[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 20]
[House]
[Page 27579]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          NO EXPRESSION OF SUPPORT IN CONGRESS FOR WAR IN IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, along with a large majority of the House, I 
voted for a resolution that reiterated our opposition to the 
acquisition by Saddam Hussein of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. 
But I am concerned that some might try, quite inaccurately, to take 
that large vote repeating our condemnation of Saddam Hussein and our 
insistence he comply with U.N. resolutions regarding these weapons, 
that some might mistake this as an expression of support for a war in 
Iraq.
  First of all, we should be very clear: there is no legislation, no 
resolution that has passed this House, that expresses support for war 
in Iraq. The post-September 11 resolution was explicitly limited to 
involvement in the attack on the World Trade Center. And to date, no 
one has produced evidence, as reprehensible as Saddam Hussein is, as 
despicable as his regime, that he was in any significant way involved 
in that.
  Many of us, in fact many of us who voted for the resolution, signed a 
letter to the President reiterating we do not believe it would be 
appropriate to commit America to a major military action in Iraq or 
anywhere else in the world without a congressional vote. And I would 
be, at this point, voting against that.
  We did a very good job in Afghanistan. The American military made us 
proud. And, by the way, that is the American military that President 
Bush inherited from President Clinton. All during the campaign of 2000 
candidates Bush and Cheney denigrated the American military, claimed 
inaccurately that Clinton had somehow left it impotent. All of a sudden 
it got very good in a hurry, because that very military that President 
Bush inherited from President Clinton showed a great capacity in 
Afghanistan.
  But as good as they were and as careful as they were, innocent lives 
were lost, property was destroyed, the economy, already in tough shape, 
was disrupted, food distribution was inhibited. We had a moral right 
and a moral obligation to go into Afghanistan. But having done that, 
having unleashed significant military power in that poor country, for 
good moral reasons, I think it is now an equal moral obligation to show 
that we can work just as hard to help rebuild the country, to help feed 
people, and to help reconstruct it.


  In the first place, I would say this: until we have shown an equal 
ability and commitment and dedication to giving the people of 
Afghanistan a better life, as we should, to helping them get rid of 
that terrible regime, then I do not think we have earned the right to 
go do that somewhere else.

                              {time}  1345

  I do not think that we can simply go from country and oppose 
destruction, even when it is morally justified to go after some bad 
people, without living up to the second part that of commitment.
  Secondly, an attack on Iraq, unlike the war in Afghanistan, would be 
almost universally opposed by a variety of others. The Bush 
administration has learned that going it alone is not the best 
strategy. I am glad the Bush administration has abandoned the kind of 
unilateralism that unfortunately marked its early months. But if we now 
attack Iraq, we would be back in that situation. In fact, any hope of 
further cooperation with Arab regimes in getting intelligence, in 
prosecuting terrorists and continuing to go after al Qaeda would be 
discouraged.
  Mr. Speaker, I am no fan of the regime in Saudi Arabia which is 
lacking in so many respects; I have become increasing disenchanted with 
Mubarak in Egypt, but they, at this point, seem to me better than what 
we would get as an alternative if we were to launch an attack on Iraq 
that could destabilize those countries. And as King Abdullah, the King 
of Jordan, in the tradition of his father, seems to be a responsible 
individual trying to do well, I do not want to see those efforts 
undercut.
  So it would be counterproductive in the war against terrorism to go 
after Iraq. I would love to see Saddam Hussein out of power. He is a 
vicious and brutal man, but to attack him militarily at this point, 
engendering the opposition this would engender in the Muslim world, 
would be counterproductive to our fight against terrorism.
  Indeed, as a strong supporter of the legitimate right of Israel for 
self defense, which is now under attack from the most irresponsible 
elements in the Arab world, people should understand, President Bush 
never said that he was for a Palestinian state until after September 
11. The political need to show some connection to the Muslim world 
moved him in that direction. I fear greatly that an attack on Iraq, 
with all of the negative consequences that would have in the Muslim 
world would, in fact, lessen rather than strengthen America's support 
for Israel's legitimate needs. I fear there would be a tendency to 
trade-off a little bit of that support for Israel at a time of great 
crisis because of this.
  Finally, they are not analogous. Not only do we not have Saddam 
Hussein not having attacked us the way the Afghan-supported Taliban 
allowed al Qaeda to do it, we do not have the same situation. There is 
no Northern Alliance. One of the things that helps morally vindicate 
our effort in Afghanistan was the obvious joy of so many people in 
Afghanistan that we helped rid them of this barbarous repressive 
regime.
  Saddam Hussein is not a lot better than the Taliban, but I do not see 
in Iraq the kind of opposition that would allow us to do the same 
thing. So while to continue to support the sanctions and I continue to 
say we should work with opposition within Iran, if possible, to launch 
a military assault on Iraq comparable to what we do in Afghanistan 
would be counterproductive. I hope it will not be done. Clearly, the 
resolution we voted offers no support for that.

                          ____________________