[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6200-6202]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          THE COUNTDOWN TO WAR

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last Thursday, at his press conference, the 
President of the United States gave his reasons to justify the use of 
military force to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
  The President said again that he has not made up his mind to go to 
war, but his own advisers are saying that even if Iraq fully complies 
with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, Saddam Hussein must be 
removed from power.
  The President said his goal is protecting the American people from 
terrorism. That is a goal we all share. But he offered no evidence that 
Iraq had anything to do with the September 11 attacks or any details of 
Iraq's links to al-Qaida.
  He offered no new information about the potential costs of a war, 
either in American and Iraqi lives, or in dollars. Both Republicans and 
Democrats have urged the President to be more forthcoming with the 
American people, to tell us what sacrifices may be involved--not to 
have Cabinet members come to the Senate and the House, and when asked 
how much they estimate a war and its aftermath may cost, say: We have 
no idea.
  We know the administration has estimated the costs, yet the President 
dismissively says ``ask the spenders'' in Congress, knowing full well 
that Congress appropriates funds, it is the President who spends them.
  It is disingenuous, at best, to refuse to level with the American 
people at a time of rapidly escalating deficits. We know it has already 
cost billions of dollars just to send our troops over there, but how 
many more tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, may be added to the 
deficit? The President is apparently ready to send hundreds of 
thousands of America's sons and daughters into battle without saying 
anything about the costs and risks.
  The President repeatedly spoke of the danger of ``doing nothing,'' as 
if doing nothing is what those who urge patience and caution--with war 
only as a last resort--are recommending. In fact, virtually no one is 
saying we should do nothing about Saddam Hussein.
  Even most of the millions of people who have joined protests and 
demonstrations against the use of force without U.N. Security Council 
authorization are not saying the world should ignore Saddam Hussein.
  Yet that is the President's answer to those who oppose a preemptive 
U.S. invasion, and who, contrary to wanting to do nothing, want to give 
the United Nations more time to try to solve this crisis without war.
  The President also failed to address a key concern that divides 
Americans, that divides us from many of our closest European allies, 
that divides our allies from each other, and that divides the U.N. 
Security Council. That issue is not whether or not Saddam Hussein is a 
deceptive, despicable, dangerous despot who should be disarmed. There 
is little, if any, disagreement about that.
  Nor is it whether or not force should ever be used. Most people 
accept that the United States, like any country, has a right of self-
defense if it is faced with an imminent threat. If the U.N. inspectors 
fail to disarm Iraq, force may become the only option.
  Most people also agree that a United States-led invasion would 
quickly overwhelm and defeat Iraq's ill-equipped, demoralized army.
  Rather, the President said almost nothing about the concern shared by 
so many people, that by attacking Iraq to enforce Security Council 
Resolution 1441 without the support of key allies on the U.N. Security 
Council, we risk weakening the Security Council's future effectiveness 
and our own ability

[[Page 6201]]

to rally international support not only to prevent this war and future 
wars, but to deal with other global threats like terrorism. This 
concern is exacerbated by the increasing resentment throughout the 
world of the administration's domineering and simplistic ``you are 
either with us or against us'' approach. It has damaged longstanding 
relationships, relationships that have taken decades of trust and 
diplomacy to build, both with our neighbors in this hemisphere and our 
friends across the Atlantic.
  The President says that if the Security Council does not support the 
use of force today, it risks becoming irrelevant. The President has it 
backward. The Security Council would not become irrelevant because it 
refuses to obey the President of the United States. Rather, the 
Security Council's effectiveness is threatened if the United States 
ignores the will of key allies on the Security Council regarding the 
enforcement of a Security Council resolution.
  The President was also asked by several members of the press why 
there is such fervent opposition to his policy among Americans and some 
of our oldest allies when only a year and a half ago, after the 
September 11 attacks, the whole world was united in sympathy with the 
United States. He had no answer.
  The President should heed the words of former National Security 
Adviser Brent Scowcroft, who was an architect of the 1991 Gulf War. 
General Scowcroft has strongly criticized the administration's ad hoc 
approach based on a ``coalition of the willing'' which the general 
calls ``fundamentally, fatally flawed.'' General Scowcroft said:

       As we've seen in the debate about Iraq, it's already given 
     us an image of arrogance and unilateralism, and we're paying 
     a high price for that image. If we get to the point where 
     everyone secretly hopes the United States gets a black eye 
     because we're so obnoxious, then we'll be totally hamstrung 
     in the war on terror. We'll be like Gulliver with the 
     Lilliputians.

