[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 18515-18516]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we in the Senate today had the experience 
of participating in the joint meeting in the House Chamber listening to 
Prime Minister Tony Blair. I opened the Senate this morning pointing 
out that we would be welcoming and honoring our distinguished visitor 
in this joint meeting. I mentioned that he is the fourth sitting Prime 
Minister to address a joint session of the Congress, preceded only by 
Winston Churchill, Clement Atlee, and Margaret Thatcher, three of 
histories great leaders.
  Today's historic tribute gave us the opportunity to reaffirm our 
abiding friendship and our deep respect both for the man, Prime 
Minister Tony Blair, as well as the people of the United Kingdom. Our 
two nations have stood shoulder to shoulder to defend the free people 
around the world.
  We had the opportunity to meet with the Prime Minister before the 
address. We were able to directly express our appreciation to the Prime 
Minister and for him to reflect to the people of Britain for their 
courage and their resolve.
  As you sat in the majestic House Chamber and listened to those words, 
I think we were all affected very directly because it helped elevate 
the debate which seemed to have mired down in part of the way it has 
been handled by the media but also the way it has been handled by a 
number of our colleagues both in this Chamber and in the other Chamber.
  The words from Tony Blair really did elevate it. There is just one 
passage I want to quote from what the Prime Minister said today in the 
Chamber:

       And I know it's hard on America, and in some small corner 
     of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places 
     I've never been to, but always wanted to go. I know out there 
     there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, 
     minding his own business, saying to you, the political 
     leaders of this country, ``Why me? And why us? And why 
     America?''
       And the only answer is, ``Because destiny put you in this 
     place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is 
     yours to do.''

  The Prime Minister continued:

       And our job, my nation that watched you grow, that you 
     fought alongside and now fights alongside you, that takes 
     enormous pride in our alliance and great affection in our 
     common bond, our job is to be there with you.
       You are not going to be alone. We will be there with you in 
     this fight for liberty. We will be with you in this fight for 
     liberty. And if our spirit is right and our courage firm, the 
     world will be with us.

  I mention this passage because, as we sat there for that 30 minutes 
or so, this passage where he mentions that ``destiny put you in this 
place in history'' is one that just struck a chord.
  I contrast that with the debate that has seemed to play out in the 
media over the last week in regard to the quality and integrity of the 
case made by President Bush for the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime.
  I have to say, as I have heard people comment on the case that has 
been made for this war, I have been increasingly disturbed. In part it 
is because of the sound of shaking confidence by people who intend to 
shake the confidence, or who want to instill or inject into the 
American people self-doubt about America's mission in Iraq.
  But when you stepped back and listened to the Prime Minister today, 
all of a sudden you realized that a bloody tyrant no longer rules in 
Iraq. It made you realize that a man who, without regret, murdered 
members of his own family, as well as tens of thousands of his own 
citizens, has now been removed from power. The perpetrator of one of 
the past century's most gruesome crimes against humanity--the use of 
chemical weapons on thousands of innocent Kurds--no longer is free to 
pursue such weapons. The aggressor in the gulf war who, a decade ago, 
invaded his neighbor, only to be driven out by a mighty coalition, no 
longer threatens the volatile region of the Middle East.
  Now all of this second-guessing is perplexing to me. If you look over 
the last week, we have had things mentioned like Watergate, which was 
referenced by candidates eager for the next election. You hear 
candidates using words like ``impeachment'' being laid upon the table. 
We have seen, over the last week, special e-mails going out from party 
headquarters, saying: More money needed to fan the flames of 
controversy.
  Indeed, we know all these campaigns have begun, and there are many 
people who seem to be eager to topple the leader. I mention all that 
because of the contrast in what we heard today from Tony Blair, who 
elevated the facts and the greater cause of liberty, in contrast so 
much to what our media and the candidates have focused on. This whiff 
of politics is in the air.
  What bothers me about it is that there is a cost if we get in and 
play a game of politics at this juncture in history. As I listened to 
the Prime Minister today, I thought, what does this do to the 
reputation of our country, to the position of our President? Prime 
Minister Tony Blair helped put that into perspective today.
  Indeed, the record is replete with the case against Saddam Hussein, 
such as the mass graves. Our colleagues who have just come back from 
Iraq so vividly described standing at these mass graves the size of 
football fields--thousands of graves exposed. And really only now are 
the thousands of widows and mothers and orphans--all victims, also--
able to openly grieve. Who will ever forget the pictures we have seen 
of those desperate citizens of Baghdad, actually clawing at the ground 
in a vain search for these hidden prisons that might hold their loved 
ones. You see these images of mass graves.

