[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2206-2208]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this Tuesday we heard the President of the 
United States in his State of the Union Address once again appeal to 
the American people to support sending United States troops into a 
preemptive war against Iraq. In support of his appeal, he did not tell 
us anything we have not heard before.
  A majority of the American people remain unconvinced that the United 
States, only 3 months after sponsoring a U.N. Security Council 
resolution calling on Iraq to disarm, should now, without the support 
of the Security Council, abandon the U.N. inspections process and 
launch a unilateral military invasion.
  On January 18, in my home State of Vermont, over 3,000 Vermonters 
gathered in front of the Vermont State House in Montpelier, in freezing 
weather--in fact, some of the coldest weather we have had in years--to 
express their opposition to a war with Iraq. It is a privilege to 
represent a State whose citizens have always been among the most 
thoughtful voices and sometimes the most outspoken voices.
  Those Vermonters were of all ages and from all walks of life. They 
were not alone. Hundreds of thousands of Americans, including many 
Vermonters, traveled to Washington to brave the subfreezing 
temperatures here. And there were protests in other cities and towns 
across the country.
  These demonstrations convey the growing recognition of many Americans 
that the administration is preparing to invade Iraq, despite the 
opposing views of many allies and irrespective of any decision by the 
U.N. Security Council.
  The situation in Iraq is not a simple black-and-white issue. I have 
said this over and over. We saw how the Reagan administration and the 
former Bush administration often facilitated and frequently ignored 
Saddam Hussein's development of weapons of mass destruction, until he 
extended his territorial claims to Kuwait's oil fields. We all know 
there is abundant evidence that Saddam Hussein is a deceitful, 
murderous villain. No one ignores that.
  Still, there are times in history when circumstances compel us to 
speak out, and this is one of those times.
  Several Senators have spoken eloquently--Senator Kerry, Senator 
Biden, Senator Kennedy, and others--and I associate myself with many of 
their remarks.
  Mr. President, the White House and Pentagon are fueling the belief 
that war with Iraq is inevitable. That was the President's message in 
the State of the Union Address, although no new evidence was offered. 
Many in the White House are eager, even impatient, for war to begin. 
They view Iraq as the first step in a fundamental reshaping of the 
geopolitical alignment of the Middle East. It reminds me of when I 
first started serving in the Senate, and the White House political 
thinkers at that time were obsessed with theories about falling 
dominos.
  I, like many here, and like many in the White House who are the most 
vocal advocates of a preemptive, unilateral invasion of Iraq, have been 
blessed with never having faced military combat.
  I take to heart the wise words of my friend, Senator Chuck Hagel:

       Many of those who want to rush this country into war and 
     think it would be so quick and easy don't know anything about 
     war. They come at it from an intellectual perspective versus 
     having sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends 
     get their heads blown off.

  These same administration officials have also studiously avoided 
talking about what is inevitable in any war--American lives will be 
lost and the lives of innocent civilians, overwhelmingly, will be lost. 
People will die on both sides. And they give short shrift to the risks 
war with Iraq poses to building broad support for peace in the Middle 
East and, most important, to our efforts to thwart international 
terrorism.
  The saber rattling in Washington--and the steady deployment of tens 
of thousands of U.S. troops, planes, and ships to the Persian Gulf--is 
causing alarm and fear both here and abroad. But world opinion, 
including so many

[[Page 2207]]

