[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 18712-18716]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              THE ECONOMY

  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, my colleague from Colorado talked about 
the economy. Although I want to talk about Iraq, I want to follow up 
the comments made by the very distinguished Senator from Massachusetts 
who talked about all the negative things that are happening to this 
economy.
  I find it so stunning that folks can continue to be so negative. 
America has come such a long way from the attacks of 9/11 that took a 
trillion dollars out of this economy, and the corporate fraud generated 
from Enron and WorldCom, and from the recession President Bush 
inherited from the last administration. We cut taxes and we grew jobs, 
over 1.7 million in the last year.
  We are not where we have to be. The President has said on many 
occasions that as long as one person is out of work, we have work to 
do, and we do that work and do it here, passing legislation such as 
class action reform, medical malpractice reform, the JOBS bill and the 
Energy bill, many of the legislation being filibustered, being blocked 
by my friends on the other side of the aisle.
  One point that comes up again and again is that in spite of the 
steady stream of job numbers, now there is an argument made they are 
not quality jobs. I note that the facts belie that assertion. Three-
quarters of the new jobs created, for instance, in May were in the 
industry categories that pay an hourly rate in excess of the overall 
average hourly rate in the private sector.
  Inflation-adjusted hourly earnings increased 2.37 percent during the 
first 3\1/2\ years of the Bush administration, compared with only a 
0.13-percent increase during the same period of time in the first 
Clinton administration. Per capita aftertax disposable income adjusted 
for inflation has increased 7.1 percent since President Bush took 
office, well above the 5.2-percent increase during the same period of 
the first Clinton administration.
  I could go on and on. The fact is, this economy is moving forward. 
The fact is, housing home ownership is at an all-time high. The fact 
is, the tax cuts have made a difference, and yesterday there are still 
those who would like to somehow have the American public believe that 
all news is bad news.
  I think the biggest challenge this economy faces is from the 
naysayers who keep saying again and again how bleak things are and you 
then undermine confidence and that, Mr. President, hurts the economy.


                        ``60 Minutes'' Documents

  One other note. My friend, the Senator from Iowa, was on the floor, 
and I note that he and a number of others had some very harsh words 
about the President based on something that was in a ``60 Minutes'' 
report which we now know was not true. Dan Rather came on last night 
and noted that he no longer has confidence in the documents that would 
allow us to continue vouching for them. These are documents related to 
the service of the President in the National Guard. He noted that ``we 
did use the documents.'' He said, ``We made a mistake in judgment, and 
for that I am sorry.''
  I hope my colleagues, who had such harsh words for the President 
based on those documents, will come forward and express the same 
sentiment that Mr. Rather expressed.


                                  Iraq

  My colleagues also somehow would have us believe the world would be 
better today, would be a safer place if Saddam Hussein were still in 
power. I find that stunning. I find that striking.
  My colleague from Colorado expressed a hope that I share: That the 
President go before the U.N. today and reiterate the inherent right of 
the United States of self-defense.
  My colleague from Colorado challenged some of the statements of 
Secretary General Kofi Annan about the U.S. effort in Iraq. He noted 
and I note that the Secretary's comments were both factually wrong and 
ill advised. The fact is, Saddam Hussein violated 16 U.N. Security 
Council resolutions. Saddam Hussein is the one whose actions were 
illegal, reiterated again and again by the United Nations. The fact is, 
the United States took our case to the United Nations on more than one 
occasion, and the final example on November 8, 2002, the U.N. Security 
Council unanimously adopted Security Council Resolution 1441.
  This resolution declared that Iraq was in material breach of its 
obligations to cooperate with inspectors who were looking into Saddam's 
efforts to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
  The resolution warned of serious consequences if Iraq ignored its 
last chance to comply, but Saddam did not comply. I repeat, Saddam 
Hussein is the one whose actions were illegal. The fact is, Saddam 
Hussein's list of other offenses is a long one and does not compare 
favorably with documents such as the U.N. charter and the Universal 
Declaration of Human Rights. This is a man who twice invaded his 
neighbors, used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and 
the people of Iran, who killed tens of thousands of political 
opponents, tortured thousands of political opponents and ordinary 
citizens. These were the illegal actions, and we should be glad they 
are all over once and for all.
  The fact is, the U.N. did not have credibility with Saddam Hussein's 
regime. It never succeeded in enforcing its own resolutions or gaining 
unfettered access for weapons inspectors. Worse yet, it allowed a well-
meaning humanitarian program to devolve into a money-making operation 
for Saddam and his cronies throughout the world. The U.N. Oil for Food 
Program became a personal bank account for Saddam Hussein in which, by 
a GAO report estimate, he got at least $10 billion--that is with a 
``B''--for his own personal use.
  Right now, the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I 
chair, is looking into that $10 billion theft, that $10 billion fraud, 
that $10 billion corruption, and checking to see where that money went, 
has it been used to fuel an insurgency, has it been used to impact the 
policies of some nation states that did not allow the Security Council 
to vigorously oversee and enforce that program the way it should have 
been done.
  No, there is nothing wrong or illegal about liberating 25 million 
people from tyranny, and there is certainly nothing illegal about 
fighting for their freedom and liberty today.
  Regardless of the U.N. Secretary General's comments, America will 
remain a supporter of the U.N. and many

