[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16995-16996]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 OPPOSING THE PRESIDENT'S EFFORTS TO LAUNCH ILLEGITIMATE FIRST STRIKE 
                              AGAINST IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in opposition to the 
President's efforts to launch an illegitimate first strike against 
Iraq. The President's war fervor threatens the lives of thousands of 
American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, ignores international law, 
undermines our fight against terrorism, and may make average Americans 
less safe. Yet, the President presses for an invasion.
  It is true that Saddam Hussein is a dictator. He is a bad man, and 
the world would be better off without him. But the world will also be 
better off if the United States works within the scope of international 
institutions instead of launching an unprovoked first strike against 
Iraq.
  America's greatest asset is our moral authority, not our military 
power. Attacking a sovereign country unprovoked forfeits that authority 
completely.
  It is true that Saddam has repeatedly violated United Nations 
resolutions, but it is also true that only the United Nations has the 
authority to enforce those resolutions. Furthermore, none of those 
resolutions call for regime change in Iraq, an often-stated goal of the 
President's.
  On top of all of that, a first strike invasion of Iraq could actually 
undermine America's vital interests in the Mideast and around the 
world. It is unfortunate but true that Iraq's neighbors mistrust the 
United States even more than they mistrust Saddam Hussein.
  Invading Iraq could have drastic repercussions by energizing 
extremists looking to overthrow governments across the Mideast. Such an 
outcome is even more likely if Saddam Hussein responds to an invasion 
by retaliating against Israel. If he succeeds in killing Israelis and 
polarizing the Mideast, what then?
  The President claims Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are more than 
can be justified for aggression. In America, we must hold ourselves to 
a higher standard. Those weapons programs are frightening, but policy 
must be based on fact, not fear.
  It is believed that Saddam's nuclear weapons program was 95 percent 
destroyed by 1998, when the U.N. inspection teams pulled out. There is 
no reason to think that a new round of weapons inspectors will not be 
just as effective. Meanwhile, President Bush has sent a message of his 
own by backing out of the ABM treaty, refusing to sign the Kyoto 
treaty, refusing to be a party to the mine ban treaty, withdrawing the 
U.S.' signature to the International Criminal Court treaty, and 
embracing the use of mini nukes.
  Is it any wonder that other nations hesitate to support a first 
strike invasion when we in the United States ignore the same 
international standards that we accuse Saddam Hussein of disregarding? 
We must take a long, hard look at our own policies to ensure that we do 
not violate the same rules we expect others to follow.
  As a Nation, it is our responsibility to live up to our own 
democratic

[[Page 16996]]

ideals. We owe it to our children to exercise the full range of 
diplomatic options in Iraq so we can prevent a war that will cost 
thousands of lives while at the same time giving a boost to our real 
enemies: The terrorists who planned September 11.
  War represents a failure of civilization. It is a last resort. 
America's strength is our commitment to moral action, and a government 
based on the rule of law. That law must never be silent, and our 
sensibilities must never be intimidated.

                          ____________________