[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 18773-18775]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          A CONSTANT DRUMBEAT

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the constant drumbeat in the press goes 
on. We find it highlighted in this week's national news magazines: a 
constant attack on the credibility of George W. Bush; a constant 
drumbeat calling him a liar, at the very least an exaggerator who did 
it deliberately to mislead the American people and to take us to war.
  Those in the media who get involved need to be reminded just a little 
bit of their responsibility. It is their responsibility to react not 
just to the flavor of the moment, in terms of political issues, but to 
give us a little bit of institutional memory. Since they seem to lack 
that memory, I will do my best to supply it here this afternoon.
  I remember as a Member of this body some intelligence lapses that 
occurred and decisions that were made on the basis of those lapses. Let 
me give you some.
  I remember when the United States bombed a pharmaceutical plant in 
Sudan because the intelligence said it was a place where biological 
weapons were being created. This was not a trivial matter. I went to 
the room here in the Capitol that is reserved for secret briefings. I 
refer to it as the secret room where secret people tell us secret 
things, and I had no less than the Secretary of Defense absolutely 
insist that the intelligence was rock solid that biological weapons 
were being produced at this plant in Sudan.
  We now know the intelligence was wrong. The plant was not involved in 
the production of biological or chemical weapons. The intelligence 
information that led us to believe it had been was flawed, it was old, 
and the casualties that occurred on that occasion were civilians who 
needlessly lost their lives because the American intelligence was bad.
  The question is: Would we have been better off if we had not 
destroyed that plant in the Sudan? And the answer is clearly yes. 
Intelligence let us down. We made the wrong decision. We killed some 
civilians. We would have been better off if we had not proceeded.
  The second lapse of intelligence occurred during the bombing in 
Bosnia. I was involved in this one to a greater degree than the other. 
This is where the Americans bombed what they

[[Page 18774]]

