[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6474-6475]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                ERRONEOUS JUSTIFICATIONS FOR WAR IN IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the President's speech last 
night. I have no doubt that the President loves this country as much as 
I do, and he wants to do what is right. My problem with what he said is 
this: Many of the facts he cites and the things he believes about Iraq 
and about international law, and I hate to say this, are just plain 
wrong.
  There is a very good article in today's Washington Post buried on 
page 13 which is entitled ``Bush Clings to Dubious Allegations About 
Iraq,'' which I will submit for the Record. It reminds us of some 
things we have forgotten.
  For instance, does Iraq have nuclear weapons? Is it trying to make 
them? The President has said that Iraq tried to buy high-strength 
aluminum tubes to use in machinery to enrich uranium. The International 
Atomic Energy Commission determined the tubes were for conventional 
weapons.
  The administration has pointed to 30 pounds of fissile material that 
was being smuggled into Iraq in a taxi from Turkey. It turned out to be 
less than 3 ounces of nonradioactive metal.
  In his State of the Union Address, the President relied on a report 
that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Niger, in Africa. That turned out to 
be a forgery, and it was a forgery that the CIA had warned the 
administration about.
  Last week the Vice President said Iraq has ``reconstituted nuclear 
weapons.'' Later in the same interview, he said that Iraq would get 
nuclear weapons, and it was only a matter of time. But the 
International Atomic Energy Commission, which has people on the ground 
in Iraq, or did until we told them to get out, says that there is no 
indication of resumed nuclear activities.
  Does Iraq have ballistic missiles that can strike Saudi Arabia, 
Israel, and Turkey, as the President said? U.N. arms inspectors found 
the missiles, determined they could not fly as far as those three 
countries, but they ordered them destroyed anyway. The Iraqis destroyed 
them, but the President said Hussein has ordered continued production, 
apparently based on nothing more than an electronic intercept where 
someone said they could build missiles in the future.
  Does Iraq have an extensive ongoing weapons program? Well, a graduate 
student 12 years ago wrote a paper that says so. It was plagiarized by 
the Blair government and passed on to Secretary Powell and cited in the 
United Nations as a news-breaking British intelligence document. When I 
weigh a plagiarized graduate school paper against the U.N. inspector's 
report, my inclination is to go with the United Nations report.

                              {time}  1900

  But this administration sticks with the plagiarized paper. The 
President also threw in some misconceptions about international law. He 
believes that various U.N. resolutions add up to enough authority to go 
to war. That is not true. When the President takes his oath, he agrees 
to follow the treaties in article 6, clause II: ``This Constitution and 
all treaties made shall be made under the authority of the United 
States and shall be the supreme law of the land.''
  When we go to war in Iraq, we are breaking that law. Now I hope the 
President, who still has 2 days to do some thinking, will consider 
drawing back from the brink.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened to the President's speech last night. I have 
no doubt that the President loves this country as much as I do, and 
wants to do what is right.
  My problem with what he said is simply this: many of the facts he 
cites and the things he believes about Iraq and about international law 
are--and I hate to say this--just wrong.
  There is a good article in the Washington Post today called ``Bush 
Clings to Dubious Allegations About Iraq,'' which I will submit for the 
Record. It reminds us of some things we have forgotten.
  Does Iraq have nuclear weapons? Is it trying to make them?
  The President has said that Iraq tried to buy high-strength aluminum 
tubes to use in machinery to enrich uranium. The International Atomic 
Energy Commission determined that the tubes were for conventional 
weapons.
  The administration has pointed to 30 pounds of ``fissile material'' 
that was being smuggled into Iraq in a taxi from Turkey. It turned out 
to be less than 3 ounces of nonradioactive metal. In his State of the 
Union Address, the President relied on a report that Iraq tried to buy 
uranium in Niger that turned out to be a forgery, and a forgery that 
the CIA had warned the administration about.
  Last weekend, on Meet the Press, Vice President Cheney said Iraq has 
``reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' Later in the same interview, he said 
Iraq would get nuclear weapons and it was ``only a matter of time.''
  But the International Atomic Energy Commission which has people on 
the ground in Iraq--or did until we told them they should get out--says 
``there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities.''
  Does Iraq have ballistic missiles that can strike Saudi Arabia, 
Israel, and Turkey, as the President said? U.N. arms inspectors found 
the missiles, determined that they couldn't fly as far as those three 
countries, but ordered them destroyed.
  The Iraqis destroyed them, but the President says Hussein has ordered 
their continued production--apparently based on nothing more than an 
electronic intercept where someone says they could build missiles again 
in the future.
  Does Iraq have an extensive, on-going weapons program? Well, a 
graduate student wrote a paper that says so and it was plagiarized by 
the Blair government, and passed on to Secretary Powell and cited as a 
newsbreaking British intelligence document.
  When I weigh a plagiarized grad school paper against the U.N. 
inspector's report, my inclination is to go with the U.N. inspector's 
report--but this administration sticks with the plagiarized paper.
  The President also threw in some misconceptions about international 
law in his speech last night. He believes that various U.N. Resolutions 
add up to enough authority for the U.S. to launch an air and ground 
invasion of Iraq.
  This is not true. When we joined the U.N., we signed a treaty. The 
treaty says a member state can attack another country under two 
conditions--when attacked or in imminent