of our allies, is squarely in favor of exhausting every effort to avoid 
war.
  The people of Vermont gave me, as a member of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee in the spring of 1975, the opportunity to cast a 
tie-breaking vote against continued funding of the Vietnam war. I 
recall so well how over 30 years ago, even before focus groups, mass 
polling, and the hyperbole of midterm elections, White House politics--
joined unfortunately by both parties--not the need to protect the 
American people, caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people in 
that unnecessary war in Vietnam. I am as proud of that vote as any I 
have cast since--and I have cast well over 10,000 votes in this body--
and I will bring Vermonters' voices to the Iraq debate today.
  It has been only 60 days since the U.N. weapons inspectors returned 
to Iraq. They are just reaching full capacity. I and others here urged 
President Bush to go to the United Nations and seek a resolution 
calling on Iraq to disarm, and I applauded the President when he did 
that. It was one of the finest speeches of his career, and he secured a 
unanimous vote in the Security Council for that resolution.
  Now, however, the White House is wrong to dismiss the inspections as 
having failed so soon when the chief U.N. inspector says he is 
expanding his team and plans to work at least into March. The British, 
French, and German governments have all said the U.N. should be given 
more time, especially as long as the Iraqis give the inspectors access 
throughout the country.
  This is the type of common sense that should be guiding our policy, 
not a knee-jerk, trigger-happy approach that alienates our friends and 
allies. We should work closely with the United Nations. We should 
remember that far more of Iraq's weapons were discovered and destroyed 
by the inspectors after the Gulf War than were destroyed by our troops 
during the Gulf War.
  I have no doubt Saddam Hussein is lying. He has lied countless times 
before. He is likely hiding weapons, including chemical and biological 
weapons. The U.N. inspectors' report leaves little doubt of that.
  The Iraqis have not explained what happened to thousands of tons of 
chemical weapons material, and other biological munitions they had in 
their possession 5 years ago. There have been discoveries of empty 
chemical weapons shells and documents they had not disclosed. These are 
serious discrepancies by a regime that is among the world's most 
dangerous, deceptive, and brutal.
  There may also be other evidence of Saddam Hussein's deception that 
the administration has not yet revealed. But the inspectors are 
continuing their work, and the results so far do not justify abandoning 
the inspections process and sending thousands of American men and women 
into a war costing hundreds of billions of dollars, that will cost 
American lives, and the lives of innocent civilians, and could trigger 
a wider conflict in the Middle East, while creating more enemies and 
terrorists over the long run.
  If Saddam Hussein is removed from power, we will all celebrate. He 
has terrorized the Iraqi people for decades. His security agents have 
sadistically tortured, even summarily executed, many thousands of 
people. But far more is at stake here than getting rid of Saddam 
Hussein. At stake is the justification for sending Americans into war 
absent an imminent threat to the security of the United States, the 
most powerful Nation on Earth.
  We have heard a lot of strong rhetoric, but we have not heard a 
compelling case that the use of military force is the only alternative 
to disarm Iraq.
  Last year, our President pointed to ``evidence'' that Iraq was 
developing nuclear weapons. Today, that evidence seems to be 
disappearing. Despite a rush to judgment by some White House officials, 
U.S. intelligence experts remain deeply divided on this question. The 
International Atomic Energy Agency says there is no evidence that Iraq 
has resumed its quest for nuclear weapons.
  In response, the White House claims there is proof Iraq is hiding 
chemical and biological weapons. That proof may well exist. If it does, 
the administration should immediately take it to the Security Council 
to help convince skeptical friends and allies and to assist the 
inspectors in their disarmament work.
  I remember when I was a student here in Washington at Georgetown 
University Law School at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. 
President Kennedy sent his Ambassador, Adlai Stevenson, to the chambers 
of the United Nations. He held up irrefutable proof of the missiles 
being put in Cuba by the then Soviet Union. With that proof, the world 
rallied around the United States.
  We have to remember how missteps can create more problems. The 
situation in North Korea today illustrates how a dangerous situation 
can quickly escalate unnecessarily. By taking options off the table, we 
are worse off today than we were a few months ago. After backing the 
United States into a corner, the White House is now discussing 
donations of food and fuel, an approach they ridiculed just a short 
time ago. We have to be more consistent.
  Today, there are no U.N. inspectors monitoring the North Korean 
nuclear facilities. Tensions have dramatically increased, and we have 
serious disagreements with our Japanese and South Korean allies. Let us 
not make the same mistake in Iraq that history, both decades ago and 
more recently, has tried to teach us.
  Saddam Hussein must be disarmed to the point that he is no longer a 
threat to his neighbors. U.N. resolutions must be respected and 
enforced. But these are matters of concern to the world, not just to 
the United States. We are part of the world, but we are not the whole 
world.
  The U.N. inspectors need time to complete their work. It is divisive 
and damaging for the United States, having secured a Security Council 
resolution, two months later to short-circuit the U.N. process in the 
name of enforcing that same U.N. resolution.
  To those officials in the White House and the Pentagon who would use 
the U.N. inspections as a mere excuse to justify unilateral military 
action, I say the same things as when I opposed the resolution 
authorizing the use of force that passed the Senate back in September: 
This Vermonter never has and never will give a blank check to this 
President or to any President to wage war.
  The next weeks and months will be decisive. Let's hope the Iraqi 
Government fulfills its obligations and the inspectors finish the job 
in a manner that gives credibility to their conclusions, whatever those 
conclusions may be. Let's work with the U.N. Security Council and our 
allies to find a way forward.
  Unlike his father a decade ago, this President has not built a broad 
coalition for military action. If diplomacy fails, I am confident we 
can win a military victory. After all, we have the most powerful 
military in the world. But acting unilaterally would be extremely 
costly. It would lead to a prolonged U.S. military occupation of Iraq, 
the expenditure of tens, even hundreds, of billions of dollars. It 
would damage our relations with key allies, and it would further 
inflame the anti-American extremism that is growing throughout the 
Muslim world, extremism that threatens us more than anything else 
today.
  It threatens us because even today terrorists plan their attacks 
within the United States, not in the Persian Gulf. We need the world to 
be with us. A broad-based coalition is indispensable for achieving 
long-term peace in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, as well as our 
continuing efforts against international terrorism.
  This war is not inevitable. We should not talk or act as if it is. 
But if war does come, let the United States be able to say we did 
everything we could to try to solve this another way; that we worked in 
concert with the United Nations; and that the U.N. was strengthened in 
the process. We must be convinced that war is justified; that the 
sacrifice of American lives can be justified; that America taking this 
step of a preemptive war can be justified not only today but, in 
history's eyes, decades from now.

[[Page 2208]]

  I do not believe that threshold has yet been reached. So many of the 
American people do not. Our allies do not.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I understand we are in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

                          ____________________