemy to falsely believe the U.S. is divided, 
and leading the enemy to believe that we may quit if they can just kill 
a few more American soldiers or marines is wrong, wrong, wrong. 
Political animosity in some cases seems to have so infected our 
rhetoric that criticism has become not constructive but destructive.

  So my plea to my colleagues is insistent. Please remember that the 
world hears what we say here. Please remember that exaggerated 
political charges can do more than sting officials at home. The world 
hears what is said, and many believe what is being said.
  This war was not based on a lie. I have explained how we came to our 
final vote. The issue of the existence of weapons of mass destruction 
in Iraq was important, but it was the strategic recognition that an 
unrepentant and triumphant Saddam, unloosed from the U.N. embargo and 
in acting violation of 16 U.N. resolutions, was the fundamental threat 
to us and to the world. And we certainly all knew that weapons of mass 
destruction would surely be his easiest tool for international 
intimidation.
  The United Nations' final report when they exited the country 
concluded that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and virtually all 
intelligence agencies in the world, including the French that certainly 
were not under, our control agreed. The Intelligence Committee report, 
phase I, unanimously passed 17 to 0, concluded, however, that the 
intelligence given to the President and Congress was wrong in part. The 
report specifically concluded that President Bush was not lying to the 
American people. And, importantly, the report concluded that the 
intelligence community was not pressured to alter or shape their views 
to please the President or anyone else.
  Another major report, the Robb-Silberman Report--Senator Robb, a 
former Democratic Member of this body, was cochairman--on weapons of 
mass destruction, was clear. They found ``no evidence of political 
pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments 
of Iraq's weapons programs . . . analysts universally asserted that in 
no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of 
their analytical judgements. We conclude that it was the paucity of 
intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political 
pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence 
assessments.''
  So why do our colleagues continue to promote what I believe are 
falsehoods? Why call the President and the Vice President liars? Why 
accuse them of sending soldiers to death based on some secret agenda? 
We debated it openly here for months. For the life of me, I can't 
understand it. We all--all of us--know the facts today; we knew the 
situation then; we know the score. There was no mystery when we voted 
to authorize military force, nor is there mystery now. The going, 
though, is tough in Iraq now. The need, therefore, is even greater for 
us to all work

[[Page S12635]]

together to meet the challenge and successfully conclude our policies 
to create a better, positive, democratic, and prosperous future for 
Iraq. We must pull together and focus on the goal we endorsed when the 
war started.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  (The remarks of Mr. Reed pertaining to the introduction of S. 1989 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

                          ____________________