[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16150-16152]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    WERE WE RIGHT TO REMOVE SADDAM?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, recent reports have done much to identify the 
mistakes, shortcomings and gaps in U.S. intelligence about Iraq. There 
is no doubt that the information we had about the weapons programs of 
Saddam Hussein was incomplete and, to some degree, inaccurate. However, 
these reports also demonstrate that in a number of respects, U.S. 
intelligence got it right. Saddam Hussein did possess forbidden 
weapons, particularly missiles. Saddam and his cronies did indeed have 
contact and discussions at some level with al Qaeda and various 
terrorist groups. Terrorists did in fact use Iraq as a sanctuary for 
training and as a source of supply.
  Finally, if British reports are to be believed, President Bush was 
correct when he warned that Saddam was seeking nuclear material in 
Africa.
  The real question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether U.S. intelligence was 
perfect, but whether America was right to remove Saddam Hussein from 
power. Not so long ago, few Americans professed doubts about removing 
Saddam. In 1998, President Clinton made regime change in Iraq the goal 
of U.S. policy. In doing so, he received bipartisan congressional 
support. When President Bush made the case for war against

[[Page 16151]]

Saddam in 2002, he, too, received bipartisan support in Congress.
  Lest we forget who and what Saddam Hussein was, we should remind 
ourselves of his actions over the course of his political career. 
Saddam is a man who launched two regional wars in the Middle East. One 
cost nearly a million lives. The other required an international 
military coalition led by the United States to free the victim. Saddam 
Hussein has actively pursued and employed weapons of mass destruction 
since the 1980s. He has trained, armed and patronized terrorists of 
various sorts. He attempted to assassinate a United States President, 
and his forces routinely tried to down U.S. and allied planes that were 
responsible for enforcing U.S. sanctioned no-fly zones.
  Saddam's crimes and atrocities were not just directed against his 
neighbors in the international community. The 20-year-plus reign of 
terror he unleashed against his fellow Iraqis almost defies belief. The 
countless murders, torture sessions and rapes made him one of the 20th 
century's most feared and ferocious dictators. He gassed thousands of 
his own Kurdish citizens, poisoned the environment of those Arab marsh 
tribes that opposed his rule and looted the country of its wealth. When 
Saddam's own people rose up against him in 1991 at our urging, he 
butchered them by the tens of thousands.
  When American and Coalition forces finally came to Iraq 12 years 
later, what did they find? Not, at least yet, stockpiles of WMD. They 
found something far worse. Dozens of mass graves containing an 
estimated 400,000 men, women and children murdered by the minions of 
Saddam Hussein.
  I invite my colleagues who so quickly and correctly condemn every 
shortcoming in the Coalition occupation of Iraq to spend equal time 
cataloging and criticizing the atrocities of the Hussein regime. If 
they need any help finding the information, they should talk to the 
lucky survivors and visit with the thousands of grieving family members 
who can acquaint them with the full scope of Saddam's crimes.
  Once they do, I suspect they will agree with one young American 
soldier I met while in Iraq. He said, ``The real question is not why we 
came to Iraq but why the whole world was not here years ago.''
  Would it have been better to leave Saddam in power? In power to do 
what? To resume his unending efforts to acquire and develop WMDs, to 
expand, develop and formalize his evolving relationship with al Qaeda 
and other terrorist groups, to continue murdering his domestic 
opponents by the thousands?
  When the history of Saddam Hussein and the liberation of Iraq is 
written, Mr. Speaker, there will be many lessons to learn. We will 
wonder why our intelligence was not better. We will question some of 
the decisions we made during the occupation. We will be ashamed of a 
few of our fellow Americans who lost their moral compass in the awful 
crucible of war and occupation. We will ask why so many Europeans were 
so slow to learn the lessons of their own sad history and so unwilling 
to extend to others the freedom they now enjoy. And we will be amazed 
at so many humane and decent people willing to allow Saddam to reign 
from a palace rather than rot in a prison.
  But, Mr. Speaker, history will show we were right to remove Saddam 
Hussein. It will demonstrate that the demise of his regime made the 
world better, America safer and gave the Iraqi people a chance for a 
decent future. It will vindicate the leaders, especially our President, 
who saw the danger, rallied the forces of decency and stayed the 
course.
  Finally, and most appropriately, history will honor those Americans 
in uniform who once again answered the call of their country and 
liberated an oppressed people.
  Mr. Speaker, the recent Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the 
status of Weapons of Mass Destruction in pre-war Iraq and the early 
release of material from the 9/11 Commission's Report that will appear 
later this week have done much to identify the mistakes, shortcomings 
and gaps in U.S. intelligence about Iraq. There is no doubt that the 
information we had about the weapons programs of Saddam Hussein was 
incomplete and, to some degree, inaccurate. It's worth noting that 
almost every other intelligence estimate in the world was similarly 
flawed.
  The Senate Report and the 9/11 Commission Report, however, also 
demonstrate that in a number of respects, U.S. intelligence did get it 
right. Saddam Hussein did possess weapons--particularly missiles--which 
were forbidden under U.N. resolutions. Saddam and his cronies did, 
indeed, have contact and discussions at some level with al Qaeda and 
various terrorist groups. Terrorists did, in fact, use Iraq as a 
sanctuary, for training, and as a source of supply. Finally, if British 
reports are to be believed, President Bush was correct when he warned 
that Saddam was seeking nuclear material in Africa.
  The real question, Mr. Speaker, is not whether U.S. intelligence was 
right in every particular. By its very nature intelligence is 
incomplete, imprecise, and imperfect. What America must resolve for 
itself is whether or not we were right to remove Saddam from power in 
Iraq. Is the world better off, America safer, and the situation in Iraq 
more hopeful without Saddam?
  Not so long ago, Mr. Speaker, before the amnesia induced by the 
current political season, few serious Americans professed doubts about 
these issues. It was, after all, President Clinton who made regime 
change in Iraq the goal of U.S. policy. He received bipartisan 
congressional support when he did so. And, again, when President Bush 
made the case for war against Saddam in 2002 he received bipartisan 
support in Congress. That support included the votes and the vocal 
support of those from the minority party who now seek to unseat the 
President and the Vice President in the current electoral campaign.
  Lest we forget who and what Saddam Hussein was we should remind 
ourselves of his actions over the course of his political career. 
Saddam is a man who launched two regional wars in the Middle East. One 
cost nearly a million lives. The other required an international 
military coalition led by the United States to free the victim. Saddam 
Hussein has actively pursued and employed weapons of mass destruction 
since the 1980's. He has trained, armed, and patronized terrorists of 
various sorts. He kidnapped and killed foreign nationals from Kuwait. 
He attempted to assassinate a former U.S. President. And his forces 
routinely tried to down aircraft from the U.S. and other countries 
which were responsible for enforcing the U.N. sanctioned no-fly zones 
in Iraq.
  Saddam's crimes and atrocities were not just directed against his 
neighbors and the international community. He was at least a brutal 
toward his own people. The 20 year plus reign of terror he directed 
against his fellow Iraqis almost defies belief. The countless murders, 
torture sessions, and rapes made him one of the 20th century's most 
feared and ferocious dictators. He gassed thousands of his own Kurdish 
subjects, poisoned the environment of those Arab marsh tribes who 
opposed his rule, and looted his country of its wealth. When Saddam's 
own people rose up against him in 1991 at our urging, he butchered them 
by the tens of thousands. The failure of the United States and its 
allies to support an uprising which we helped to encourage is, in my 
view, a sad chapter in our own history.
  When American and Coalition forces finally came to Iraq twelve years 
later, what did they find? Not (at least yet) stockpiles of WMD's, to 
be sure. They found something far worse--dozens of mass graves 
containing an estimated 400,000 men, women and children murdered by the 
minions of Saddam Hussein. I invite my colleagues who so quickly and 
correctly condemn every shortcoming in the Coalition occupation of Iraq 
to spend equal time cataloging and criticizing the atrocities of the 
Hussein regime. If they need any help finding the information--for it 
is seldom chronicled in the elite media of our country--they should 
read the voluminous documents and numerous eyewitness accounts, talk to 
the lucky survivors, and visit with the thousands of grieving family 
members who can acquaint them with the scope and scale of Saddam's 
crimes against humanity.
  Once they do, I suspect they will echo the sentiments of one young 
American soldier I met while in Iraq. He said, ``the real question is 
not why did we come to Iraq, but why the whole world wasn't here years 
ago.''
  Given Saddam's record of international villainy, brutality and mass 
murder how can anyone argue that it would have been better to leave him 
in power? In power to do what? To resume his unending efforts to 
acquire and develop WMD's? To expand, develop, and formalize his 
evolving relationship with al Qaeda and other terrorist groups? To 
continue murdering his domestic opponents by the thousands while the 
world turned a blind eye?