thought was a legitimate target and it turned out to be the Chinese 
Embassy. Furthermore, it was more than just the Chinese Embassy. It was 
the center of Chinese intelligence activity that covered most of that 
part of Europe.
  I was in China on a congressional delegation not long after that 
occurred. One after another Chinese official kept berating me and the 
other members of the delegation as to why we had deliberately targeted 
and destroyed a key intelligence center for the Chinese.
  Our answer was that this was an intelligence failure on our part; 
that the CIA was using an old address book, and we had not realized we 
were, in fact, destroying a very sensitive Chinese installation.
  I remember the response from a Chinese official as we made that 
explanation. He said: You Americans have the best intelligence in the 
world. You have been following what we have been doing in that part of 
the world for years. You destroyed a major intelligence asset of ours, 
and you claim it was a mistake? You claim your intelligence assets were 
so bad you did not realize we had been at that location for years?
  It was very clear from the questions and the tone of voice with which 
those questions were asked that the Chinese officials did not believe 
us. They did not believe we were capable of such a stupid mistake.
  The only defense that could be offered, and it was offered by another 
member of the delegation, was it had to be a mistake because, in fact, 
it was so stupid. No one would have done that deliberately and damaged 
the relationship between the United States and the Chinese so 
seriously.
  It was in response to that the U.S. Embassy in Beijing was stoned. I 
saw the windows that were broken. I saw the bullet holes that pocked 
the walls as people fired on the Embassy. It was a major incident.
  Again, the fundamental question: Would we have been better off if we 
had not done it? And the answer is an unequivocal and overwhelming, 
yes; we would have been better off if we had not done it.
  I could go on, but let me take those two examples of failed 
intelligence and those two questions--would we have been better off if 
we had not done it in the Sudan, and would we have been better off if 
we had not done it in Belgrade--and put them in the context of today's 
debate.
  Let's assume for a moment--and I underscore that I do not--that the 
intelligence that led up to the decision to go ahead in Iraq was as 
faulty as the administration's critics are now claiming it was, and 
then ask the same fundamental question: Would the world be better off 
if we had not gone into Iraq? And the answer is clearly, no. The answer 
is clearly as Tony Blair laid it out before the joint session of 
Congress. He made it clear if we made a mistake, history will forgive 
the mistake because the consequences of it were that we freed the Iraqi 
people. We brought a degree of credibility and stability into that 
region that has not been there. We have new leverage to deal with the 
Israeli/Palestinian question beyond that which any American President 
has had.
  If, in fact, we blundered into Iraq--and, once again, I underscore 
the fact I do not believe we did--we did a good thing. Unlike the 
failed intelligence that caused us to blow up a civilian production 
facility in the Sudan, which was a bad thing, unlike the failed 
intelligence that caused us to destroy the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, 
which was a bad thing, if there was flawed intelligence here that 
caused us to go into Iraq, it was still a good thing.
  Let me give an example of flawed intelligence with respect to Iraq. 
We did not know, going into Iraq, the degree to which Saddam Hussein 
had committed genocide against his own people. With all of the 
intelligence assets we had on the ground in Iraq, we were unaware of 
the number and extent of the mass graves that we are still uncovering 
while we are there. If we are going to complain, as those in the media 
are doing, that the intelligence going into Iraq was flawed, they 
should complain just as much about the failure of intelligence to tell 
us the degree of his brutality. But they are not talking about that. We 
do not get any media reports with each new discovery of a major new 
mass grave. Those are dismissed in what is called the mainstream media 
because that might lend support to the idea that going into Iraq was 
the right thing to have done.
  No, instead we are quibbling over words that appeared in the State of 
the Union that somehow triggered massive misunderstanding on the part 
of the American people. I would challenge anyone to go to anyone in 
America and ask them how many of them remember the 16 words that are 
being challenged. Well, maybe the American people do not remember those 
words but certainly the Congress does.
  There is a slight problem with that because the State of the Union 
Message was given after the Congress had approved the President's 
intervention in Iraq. The vote was taken on this floor prior to the 
time the President made those statements. So how can anyone in this 
body claim that he or she was misled by the President's statement in 
the State of the Union when the vote was taken prior to the time that 
statement was made?
  Once again, that is a fact that is conveniently left out of all of 
the media analysis. They do not tell us that Congress went to the 
briefings and came to its conclusion as to the rightness of the 
decision in Iraq before the President made that comment in the State of 
the Union.
  I went to the briefings. There was a briefing at the Pentagon that I 
remember very carefully. We went over for breakfast with the Secretary 
of Defense and he gave us a complete briefing on the entire issue of 
weapons of mass destruction and where things were in Iraq. I must say I 
did not see any of the current critics of the President's plan present 
at that briefing. I remember fairly clearly who was there. I could not 
name all of the Senators who were there, but I could name all of the 
Democratic Senators who were there, and none of them is currently 
engaged in criticizing the President.
  I remember a briefing at the White House in the Roosevelt Room with 
representatives of the CIA and Condoleezza Rice, where we went through 
the whole issue of weapons of mass destruction. Once again, I can 
remember the Senators who were at that briefing. It was open to all. It 
was not a private thing where a few Senators were requested. Any 
Senator who wanted could have gone to that briefing. I remember those 
who were there. Not one of the current critics of the President's 
position was there at that briefing.
  So I find it a little disingenuous to have them say they were misled 
when they did not attend the briefings that were given.
  Now let me take my colleagues to that briefing in the Roosevelt Room 
in the White House and summarize for them what was said there. We were 
told the following: Four areas of deep concern were raised, and we were 
told in descending order of how scary these were. The first was 
biological weapons. The second was Saddam Hussein's capacity to deliver 
those weapons. The third was chemical weapons. The fourth was nuclear 
weapons.
  I remember that very clearly because I summarized it back to the 
briefers and said: Let me be sure I understand what you are saying. You 
are saying you are most frightened of his capacity in the biological 
area, slightly less frightened about his ability to deliver those 
weapons, slightly less frightened about his capacity in the chemical 
area, and least frightened about his capacity in the nuclear area? And 
they said, yes, Senator that is the descending order of concern.
  I cite that because we are now being told in the popular press that 
the entire operation was sold to us because of the threat of nuclear 
weapons, ignoring the facts that we were given at the briefing to which 
they did not come.
  The question was raised, Why should we be going against Saddam 
Hussein at this particular time? That was one of the questions at the 
briefing. I remember the answer very clearly. If we are

