[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19025-19026]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I rise to address our policy in Iraq. 
The situation remains fluid. Administration officials are engaged in 
negotiations at the United Nations over what approach we ought to take 
with our allies to disarm the brutal and dictatorial Iraqi regime.
  The debate we will have in the Senate today and in the days to follow 
is critical because the administration seeks our authorization now for 
military action, including possibly unprecedented, preemptive, go-it-
alone military action in Iraq, even as it seeks to garner support from 
our allies on a new U.N. disarmament resolution.
  Let me be clear: Saddam Hussein is a brutal, ruthless dictator who 
has repressed his own people, attacked his neighbors, and he remains an 
international outlaw. The world would be a much better place if he were 
gone and the regime in Iraq were changed. That is why the United States 
should unite the world against Saddam and not allow him to unite forces 
against us.
  A go-it-alone approach, allowing a ground invasion of Iraq without 
the support of other countries, could give Saddam exactly that chance. 
A preemptive, go-it-alone strategy toward Iraq is wrong. I oppose it. I 
support ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction through unfettered 
U.N. inspections which would begin as soon as possible. Only a broad 
coalition of nations, united to disarm Saddam, while preserving our war 
on terror, is likely to succeed.
  Our primary focus now must be on Iraq's verifiable disarmament of 
weapons of mass destruction. This will help maintain international 
support and could even eventually result in Saddam's loss of power. Of 
course, I would welcome this, along with most of our allies.
  The President has helped to direct intense new multilateral pressure 
on Saddam Hussein to allow U.N. and International Atomic Energy Agency 
weapons inspectors back in Iraq to conduct their assessment of Iraq's 
chemical, biological, and nuclear programs. He clearly has felt that 
heat. It suggests what can be accomplished through collective action.
  I am not naive about this process. Much work lies ahead. But we 
cannot dismiss out of hand Saddam's late and reluctant commitment to 
comply with U.N. disarmament arrangements or the agreement struck 
Tuesday to begin to implement them. We should use the gathering 
international resolve to collectively confront this regime by building 
on these efforts.
  This debate must include all Americans because our decisions finally 
must have the informed consent of the American people who will be asked 
to bear the cost, in blood and treasure, of our decisions.
  When the lives of sons and daughters of average Americans could be 
risked and lost, their voices must be heard in the Congress before we 
make decisions about military action. Right now, despite a desire to 
support our President, I believe many Americans still have profound 
questions about the wisdom of relying too heavily on a preemptive go-
it-alone military approach. Acting now on our own might be a sign of 
our power. Acting sensibly and in a measured way, in concert with our 
allies, with bipartisan congressional support, would be a sign of our 
strength.
  It would also be a sign of the wisdom of our Founders who lodged in 
the President the power to command U.S. Armed Forces, and in Congress 
the power to make war, ensuring a balance of powers between coequal 
branches of Government. Our Constitution lodges the power to weigh the 
causes of war and the ability to declare war in Congress precisely to 
ensure that the American people and those who represent them will be 
consulted before military action is taken.
  The Senate has a grave duty to insist on a full debate that examines 
for all Americans the full range of options before us and weighs those 
options, together with their risks and costs. Such a debate should be 
energized by the real spirit of September 11, a debate which places a 
priority not on unanimity but on the unity of a people determined to 
forcefully confront and defeat terrorism and to defend our values.
  I have supported internationally sanctioned coalition military action 
in Bosnia, in Kosovo, in Serbia, and in Afghanistan. Even so, in recent 
weeks, I and others--including major Republican policymakers, such as 
former Bush National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft; former Bush 
Secretary of State James Baker; my colleague on the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, Senator Chuck Hagel; Bush Mid-East envoy General 
Anthony Zinni; and other leading U.S. military leaders--have raised 
serious questions about the approach the administration is taking on 
Iraq.
  There have been questions raised about the nature and urgency of 
Iraq's threat and our response to that threat: What is the best course 
of action that the United States could take to address this threat? 
What are the economic, political, and national security consequences of 
a possible U.S. or allied invasion of Iraq? There have been questions 
raised about the consequences of our actions abroad, including its 
effect on the continuing war on terrorism, our ongoing efforts to 
stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan, and efforts to calm the intensifying 
Middle East crisis, especially the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
  There have been questions raised about the consequences of our 
actions here at home. Of gravest concern, obviously, are the questions 
raised about the possible loss of life that could result from our 
actions. The United States could post tens of thousands of troops in 
Iraq and, in so doing, risk countless lives of soldiers and innocent 
Iraqis.
  There are other questions about the impact of an attack in relation 
to our economy. The United States could face soaring oil prices and 
could spend billions both on a war and a years-long effort to stabilize 
Iraq after an invasion.
  The resolution that will be before the Senate explicitly authorizes a 
go-it-alone approach. I believe an international approach is essential. 
In my view, our policy should have four key elements.
  First and foremost, the United States must work with our allies to 
deal with Iraq. We should not go it alone, or virtually alone, with a 
preemptive ground invasion. Most critically, acting alone could 
jeopardize our top national priority, the continuing war on terror. I 
believe it would be a mistake to vote for a resolution that authorizes 
a preemptive ground invasion. The intense cooperation of other nations 
in relation to matters that deal with intelligence sharing, security, 
political and economic cooperation, law enforcement, and financial 
surveillance, and other areas is crucial to this fight, and this is 
what is critical for our country to be able to wage its war effectively 
with our allies. Over the past year, this cooperation has been the most 
successful weapon against terrorist networks. That--not attacking 
Iraq--should be the main focus of our efforts in the war on terror.
  As I think about what a go-it-alone strategy would mean in terms of 
the consequences in South Asia and the Near East and the need for our 
country to have access on the ground, and cooperation of the community, 
and get intelligence in the war against al-Qaida and in this war 
against terrorism, I believe a go-it-alone approach could undercut that 
effort. That is why I believe our effort should be international.
  We have succeeded in destroying some al-Qaida forces, but many 
operatives have scattered. Their will to kill Americans is still 
strong. The United States has relied heavily on alliances with nearly 
100 countries in a coalition against terror for critical intelligence 
to protect Americans from possible future attacks. Acting with the 
support of allies, including, hopefully, Arab and Muslim allies, would 
limit possible damage to that coalition and our antiterrorism effort. 
But as

