[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5390-5391]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              WAR IN IRAQ

  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, seeing no one else here and being 
prepared to yield as soon as someone comes with a desire to speak, I 
will take advantage of this opportunity to make a few comments with 
respect to the pending situation in Iraq.
  Since I returned from last weekend in Utah, I have become 
increasingly aware of how anxious people are about Iraq and the 
possibility of war in Iraq. This anxiousness comes from those who are 
supporters of the President as well as those who are detractors of the 
President. Some who have faith in the President's judgment and in his 
instincts say, we will back him but we are very concerned about the 
possibility of going to war. Those who do not have faith in the 
President's political judgment are almost beside themselves with anger 
and anxiety that he would go ahead in the face of what they consider to 
be serious worldwide opposition to the war.
  As I look out at the situation, as best I can I have tried to explain 
to them what I see to help them understand that which the Washington 
Post editorial said last week; that is, the risks of not going to war 
in the present circumstances are probably greater than the risks of 
going to war. Those who are looking to the United States to exercise 
leadership in this part of the world--indeed, to free them from the 
tyranny of Saddam Hussein--are just as desperate that perhaps we might 
back down as are those who fear that war will come.
  War is never an easy decision, and I assure all of my constituents 
that this President is not given to war simply as something to do. That 
which we hear in the press about this possibility is clearly wrong; 
that is, the suggestion that perhaps the President is going to war in 
order to secure more oil for America. I point out that if oil were our 
motivation, war would be our last option. We could simply turn to 
Saddam Hussein, remove the sanctions, make accommodations with him, and 
say, go ahead and produce all the oil you want and we will take 
advantage of that and the impact of that on the world oil market.
  Nor does it have anything to do, as some have suggested in the press, 
with the desire on the part of this President to somehow redeem the 
pledge that was made by his father. All of this rewrites history. 
George W. Bush--or George Bush, the first, if I might use that term--
was operating under a series of resolutions from the United Nations 
that did not authorize him to invade Iraq or go into Baghdad to remove 
Saddam Hussein. The decision was made, after examining the 
circumstances on the battlefield, that the mandate laid down by both 
the Congress and the U.N. had been fulfilled when the first George W. 
Bush had succeeded in liberating Kuwait.

[[Page 5391]]

  We can look back through the lens of history and say that was a 
mistake in terms of what happened in the area, but by no means was it a 
circumstance where we could say that the present President Bush feels a 
need to somehow revenge his father or atone for his father. At the 
time, the decision was made on the basis of the legal situation and the 
best information available from the battlefield. In hindsight, we might 
say it was the wrong decision, but under no circumstances can we say 
that the first President Bush should be criticized for having made it.
  No, the reason we are going forward in Iraq has to do with much more 
of the American spirit and the American tradition. America is not an 
imperial power, in spite of the statements by some of the people in the 
European press. America does not seek Roman-type domination over other 
nations. When America moves forward in war, it is for one purpose only, 
and that is to advance the cause of freedom. Usually, it is to advance 
the cause of freedom in America; that is, to preserve our citizens from 
attack. That is an aspect of the current situation.
  Those who say, no, Iraq has never attacked us are being blind to the 
interconnections throughout the world of the Middle East with respect 
to terror. They say, we do not have a smoking gun to prove absolutely 
that al-Qaida, when they attacked the World Trade Center and the 
Pentagon, was receiving aid from Iraq. Those who are waiting for that 
kind of absolute certainty before they move ahead are not cognizant of 
the intelligence information that is available not only to those who 
have attended classified briefings but, frankly, to the whole world 
based on the presentations made by Secretary Powell at the U.N. and in 
other circumstances.
  There can be no doubt that America has been attacked, has been 
attacked by those who have received sanctuary in Iraq, and has been 
attacked by those who will, if not stopped, come back at us again and 
again and again. It is their clear desire to drive the Americans out of 
the Middle East through military--if necessary, terrorist--tactics, to 
see to it that we leave. When we leave, what will be the legacy of that 
decision? If we back out of our military threat against Iraq, what will 
we leave behind? Will we leave stability? Will we leave freedom? Will 
we leave prosperity? No. If we back out of the region now, we will 
leave behind us continued warfare, continued death, continued poverty, 
and continued torture. That is not the American tradition, to turn our 
back on those circumstances and walk away when there is an opportunity 
to advance freedom, liberty, prosperity, and peace.
  I do not envy the President the challenge of the decision he must 
make, but I recognize America has traditionally, when aroused, stood on 
the side of moving ahead to protect liberty wherever we can. If we do 
go ahead with military action in Iraq in the face of Saddam Hussein's 
continuing refusal to disarm, what, then, will be the legacy we will 
leave behind when the entire operation is finished? We can only look at 
other American circumstances to try to find the parallel. When we moved 
into imperial Japan at the end of the Second World War, defeated the 
Japanese military, what did we find? A feudal system where women were 
not only not allowed to vote but in many cases were treated like 
property and chattel, where slavery existed throughout the empire, 
where property rights were not available to any except those who had 
been born to them--a feudal society firmly mired in circumstances of 
centuries before.
  What did we leave behind when we departed? A free nation that had 
women's suffrage, where slavery was abolished, where property rights 
were available to all, where the rule of law existed in a democratic 
society. We saw the Japanese rise to a level of prosperity thereafter 
that made them the second strongest economy in the world. That was the 
legacy we left behind when we achieved military victory.
  When we won the Second World War, we not only liberated those people 
who considered themselves under the yoke of foreign domination--the 
Dutch, the French, the Belgians, et cetera--we also liberated the 
Germans, who were our enemies, and the Japanese, who were our enemies. 
After the Second World War, those who had been our adversaries had a 
greater degree of freedom, a greater degree of prosperity, and a peace 
and calm in their circumstances they did not have under their previous 
regimes. They did not live under American domination or American 
legions left there as the Romans would do. They lived there in freedom 
and peace and were protected by American military might from those who 
would have attacked that peace.
  It is that history in America that gives me confidence that President 
Bush will do the right thing in Iraq. If war becomes necessary because 
of Saddam Hussein's continued refusal to disarm and his continued 
refusal to step down and turn his country to freedom, if war becomes 
necessary, the American tradition says the legacy we will leave behind 
will be one that our children can be proud of and in which Iraqi 
children can rejoice.
  Let us not shrink from our responsibility to be the protectors of 
freedom and liberty throughout the world. And let us not shrink from 
our responsibility to protect America from those who would attack us if 
we do not move ahead.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________