[[Page 18516]]

  Our colleagues have come back--and we have had two delegations over 
there, and another one will be going shortly--with descriptions of the 
unmistakable mark which these mass graves represent of history's 
tyrants, the legacy of this regime, and the shame of anyone among us 
who would have tolerated it for one day longer than we knew it to be a 
fact.
  As I listen to some of the candidates and colleagues and critics, it 
leads me to ask: Are we deaf in some way to the plight of the Iraqi 
people based on the facts that we know? Is the suffering of the Iraqi 
people--when we think about those graves or about the thousands of 
Kurdish individuals upon whom Saddam Hussein inflicted chemical weapons 
of mass destruction--it makes you ask is our moral purpose as a Nation 
so diminished that we do not see the justice of our own cause, that 
larger purpose, that sense of liberty and fighting for liberty that 
Prime Minister Tony Blair talked about today?
  We heard in this body all of the evidence on Iraq before the war. We 
had the opportunity, through open hearings, closed hearings, classified 
information. I clearly was convinced. I had the opportunity to sit in 
my office, which is just probably 200 steps from where I am speaking 
now, and listen to about 12 Kurdish physicians who came to visit the 
United States. They came to see me because I am a physician. They 
simply laid it out to me that they took care of thousands of people--
these are the physicians who took care of thousands of people who were 
poisoned with chemical weapons from Saddam Hussein--thousands of 
people, not 10 or 15, but thousands. They talked about the peeling of 
skin. They talked about the suffocation. They talked about people dying 
before their eyes.
  They also told me they are still taking care of those people who 
survived, although we know scores of thousands of people died from 
these chemical weapons imposed or inflicted upon them by Saddam 
Hussein; but, indeed, these doctors I talked to in my office months ago 
are still treating some of the victims from that atrocity. Yet, at the 
same time, we have heard discussions this past week with some 
questioning whether this tyrant was capable of possessing and using 
such weapons again.
  There seems to be a disconnect over much of the discussion of the 
last week. This week people said: After all, he declared himself free 
of these weapons.
  But as we all know, he denied again and again--and it was part of the 
resolution--those inspectors the opportunity to prove him wrong. So I 
am perplexed and bewildered by those who would accept the word of an 
inhumane, callous, mass murderer at this point in time, and whose word 
they seem to even be holding higher than that of the President of the 
United States.
  It is a travesty to me. It is nonsense, and it really comes back to 
that basic question: Is there anybody in this Chamber who would 
honestly dispute that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass 
destruction; that he used weapons of mass destruction; and that he 
never abandoned that course? I really don't think so.
  We can take it a step further. Is there anybody in this Chamber who 
believes that we would have been all, in some way, better off with 
Saddam Hussein still in power? The answer is clear. Indeed, 9 months 
ago, 77 Members of this Chamber voted to authorize the President to use 
force in Iraq. In that resolution, we enumerated very clearly the many 
reasons.
  First, the Senate found--this was 9 months ago--that Saddam Hussein 
was developing, did possess, and had used weapons of mass destruction. 
That is No. 1.
  No. 2, 9 months ago, based on the information that was available to 
us and the briefings that we had, the Senate found that Iraq invaded 
Kuwait in 1990. And after being driven back by an international 
coalition, Saddam Hussein unequivocally agreed to eliminate all weapons 
of mass destruction and to prove so to the world community.
  No. 3, the Senate found that Saddam, in fact, used denial, used 
deception, and used harassment to thwart efforts by international 
inspectors to prove compliance with those terms.
  Fourth, the Senate reiterated its finding from 1998 legislation that 
Saddam Hussein had a continuing program to develop weapons of mass 
destruction in material breach of his terms of surrender in the gulf 
war.
  Finally, and fifth, the Senate listed the myriad of United Nations 
Security Council resolutions reaching the same conclusions that the 
Senate had reached.
  I wish to stress once again, because it is important to understand, 
this was 9 months ago, and 77 Members of this Chamber voted with this 
understanding. All of these findings were made on thorough intelligence 
briefings. They were considered judgments by Members of this body, all 
separate from any report about a uranium purchase from Africa, which 
has tended to be the focus of people over the last week.
  On October 9, 1998, 2 years before the current President was elected, 
Senators then wrote to President Bill Clinton demanding military action 
against Saddam Hussein. This is 1998. They wrote:

       We urge you to take necessary actions (including if, 
     appropriate, air and missile strikes) to respond effectively 
     to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of 
     mass destruction programs.

  This was followed by a December 17, 1998, letter calling for the use 
of military force again by then-President Clinton ``to compel 
compliance or to destroy to the best of our ability Iraq's capability 
to build and deliver weapons of mass destruction and threaten its 
neighbors.''
  What is incredible to me now is that some of those very same people 
who signed those letters now are questioning whether an honest case was 
made by President Bush that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The 
very same people signed those letters. So I am moved to ask, What 
reversed the conclusion that they had so confidently reached 5 years 
ago? Was it in some way a change of facts or was it a change just in 
the Presidency?
  Yes, my implication is what we have seen over the last week is a 
matter of politics, and I think, again, of the Prime Minister's visit 
today and his message of what this war has meant to free people, yes, 
in Iraq, but around the world. All of this is a serious matter. It 
demands our attention. I say that because as I speak, we all know that 
American soldiers, British soldiers, coalition soldiers stand in harm's 
way. We all sort of stand in fear of turning on the television at 
night, in the morning, or reading in the paper once again of tragic 
casualties.
  All of that speaks to me that we must redouble our efforts against 
the small but determined enemy to stabilize Iraq. A democratic and 
prosperous Iraq, just as the Prime Minister said today, will not only 
change the Middle East, it will change the world for the better. It is 
a worthy cause of our Nation and one that we simply will not--will 
not--permit to fail.
  Mr. President, I will, in the interest of time, probably have more to 
say about this next week. This is the nature of the debate. Again, I 
express my appreciation on behalf of the Senate to the Prime Minister 
for joining us today.

                          ____________________