[[Page 16152]]

  It is revealing, Mr. Speaker, that the current critics of the war in 
Iraq never question whether or not that tortured country is better off 
without Saddam in power. In fact, the critics usually ignore the Iraqi 
people altogether when they discuss the conflict. It is as if the 
critics believe that the suffering of the Iraqi people under Saddam 
does not matter and that their future does not count. How convenient! 
How self-serving! And how morally bankrupt.
  When the history of Saddam Hussein and the liberation of Iraq is 
written, Mr. Speaker, there will be many lessons to learn. We will 
wonder why our intelligence was not better. We will question some of 
the decisions we made with respect to the occupation. We will be 
ashamed of a few of our fellow Americans who lost their moral compass 
in the awful crucible of war and occupation. We will ask why so many 
Europeans were so slow to learn the lessons of their own sad history 
and so unwilling to extend to others the freedom they now enjoy. We 
will be amazed that so many humane and decent people were willing to 
allow Saddam to reign from a palace rather than rot in a prison. We 
will even question, as we now do with respect to World War II, why the 
United States took so long to confront evil and act to end the 
atrocities of a dangerous and evil dictator.
  But, Mr. Speaker, History will show we were right to remove Saddam 
Hussein. It will demonstrate that the demise of his regime made the 
world better, America more secure, and gave the Iraqi people a chance 
for a decent future. It will vindicate the leaders--especially our 
President--who saw the danger, rallied the forces of decency, and 
stayed the course. Finally, and most appropriately, History will honor 
those men and women in uniform who once again answered the call of 
their country, liberated an oppressed people, and left America and the 
world safer and freer than they found it.

                          ____________________