[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18848-18849]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  AVOIDING ENTANGLING ALLIANCES AND INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF OTHER NATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Harris). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the truth about whether or not Saddam

[[Page 18849]]

Hussein was trying to buy uranium from Niger has dominated the news for 
the past several weeks. Many of those challenging the administration on 
this issue are motivated more by politics than by policy. Some doing 
the challenging were strongly in favor of going to war against Iraq 
when it appeared politically popular to do so, but are now chagrined 
that the war is not going as smoothly as was hoped.
  I am sure once the alleged attempt to buy uranium is thoroughly 
debunked, the other excuses for going to war will be examined with a 
great deal of scrutiny as well. It is obvious that the evidence used to 
justify going to war is now less than convincing.
  The charge that Saddam Hussein had aluminum tubes used in 
manufacturing nuclear weapons was in error.
  A fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles capable of dispensing chemical 
and biological weapons did not exist.
  The 63,000 liters of anthrax and botulism have not been found, nor 
have any of the mobile germ labs. There are no signs of the 1 million 
pounds of sarin, mustard and VX gasses.
  No evidence has been revealed to indicate Iraq was a threat to 
anyone's security, let alone ours.
  The charge that Saddam Hussein was connected to the al Qaeda was 
wrong. Saddam Hussein's flaunting of the UN resolutions regarding 
weapons of mass destruction remains unproven.
  How could so many errors have occurred? Some say it was ineptness 
while others claim outright deception and lies. There are some who say 
it was selective use of intelligence to promote a particular policy 
already decided upon. This debate, I am sure, will rage on for a long 
time, and since motivations are subjective and hard to prove, resolving 
the controversy will be difficult. However, this should not diminish 
the importance of sorting out the truth from the fiction, the errors 
from the malice.
  One question, though, I hope gets asked is why should we use 
intelligence cited by a foreign government as a justification for going 
to war? One would think that with the billions we spend, we could fully 
rely on our own intelligence-gathering agencies.
  Another point of interest, lacking a coherent foreign policy, we have 
support for war coming from different groups depending on circumstances 
unrelated to national defense. For instance, those who strenuously 
objected to Kosovo promoted war in Iraq. And those who objected to Iraq 
are now anxious to send troops to Liberia. For some, U.N. permission is 
important and necessary. For others, the U.N. is helpful as long as it 
endorses the war they want.
  Only a few correctly look to the Constitution and to the Congress to 
sort out the pros and cons of each conflict and decide whether or not a 
declaration of war is warranted.
  The sad fact is that we have lost our way. A threat to national 
security is no longer a litmus test for sending troops hither and yon, 
and the American people no longer require Congress to declare the wars 
we fight. Hopefully, some day that will be changed.
  The raging debate over whether or not Saddam Hussein tried to buy 
uranium, as important as it is, distracts from the much more important 
strategic issue of what is the proper foreign policy in a republic.
  Hopefully, we will soon seriously consider the policy of 
noninterventionism in the affairs of others. Avoiding entangling 
alliances and staying out of the internal affairs of other nations is a 
policy most conducive to peace and prosperity and one the Founders 
endorsed. Policing the world and nation building are not part of a 
constitutional republic.

                          ____________________