[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16413-16414]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                QUESTIONS THAT WILL NOT BE ASKED ON IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, soon we hope to have hearings on the pending 
war with Iraq. I am concerned that there are some questions that will 
not be asked and maybe not even allowed to be asked. Here are some 
questions I would like answered by those who are anxious to start this 
war: Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at 
the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?
  Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we 
know it cannot retaliate, which just confirms that there is no real 
threat?
  Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we 
cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time 
implying that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of 
inspections?
  Is it not true that the U.N.'s International Atomic Agency was able 
to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with 
Iraqi cooperation?
  Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to 
develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the 
attacks on the United States last year? Does anybody remember that 15 
of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from 
Iraq?
  Was former CIA counterterrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when 
he recently said there was no confirmed evidence of Iraq's links to 
terrorism?
  Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a 
Prague meeting between 9-11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took 
place?
  Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed 
that al Qaeda was hiding out, was in control of our allies, the Kurds?
  Is it not true that the vast majority of the al Qaeda leaders who 
escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of 
our so-called allies?
  Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total 
chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and 
that is according to a recent U.N. report, the al Qaeda ``is, by all 
accounts, `alive and well' and poised to strike again, how, when and 
where it chooses''?
  Why are we taking precious military resources away from tracking down 
those who did attack the United States, who may again attack the United 
States, and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the 
United States?
  Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arabs' worst suspicions 
about the United States, and is this not just what Osama bin Laden 
wanted to have happen?
  How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air 
force, and now has an army one-fifth the size it was 12 years ago, 
which even then proved itself totally inept in defending itself?
  Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is 
exclusively given to Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the 
Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public 
opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on U.N. permission to go to 
war?
  Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of 
Kurds in one village were gassed by Iraqis, which found no conclusive 
evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city 
involved, and that evidence indicated, according to this Pentagon 
report, the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran, not 
Iraq?
  Is it not true that between 100,000 to 300,000 soldiers have suffered 
from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that 
thousands may have died?
  Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a 
war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the 
United States?
  Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a $100 billion war 
against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle 
an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years 
occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to build democracy 
there?
  Iraq's alleged violations of U.N. resolutions are given as reason to 
initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of U.N. 
resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?
  Did former President Bush not cite the U.N. resolution of 1990 as the 
reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new 
attack assert that is the very reason that we can march into Baghdad?
  Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones 
were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval 
by the United Nations?
  If we claim membership in the international community and conform to 
its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our 
position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?
  How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable 
when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support 
military dictators like Musharaf in Pakistan who overthrew a 
democratically elected President?
  Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the 
United States knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to 
Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992--including after the 
alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?
  Did we not assist Saddam Hussein's rise to power by supporting and 
encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam

[[Page 16414]]

now for his invasion of Iran, which as the time we actively supported?
  Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of 
aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate U.S. 
policy?
  Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is 
not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?
  Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that 
they won't have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this 
war than our generals?
  What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not 
aggressed against us nor is able to, even if it so wished?
  Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any 
reason other than self-defense?
  It it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the 
time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries 
should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?
  Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely 
disagreements will be settled by war?
  Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war 
and--not coincidentally--we have not since then had a clear-cut 
victory?
  Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence 
services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?
  Why do those who want war not bring a Declaration of War Resolution 
to the floor?

                          ____________________