[[Page 19026]]

General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe, 
has recently noted, a premature, go-it-alone invasion of Iraq ``would 
supercharge recruiting for al-Qaida.''
  Second, our efforts should have a goal of disarming Saddam Hussein of 
all his weapons of mass destruction. Iraq agreed to destroy its weapons 
of mass destruction at the end of the Persian Gulf War and to 
verification by the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency 
that this had been done. According to the U.N. and the IAEA, and 
undisputed by the administration, inspections during the 1990s 
neutralized a substantial portion of Iraq's weapons of mass 
destruction, and getting inspectors back to finish the job is critical. 
We know he did not cooperate with all of the inspection regime.
  We know what needs to be done. But the fact is we had that regime, 
and it is important now to call on the Security Council of the U.N. to 
insist that those inspectors be on the ground. The goal is disarmament, 
unfettered access. It is an international effort, and with that Saddam 
Hussein must comply. Otherwise, there will be consequences, including 
appropriate use of force. The prompt resumption of inspections and 
disarmament, under an expedited timetable and with unfettered access in 
Iraq, is imperative.
  Third, weapons inspections should be enforceable. If efforts by the 
U.N. weapons inspectors are tried and fail, a range of potential U.N. 
sanctions means, including proportionate military force, should be 
considered. I have no doubt that this Congress would act swiftly to 
authorize force in such circumstances. This does not mean giving the 
United Nations a veto over U.S. actions. Nobody wants to do that. It 
simply means, as Chairman Levin has observed, that Saddam Hussein is a 
world problem and should be addressed in the world arena.
  Finally, our approach toward Iraq must be consistent with 
international law and the framework of collective security developed 
over the last 50 years or more. It should be sanctioned by the Security 
Council under the U.N. charter, to which we are a party and by which we 
are legally bound. Only a broad coalition of nations, united to disarm 
Saddam Hussein, while preserving our war on terror, can succeed.
  Our response will be far more effective if Saddam Hussein sees the 
whole world arrayed against him. We should act forcefully, resolutely, 
sensibly, with our allies--and not alone--to disarm Saddam Hussein. 
Authorizing the preemptive go-alone use of force right now, which is 
what the resolution before us calls for, in the midst of continuing 
efforts to enlist the world community to back a tough, new disarmament 
resolution on Iraq, could be a very costly mistake for our country.
  Madam President, quite often at the end of debates on amendments, we 
thank our staffs for the work they have done and appreciate their hard 
work. At the end of my statement today on the floor of the Senate as to 
why I am opposed to the resolution before us that we will be debating 
today and in the days to come, which is too open-ended and would 
provide the President with authority for preemptive military action, 
including a ground invasion in Iraq, I would like to thank my staff. I 
would like to thank my staff for never trying one time to influence me 
to make any other decision than what I honestly and truthfully believe 
is right for the State I represent, Minnesota, for my country, and for 
the world in which my children and my grandchildren live. To all of my 
staff, I thank you for believing in me.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.

                          ____________________