  For 200 years, people around the world have looked up to the United 
States because of our values, our integrity, our tolerance, and our 
respect for others. These are the qualities that have set the United 
States apart. Today, while most countries share our goal of disarming 
Saddam Hussein, we are being vilified for our arrogance, for our 
disdain for international law, and our intolerance of opposing views.
  A distinguished American career diplomat, John Brady Kiesling, echoed 
General Scowcroft's concerns about the practical harm done to U.S. 
interests and influence abroad. He recently wrote to Secretary of State 
Colin Powell, proffering his resignation as an act of protest about the 
administration's policy toward Iraq. I suspect Mr. Kiesling's eloquent 
and heartfelt explanation of how he reached the difficult decision to 
give up his career expresses the feelings and concerns of some other 
American diplomats who are representing the United States at our 
embassies and missions around the world.
  I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Kiesling's letter to the Secretary 
be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. LEAHY. While I was disappointed by President Bush's remarks last 
week, the Bush administration and the Pakistani Government should be 
commended for the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, one of al-Qaida's 
top leaders who was reportedly the mastermind of the September 11 
attacks. Whether others within al-Qaida will quickly fill Mr. 
Mohammed's shoes remains to be seen, but the fact that the U.S. 
Government and other governments are methodically tracking these people 
down sends an important message and should give some comfort to the 
American people. This is encouraging. Let's hope we can soon celebrate 
the capture of Osama bin Laden, because capturing the leaders of al-
Qaida should be our highest priority.
  But the world is increasingly apprehensive as the United States 
appears to be marching inexorably towards war with Iraq. Today, there 
are more than 250,000 American men and women in uniform in the Persian 
Gulf preparing for the order to attack. We hear that the decision must 
be made within a matter of days because it is too costly to keep so 
many troops deployed overseas. In other words, now that we have spent 
billions of dollars to ship all those soldiers over there, we need to 
use them because we cannot back down now, as I have heard some people 
say. Frankly, this is one of the worst reasons possible to rush into 
war.
  We should not back down. Saddam Hussein must be disarmed. Doing 
nothing--I agree with the President about this--would mean the United 
Nations is unwilling to enforce its own resolutions concerning perhaps 
the most serious threat the world faces today, the proliferation of 
weapons of mass destruction. That would be unacceptable. The U.N. 
Security Council ordered Iraq to fully disclose its weapons of mass 
destruction. Iraq has not yet done so.
  I agree with those who say the only reason Saddam Hussein is even 
grudgingly cooperating with the U.N. inspectors is the buildup of U.S. 
troops on Iraq's border. I have commended the President for refocusing 
the world's attention on Saddam Hussein's failure to disarm. I also 
recognize the time may come when the use of force to enforce the U.N. 
Security Council resolution is the only option. But are proposals to 
give the U.N. inspectors more time unreasonable, when it could solidify 
support for the use of force if that becomes the only option?
  Despite the President's assertion that Iraq poses an imminent threat 
to the United States, that assertion begs credulity when the U.N. 
inspectors are making some progress and a quarter of a million American 
soldiers are poised on Iraq's border. Absent a credible, imminent 
threat, a decision to enforce Resolution 1441 should only be made by 
the Security Council--not by the United States or any other government 
alone.
  The President says war is a last resort. If he feels that way, why do 
he and his advisors want so desperately to short-circuit the inspection 
process?
  Why is he so anxious to spend billions of dollars to buy the 
cooperation of other countries, other countries that do not yet believe 
war is necessary?
  Why is he so unconcerned about the predictably hostile reaction in 
the Muslim world to the occupation of Iraq, perhaps for years, by the 
United States military?
  Why is the President so determined to run roughshod over our 
traditional alliances and partnerships which have served us well and 
whose support we need both today and in the future?
  I cannot pretend to understand the thinking of those in the 
administration who for months or even longer have seemed possessed with 
a kind of messianic zeal in favor of war. A preemptive, U.S. attack 
against Iraq without a declaration of war by Congress or the U.N. 
Security Council's support may be easy to win, but it could violate 
international law and cause lasting damage to our alliances and to our 
ability to obtain the cooperation of other nations in meeting so many 
other global challenges.
  Just recently, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned that a 
war with Iraq could bring more threats and more terrorist attacks 
within the United States. The CIA Director has testified that Saddam 
Hussein is more likely to use chemical or biological weapons if he is 
attacked. Yet we are marching ahead as though these warnings don't 
matter.
  I have said before, this war is not inevitable. I still believe it 
can be avoided. But I fear that the President, despite opposition among 
the American people, in the U.N., and around the world, is no longer 
listening to anyone except those within his inner circle who are eager 
to fight.
  The President says we must overthrow Saddam Hussein to protect the 
American people. Saddam Hussein is a threat, but North Korea, on the 
verge of acquiring half a dozen nuclear weapons, poses a far more 
serious and immediate threat to the United States and the world. Yet 
the administration is too preoccupied with Saddam Hussein to be 
distracted by North Korea, even though North Korea has shown no qualms 
about selling ballistic missiles and anything else that will earn them 
money. It makes no sense.

