[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26992-26993]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        AMERICA WILL NOT RETREAT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I voted in favor of the resolution to remove 
the poisonous, snake-infested Iraqi regime because I believe it was the 
appropriate response.
  Do I approve of the manner in which the postcombat peacekeeping 
effort is developing? No.
  It appears to me that we should be beneficiary of more precise 
intelligence gathering from our Iraqi allies on the ground. We must 
insist upon better, more timely intelligence. These ruthless murderers 
who kill and wound our servicemen and women, who bomb and destroy 
hotels and other facilities must be identified and apprehended before 
they subsequently kill and destroy. Granted, the borders are porous and 
terrorists enter at will, but I believe that better surveillance can be 
effected, and we must insist upon it.
  Some Members of Congress, Mr. Speaker, have accused President Bush of 
practicing political opportunism by dispatching troops into Iraq. They 
should be ashamed. Common sense clearly concludes the safe political 
course would have been to have done nothing. President Bush acted 
presidential. The approval ratings of President Bush and Prime Minister 
Blair would be far more favorable had they turned blind eyes to Iraq. 
Great risk was assumed in going forward, but they responded as able 
leaders.
  Approximately 18 months ago, an Iraqi citizen said to me, the U.S. 
must take out Saddam. We are afraid of him because we know what 
punishment and torture he is capable of inflicting. The U.S. must 
remove him. The world is not safe as long as he remains in power, he 
concluded.
  I then asked him, If we remove this evil regime, will the Iraqi 
people embrace us or reject us?
  The gentleman was silent. I repeated my question, and he reluctantly 
replied, I do not know. I said, Neither do I and that concerns me.
  It continues to concern me. It concerns me, as well, that we have 
become the Rodney Dangerfield in the world of diplomacy to some; no 
respect for what we have done. Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker, the great majority 
wanted Saddam gone, but they did not want to become involved. Let 
someone else do the heavy lifting. Let others expose themselves to 
danger.
  We were given warnings. The first attack on the World Trade Center in 
the nineties; our two embassies subsequently attacked; the attack upon 
the USS Cole, and we did virtually nothing in response. No surprise 
that the terrorists concluded these Americans have no backbone. They 
have no will to respond. We can attack them with impunity. Then 9/11. 
Some insist we should have delayed our efforts to remove Saddam.
  Delay for what? The U.N. was indecisive. The U.N. observed Saddam's 
violation of one agreement after another without reprimand, and all the 
while Saddam operated as he pleased. Surely, Saddam must have viewed 
the U.N. as his own personal dancing bear.
  Some insist that our responding to the 9/11 attack was a mistake, 
implying that had we done nothing in response, that terrorists would 
simply have gone away. That gang does not simply go away.
  Finally, weapons of mass destruction. There is ample evidence voiced 
by Democrats and Republicans alike that Iraq and Saddam did possess, in 
fact, weapons of mass destruction. They have not been detected, but do 
we then

[[Page 26993]]

conclude that these weapons do not exist? Neither have Saddam nor Osama 
bin Laden been detected, so applying this logic, I suppose they do not 
exist.
  We are at war. And war has a way, Mr. Speaker, of frustrating 
timetables, good intentions notwithstanding; I cite Bosnia.
  I know we in the Congress are appreciative to the countries around 
the world that are assisting us in this effort and to our servicemen 
and women as well. If we prevail, the world will be better for it, but 
we must be strong. As we know from the outset, it will not be a quick 
fix. Many have compared Saddam and Osama bin Laden and their fellow 
terrorists with Adolf Hitler, but there is a salient distinction, Mr. 
Speaker. Hitler and his gang wanted to conquer the world. Saddam and 
Osama bin Laden and their thugs are not averse to destroying the world. 
Therein lies a distinction, Mr. Speaker, that makes our task far more 
formidable.
  As the majority leader just said earlier, to retreat at this juncture 
would be ill-advised.

                          ____________________