[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 2142]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     POPE RIGHT ON IRAQ--CLINTON POLICY HOLDS LITTLE HOPE FOR PEACE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 9, 1999

  Mr. SCHAFFER. Mr. Speaker, His Holiness Pope John Paul II was right 
to use the occasion of his St. Louis visit to chastise Bill Clinton's 
handling of Iraq. A full month having passed since Operation Desert 
Fox, it remains unclear who stands the victor.
  The coincident timing of impeachment-eve air strikes sparked rampant 
speculation about President Bill Clinton's motives and drew indignant 
insistence by the White House that U.S. national security was the 
singular interest. Today the pope finds himself among an ever-growing 
crowd of Americans unconvinced last month's missile attack was an 
absolute necessity and with the settling dust comes clarification of 
the uneasy truth: Saddam Hussein remains in power.
  This fact controverts a December 17, 1998 call by Congress to finish 
the job. On a near unanimous vote, 221 Republicans, 195 Democrats, and 
one Independent adopted a resolution in support of our troops engaged 
in Desert Fox.
  Congress also included in the measure a bold policy statement, ``to 
remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to 
promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that 
regime.'' In earnest, federal lawmakers had authorized $110 million for 
the political liberation of Iraq. The Clinton administration has so far 
used only $58,000 to host a conference on the topic.
  Clinton's own signature on a separate Iraq Liberation Act earlier in 
1998 also called for Saddam`s removal giving every indication the 
administration concurred with Congressional intent to finally address 
the underlying cause of Iraq's belligence--Saddam`s ruthless regime.
  However, one day into Operation Desert Fox, Defense Secretary Cohen 
confessed before a closed assembly of the U.S. House our plans did not 
include undermining Saddam`s dictatorship. ``The objective of the 
attack,'' he admitted, ``is to go after those chemical, biological or 
weapons of mass destruction sites to the extent that we can.'' A 
Congressman followed up, ``Why not go after his regime if that`s what 
the problem is?''
  Cohen replied, ``We have set forth our specific targets, and that`s 
what we intend to carry out.'' Across the Atlantic, British Defense 
Minister Robertson delivered the consonant line to Members of 
Parliament, ``It`s not our objective to remove Saddam Hussein from 
power.''
  Coupled with the historic record of Clinton's Iraq policy, his 
eagerness to launch missiles while neglecting chief U.S. objectives 
adds plausibility to the pontiff's skepticism. The president's stubbon 
devotion to the failing policy of ``containment'' has yielded little 
more than prolonged hardship for Iraq`s 22 million civilians and 
unneeded strain on precarious international relationships.
  The broad international coalition forged and maintained by President 
Bush during Desert Storm is now badly eroded. The indecision of the 
United Nations has effectively become the basis for U.S. policy by 
default.
  Last week's proposal by France and Russia, for example, to completely 
lift sanctions was immediately answered by a counterproposal from the 
U.S. allowing Baghdad to sell unlimited amounts of oil. This exchange 
is another strong indication the economic embargo is rapidly 
disintegrating. Moreover, Iraq's weapons program is continuing to 
expand in the face of sporadic U.S. military reaction, the timing of 
which seems controlled as much by Clinton as by Saddam himself.
  Periodic air and missile strikes have at best achieved only temporary 
obstacles for Saddam, but have proven ineffective in dampening the 
dictator's zeal to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. 
The pope's statement in St. Louis ``military measures don't resolve 
problems in themselves; rather they aggravate them'' hits the mark in 
Clinton's case.
  The president's indecisiveness to maintain a competent inspection 
regimen, and his abandonment of Iraqi opposition forces have 
effectively confined U.S. options to cat-and-mouse air strikes as far 
as the eye can see. For all of his stern lectern-pounding 
pronouncements about the importance of unimpeded weapons inspections, 
Clinton's support for the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) mission 
turned out to be nothing more than rhetorical.
  A recently released report by the House Republican Policy Committee 
details the inexplicable record of the Clinton administration. The 
report shows beginning in November of 1997, the White House secretly 
intervened to stop UNSCOM inspectors, directing UNSCOM to rescind 
orders for surprise searches of Iraqi weapons sites and attempting to 
fire Scott Ritter, a senior UNSCOM inspector, for carrying out 
inspectors Saddam found inconvenient. The administration intervened 
again in December of 1997 and in January of 1998 culminating in the 
removal of Ritter from Iraq in the middle of a new round of surprise 
inspections.
  In March of 1998, U.S. and Britain withheld essential intelligence 
support for UNSCOM. In July, the two countries intervened again to call 
off a new schedule of inspections. Finally in August, Secretary 
Albright personally intervened once more to cancel one of the most 
critical and promising rounds of surprise inspections. These actions 
ultimately resulted in Ritter's resignation citing the Clinton 
administration's refusal to let UNSCOM do its job.
  Clearly the president's precipitous policy in Iraq must be replaced 
by a serious one designed to legitimately achieve genuine U.S. 
objectives. We must adopt a proactive strategy to end Saddam's 
dangerous rule.
  Mr. Speaker, America must reach out to a unified Iraqi opposition, 
expand its leadership among Iraqi citizens, strangle Saddam's economic 
lifeline, and systematically cripple his tyrannical rule. Absent a 
tactical plan to remove Saddam, he will succeed in breaking out of the 
Gulf War peace agreement, acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and 
assembling the means to deliver them.
  Only when Saddam's regime is replaced with one respectful of its 
neighbors and of its own people will liberty have a chance in the 
Middle East. Until then, peace doesn't have a prayer, no matter how 
many times John Paul II comes to America.

                          ____________________