[[Page 6475]]

danger of attack or when an attack is authorized by the Security 
Council.
  The President said last week that we were going to the Security 
Council for authority and we'd have a vote ``no matter what the Whip 
count is.'' Well, we didn't. We didn't because we were going to lose.
  Mr. Bush came up here to the Capitol steps on January 20, 2001 and 
said, ``I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office 
of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my 
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United 
States.'' That's the Oath of Office, friends.
  The Constitution he pledged to uphold says, Article 6, Clause 2: 
``This Constitution . . . and all Treaties made, or which shall be made 
under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of 
the Land.''
  Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land, on a par with the 
Constitution. The Constitution says so. We aren't supposed to pick and 
choose.
  We've never before in the history of the United States invaded 
another country without some kind of immediate provocation. But from 
now on, under the Bush Doctrine, we're going to invade when we think 
it's a good idea whether the Security Council agrees or not.
  This is a dangerous course--and it's especially dangerous when the 
information used to decide whom to invade is so very, very bad.
  Mr. Speaker, there is still time for the President to pull back from 
this course of action, to re-examine the so-called ``facts'' he's 
relying on and to find another path. Let us pray that he does.

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 18, 2003]

             Bush Clings to Dubious Allegations About Iraq

                  (By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank)

       As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this 
     week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations 
     against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been 
     challenged--and in some cases disproved--by the United 
     Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence 
     reports.
       For months, President Bush and his top lieutenants have 
     produced a long list of Iraqi offenses, culminating Sunday 
     with Vice President Cheney's assertion that Iraq has 
     ``reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' Previously, administration 
     officials have tied Hussein to al Qaeda, to the Sept. 11, 
     2001, terrorist attacks, and to an aggressive production of 
     biological and chemical weapons. Bush reiterated many of 
     these charges in his address to the nation last night.
       But these assertions are hotly disputed. Some of the 
     administration's evidence--such as Bush's assertion that Iraq 
     sought to purchase uranium--has been refuted by subsequent 
     discoveries. Other claims have been questioned, though their 
     validity can be known only after U.S. forces occupy Iraq.
       In outlining his case for war on Sunday, Cheney focused on 
     how much more damage al Qaeda could have done on Sept. 11 
     ``if they'd had a nuclear weapon and detonated it in the 
     middle of one of our cities, or if they had unleashed . . . 
     biological weapons of some kind, smallpox or anthrax.'' He 
     then tied that to evidence found in Afghanistan of how al 
     Qaeda leaders ``have done everything they could to acquire 
     those capabilities over the years.''
       But in October CIA Director George J. Tenet told Congress 
     that Hussein would not give such weapons to terrorists unless 
     he decided helping ``terrorists in conducting a WMD [weapons 
     of mass destruction] attack against the United States would 
     be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large 
     number of victims with him.''
       In his appearance Sunday, on NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' the 
     vice president argued that ``we believe [Hussein] has, in 
     fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' But Cheney 
     contradicted that assertion moments later, saying it was 
     ``only a matter of time before he acquires nuclear weapons.'' 
     Both assertions were contradicted earlier by Mohamed 
     ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic 
     Energy Agency, who reported that ``there is no indication of 
     resumed nuclear activities.''
       ElBaradei also contradicted Bush and other officials who 
     argued that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum 
     tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. The IAEA 
     determined that Iraq did not plan to use imported aluminum 
     tubes for enriching uranium and generating nuclear weapons. 
     ElBaradei argued that the tubes were for conventional weapons 
     and ``it was highly unlikely'' that the tubes could have been 
     used to produce nuclear material.
       Cheney on Sunday said ElBaradei was ``wrong'' about Iraq's 
     nuclear program and questioned the IAEA's credibility.
       Earlier this month, ElBaradei said information about Iraq 
     efforts to buy uranium were based on fabricated documents. 
     Further investigation has found that top CIA officials had 
     significant doubts about the veracity of the evidence, 
     linking Iraq to efforts to purchase uranium for nuclear 
     weapons from Niger, but the information ended up as fact in 
     Bush's State of the Union address.
       In another embarrassing episode for the administration, 
     Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cited evidence about 
     Iraq's weapons efforts that originally appeared in a British 
     intelligence document. But it later emerged that the British 
     report's evidence was based in part on academic papers and 
     trade publications.
       Sometimes information offered by Bush and his top officials 
     is questioned by administration aides. In his March 6 news 
     conference, Bush dismissed Iraq's destruction of its Al 
     Samoud-2 missiles, saying they were being dismantled ``even 
     as [Hussein] has ordered the continued production of the very 
     same type of missiles.'' But the only intelligence was 
     electronic intercepts that had individuals talking about 
     being able to build missiles in the future, according to a 
     senior intelligence analyst.
       Last month, Bush spoke about a liberated Iraq showing ``the 
     power of freedom to transform that vital region'' and said 
     ``a new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and 
     inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the 
     region.'' But a classified State Department report put 
     together by the department's intelligence and research staff 
     and delivered to Powell the same day as Bush's speech 
     questioned that theory, arguing that history runs counter to 
     it.
       In his first major speech solely on the Iraqi threat, has 
     October, Bush said, ``Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with 
     a likely range of hundreds of miles--far enough to strike 
     Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations--in a region 
     where more than 135,000 American civilians and service 
     members live and work.''
       Inspectors have found that the Al Samoud-2 missiles can 
     travel less than 200 miles--not far enough to hit the targets 
     Bush named. Iraq has not accounted for 14 medium-range Scud 
     missiles from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but the 
     administration has not presented any evidence that they still 
     exist.

                          ____________________