[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 25705-25706]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                IRAQ WAR

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this morning's Washington Post has a 
front-page story entitled ``Inquiry Faults Intelligence on Iraq.'' The 
subheadline says, ``The Threat From Saddam Hussein Was Overstated, 
Senate Committee Report Finds.''
  Many of us who voted against going to war against Iraq believed it 
was not in the national security interest of the United States to 
attack Iraq at this moment; that instead we ought to keep our eye on 
the ball and keep the pressure on al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden because 
it was al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden who attacked America on September 
11, not Iraq.
  I think this morning's report has increasing evidence that it was 
simply a misplaced priority to attack Iraq rather than keeping our full 
resources directed at taking down al-Qaida and holding Osama bin Laden 
accountable for his vicious attack on this country.
  If we look across the evidence, I believe in many ways the United 
States simply made a mistake of judgment on what was most important. 
The President and his advisers believed--and I believe they sincerely 
believed--that the priority was to go after Iraq. They believed there 
was some link between Iraq and al-Qaida.
  I think the evidence was always very thin for that and, in fact, the 
more we know, the more clear it is there really were not any strong 
linkages between Iraq and al-Qaida. In fact, it is unlikely that there 
would be because Saddam Hussein was secular, Osama bin Laden is a 
fundamentalist. In many ways, they are enemies; they are at odds.
  It is very interesting that if one goes out and tries to ascertain 
what people of the country think, the polling shows 70 percent of 
Americans believe Saddam Hussein was behind September 11. Over half 
believe that Iraqis were the hijackers of the planes.
  The fact is, not a single Iraqi was among the hijackers of the 
airliners that were turned into flying bombs. The vast majority of the 
19 hijackers were Saudi Arabians, as, of course, is Osama bin Laden. I 
think 15 of the 19 were Saudis. Two were from the United Arab Emirates 
and there were other countries involved as well, but not a single 
Iraqi. That is the fact.
  Another thing, we have now the President himself saying there is no 
evidence of a Hussein tie to September 11. It is very important we get 
the facts right when we make these judgments about going to war, 
especially when we are going to go on a preemptive war, when we attack 
first, something we have never done in the entire history of the United 
States. We have never attacked, without somebody attacking us first or 
attacking our allies first, but in this case we attacked first. As the 
Intelligence Committee report this morning suggests, we did so based on 
faulty intelligence and faulty evidence.
  Another assertion that was made repeatedly was that there was a 
terrorist

[[Page 25706]]

camp in Iraq that members of al-Qaida went to, but we knew then and we 
know now that that camp is in this place on the chart, which is the 
former Ansar al-Islam pocket. It is in Iraq. As this line shows, that 
camp is in a part of Iraq that Saddam Hussein did not control. In fact, 
this part of Iraq is controlled by the Kurds. The Kurds are our allies. 
So once again, this is a disturbing bit of information used in a way 
that I believe fundamentally misled people.
  A second piece of intelligence was that Mohamed Atta, who was among 
the hijackers, supposedly met with the intelligence chief in Prague, in 
Czechoslovakia. That charge was repeated over and over.
  Our intelligence agencies believe Mr. Atta was not in Prague at the 
time of that reported meeting. Instead, he was in the United States--
again, evidence that simply does not support the case.
  What we do know is that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida organized that 
attack on the United States. That is who was responsible. That is who 
we should be going after.
  The other thing that was asserted repeatedly was that there were 
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I do not fault the administration 
for making that case because, frankly, I believed there were probably 
biological and chemical weapons. I believed it because we know that the 
previous U.N. inspectors had catalogued weapons of mass destruction, 
biological and chemical weapons, but that was some years ago. Even 
then, there was no evidence that those weapons had been destroyed. So 
even though now we have not found them, I think it is understandable 
that people believed there were at least chemical and biological 
weapons.
  The Soviet Union had biological and chemical weapons; we never 
attacked them. China had biological and chemical weapons; we did not 
attack them. North Korea has weapons of mass destruction, or at least 
they assert they do. We have not attacked them. In every one of those 
cases, we used containment. We used patience. We did not attack first.
  In the case where we were attacked, we know who did that. It was not 
Iraq. It was not Iraqis. It was al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden.
  It has now been 775 days since that attack on our country, and Osama 
bin Laden is still broadcasting tapes threatening Americans and our 
allies. It has been 775 days, and we have not brought him to justice. I 
believe that is the priority. I believe that should be our top goal. I 
believe we ought to find Osama bin Laden and the rest of the al-Qaida 
leadership and take them out.
  Newsweek ran a story in which they identified a possible location in 
the Kunar Province between Afghanistan and Pakistan as a place where 
Osama bin Laden is reported to be hiding. This is a pretty small area 
of the country of Afghanistan, where they have narrowed it down through 
their investigative reporting as a place where Osama bin Laden is 
hiding.
  What I find most disturbing is in that story, they said this:

     . . . bin Laden appears to be not only alive, but thriving. 
     And with America distracted in Iraq, and Pakistani President 
     Pervez Musharraf leery of stirring up an Islamist backlash, 
     there is no large-scale military force currently pursuing the 
     chief culprit in the 9/11 attacks . . .

  I am here today to ask why not? Why is there not a large military 
force with an operation underway to find Osama bin Laden and to bring 
him to justice? That ought to be our top priority. If we have been 
distracted by Iraq, then that is exactly what this Senator feared when 
I voted against authorizing going to war against Iraq at this time. 
That is exactly what concerned this Senator, that a preemptive war 
against Iraq--a country that had a low level of threat against this 
country, according to our own intelligence agencies--has distracted us 
from going after the man and the organization that attacked this 
country. It was not Iraqis who attacked this country; it was al-Qaida 
that attacked this country. Saddam Hussein was not the leader of that 
operation, Osama bin Laden was the leader of that operation. It has 
been 775 days since that vicious attack on this country and we still 
have not brought him to justice.
  What is far more disturbing to me is there is, apparently, no large 
scale military force currently pursuing the chief culprit in the 9/11 
attacks. Why not? I think the American people deserve an answer to that 
question. I think the Members of this Chamber deserve an answer to that 
question. Why is there not a large-scale military operation underway to 
find Osama bin Laden and to hold him to account? That ought to be the 
priority. That ought to be in the highest interests of the national 
security of the United States.
  Osama bin Laden engineered the attack on this country. I must say, 
last weekend, to see him in another tape, bragging about the damage he 
has done to this country--outrageous, absolutely outrageous. Let's go 
get Osama bin Laden and those who attacked this country. That ought to 
be our highest national security priority.
  I yield the floor and 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. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________