[[Page 6202]]

  I hope the Iraqi government comes to its senses. I hope we do not 
walk away from the U.N. I hope we don't decide that just because our 
troops are there, we cannot afford to wait.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                February 27, 2003.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing you to submit my 
     resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and 
     from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy 
     Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart.
       The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to 
     give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat 
     was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages 
     and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars 
     and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and 
     theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and 
     its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic 
     arsenal.
       It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State 
     Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical 
     about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that 
     sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, 
     and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human 
     nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to 
     believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was 
     also upholding the interests of the American people and the 
     world. I believe it no longer.
       The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible 
     not only with American values but also with American 
     interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us 
     to squander the international legitimacy that has been 
     America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense 
     since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle 
     the largest and most effective web of international 
     relationships the world has ever known. Our current course 
     will bring instability and danger, not security.
       The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and 
     to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is 
     certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not 
     seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such 
     systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in 
     Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than 
     before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to 
     cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the 
     threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those 
     successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen 
     to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a 
     scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic 
     ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the 
     public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of 
     terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to 
     justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to 
     the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect 
     American citizens from the heavy hand of government. 
     September 11 did not do as much damage to the fabric of 
     American society as we seem determined to do to ourselves. Is 
     the Russia of the late Romanovs really our model, a selfish, 
     superstitious empire thrashing toward self-destruction in the 
     name of a doomed status quo?
       We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more 
     of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over 
     the past two years done too much to assert to our world 
     partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override 
     the cherished values of our partners. Even where our aims 
     were not in question, our consistency is at issue. The model 
     of Afghanistan is little comfort to allies wondering on what 
     basis we plan to rebuild the Middle East, and in whose image 
     and interests. Have we indeed become blind, as Russia is 
     blind in Chechnya, as Israel is blind in the Occupied 
     Territories, to our own advice, that overwhelming military 
     power is not the answer to terrorism? After the shambles of 
     post-war Iraq joins the shambles in Grozny and Ramallah, it 
     will be a brave foreigner who forms ranks with Micronesia to 
     follow where we lead.
       We have a coalition still, a good one. The loyalty of many 
     of our friends is impressive, a tribute to American moral 
     capital built up over a century. But our closest allies are 
     persuaded less that war is justified than that it would be 
     perilous to allow the U.S. to drift into complete solipsism. 
     Loyalty should be reciprocal. Why does our President condone 
     the swaggering and contemptuous approach to our friends and 
     allies this Administration is fostering, including among its 
     most senior officials. Has oderint dum metuant [Ed. note: 
     Latin for ``Let them hate so long as they fear,'' thought to 
     be a favorite saying of Caligula] really become our motto?
       I urge you to listen to America's friends around the world. 
     Even here in Greece, purported hotbed of European anti-
     Americanism, we have more and closer friends than the 
     American newspaper reader can possibly imagine. Even when 
     they complain about American arrogance, Greeks know that the 
     world is a difficult and dangerous place, and they want a 
     strong international system, with the U.S. and EU in close 
     partnership. When our friends are afraid of us rather than 
     for us, it is time to worry. And now they are afraid. Who 
     will tell them convincingly that the United States is as it 
     was, a beacon of liberty, security and justice for the 
     planet?
       Mr. Secretary, I have enormous respect for your character 
     and ability. You have preserved more international 
     credibility for us than our policy deserves, and salvaged 
     something positive from the excesses of an ideological and 
     self-serving Administration. But your loyalty to the 
     President goes too far. We are straining beyond its limits an 
     international system we built with such toil and treasure, a 
     web of laws, treaties, organizations and shared values that 
     sets limits on our foes far more effectively than it ever 
     constrained America's ability to defend its interests.
       I am resigning because I have tried and failed to reconcile 
     my conscience with my ability to represent the current U.S. 
     Administration. I have confidence that our democratic process 
     if ultimately self-correcting, and hope that in a small way I 
     can contribute from outside to shaping policies that better 
     serve the security and prosperity of the American people and 
     the world we share.

  Mr. LEAHY. I 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. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________