[[Page 18775]]

just talking about weapons of mass destruction, there are a number of 
countries that have weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, if we went to 
the country that has the most outside of the United States itself, that 
would be Russia. Simple possession of weapons of mass destruction, the 
point was clearly made at the briefing, simple possession of weapons of 
mass destruction does not justify taking action.
  A brutal dictator who oppresses his own people. Look around the world 
and there are plenty of brutal dictators who oppress their own people. 
Being a brutal dictator who oppresses his own people is not 
justification for the United States to go to war against you. That 
point was clearly made at the briefing.
  Willingness to invade your neighbors. There have been regimes around 
the world that have attacked recently their neighbors. Clearly, the 
United States cannot intervene every time there is a border war or a 
willingness to attack your neighbors. That, alone, does not justify 
going against someone in a military fashion.
  Using weapons of mass destruction is different from possessing them. 
Now we are getting kind of narrow because we do not have a great number 
of examples of regimes that have used weapons of mass destruction. But 
maybe that alone, again, does not justify going against another regime.
  Put them all together--possession of weapons of mass destruction, 
using the weapons of mass destruction, crossing borders and invading 
your neighbors, and being in the hands of a brutal dictator--now we are 
getting a list and we are coming very close to Saddam Hussein, as the 
only brutal dictator with weapons of mass destruction, who qualifies 
for all four of those.
  But there is a fifth that comes into play as a follow-on to September 
11: That is financing and harboring terrorists. Let me make it clear at 
that briefing, no one said there was a heavy al-Qaida presence in Iraq. 
Once again, people in the media are attacking President Bush for saying 
something that, in fact, he did not say. What was said at the briefing 
was Iraq sponsors terrorism, Iraq funds terrorism, and there are 
intelligence reports of Iraq harboring members of al-Qaida who are 
fleeing for their lives.
  The statement was never made that there was a major al-Qaida 
headquarters in Iraq. The statement was simply made that terrorists run 
through Iraq. A number of terrorist organizations, in addition to al-
Qaida, have been represented in Iraq. Iraq funds terrorism throughout 
the region.
  Here are five different criteria, any one of which might not be 
enough to justify moving against a foreign government. Indeed, two or 
even three gathered together might still not justify moving against a 
foreign government. But the statement was made clearly, when you put 
all five together and ask yourself where in the world do you find all 
five at the same time, the answer is in one place and one place only: 
That place is Iraq.
  That was the intelligence briefing I attended. That was the 
intelligence information I heard when I made up my mind to be in 
support of the President and this operation. As I said before, I do not 
remember--indeed, I am sure that most of the President's congressional 
critics--indeed, all of--the President's congressional critics in this 
Chamber--were not there. They did not hear the briefings.
  For them to come forward now and say the President misled them, when 
they did not go, is disingenuous. I do not feel misled. I do not feel 
uninformed. I do not feel the intelligence was bad. Insufficient? Of 
course. Intelligence is always insufficient. But that does not mean it 
was deliberately manipulated; that does not mean it was planted; that 
does not mean anyone did anything but the very best he or she could do 
in good faith.
  The fundamental question I posed earlier still stands. Even if you 
accuse the President of doing all of what his critics are saying he 
did, was it bad to have gone into Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein? 
Until critics either in the Congress or the media will come forward and 
say, we used bad intelligence to make the bad decision and the world 
would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power, they cannot, 
in my view, sustain their criticism. They cannot fault this President 
unless they are willing to say in this instance what we can say in the 
two other instances I have described.
  Intelligence was flawed in the Sudan. Would the world be better off 
if we had not destroyed that plant? Yes. The intelligence was flawed in 
Belgrade. Would we be better off if we had not destroyed the Chinese 
Embassy? The answer is yes. If the intelligence was flawed in Iraq, the 
same question still applies: Would we be better off if we had not 
toppled Saddam Hussein? Until someone is willing to answer that 
question yes, I am not willing to give credence to their complaints 
about this President and this White House.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia.

                          ____________________