[[Page 18713]]

multilateral organizations. It is in our interest. More often than not, 
we can accomplish greatness when we work together. The U.N. can offer 
great promise or cooperation in peacekeeping and humanitarian work and 
shining a light in dark places, efforts that are often more effective 
when many are united rather than when countries go it alone. But we are 
not going it alone in Iraq. We have over 30 nations that are 
sacrificing with us. The failure of the United Nations to enforce its 
resolutions against Saddam, the failure of the United Nations to act 
vigorously to genocide that is going on in Darfur and the far region of 
Sudan, the failure of the United Nations to do nothing more than talk 
when brutality and oppression shows its ugly face around the world 
undermines confidence in the United Nations. That puts the United 
Nations in a position where many are comparing it now to the League of 
Nations, a place where people just talked but never acted. Sometimes 
real leadership means having the courage to do what is necessary and 
not just what is popular.
  In his State of the Union Address, the President said there is a 
difference between leading a coalition of many nations and submitting 
to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip 
to defend the security of our country. While the United States and its 
allies have carried the burden of freedom's work, we cannot ignore the 
fact that soldiers and might cannot do the job alone. I understand that 
diplomacy is crucial to world order. It should not descend into finger-
pointing and gainsaying, especially at a time when so much is at stake 
and we ought to be joining together, not pointing fingers. It is the 
terrorists in Iraq who want to deprive the citizens of that country 
their basic human rights.
  What Saddam Hussein could not take from them the terrorists are 
hoping to steal. What Saddam Hussein did not do to terrorize the people 
of that country, what he did not finish, the terrorists will do and are 
doing. They are continuing that. Saddam killed, murdered, and tortured 
as many Iraqis he could who did not agree with him, and probably a few 
who did, and the terrorists hope to finish off the Iraqis he did not 
get to.
  In spite of that, in spite of the insipid rhetoric of those who wish 
to be President who feel a gust of wind gives them the moral authority 
to change their stand on a war time and time again, America must hold 
its ground because on that ground stands the promise of a free and 
liberated Iraq.
  Iraq is preparing to hold its first truly democratic election. Prime 
Minister Allawi, who will have a chance to address us in the coming 
days, is working to get control throughout the country. He is trying to 
counter a clear effort by terrorists to turn Iraq back into a nation of 
fear.
  The Prime Minister is also trying to get out from under Iraq's heavy 
foreign debt and create an environment for jobs and for hope. Coalition 
members, together with Iraqi forces, are working daily to create a 
better future for the people of Iraq, and at the same time protect the 
safety of our soldiers and civilians serving in that country.
  The world is a better place without Saddam in power. That is a 
reality. If one cannot grasp that concept, then they cannot grasp any 
concept. If anyone in this body, or anyone of this body, believes 
Saddam Hussein, dictator of Iraq, murderer of women and children, 
tormentor of his neighbors, plotter of destruction, mercenary of the 
world, is better for the world in office than out of office, they 
should heed the words of the junior Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. 
Kerry, who had this to say during the Democratic primaries:

       Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better 
     off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not 
     safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be the 
     President or the credibility to be elected president.

  The Senator from Massachusetts was right then. In spite of his 
changing positions, those words last year still ring true today.
  Today, there are those who embolden terrorists in Iraq. They have 
pointed their fingers at us and said: You are to blame for the 
terrorism insurgency in Iraq.
  The day after 9/11, there were those across the world who pointed 
their fingers at us and said: You are to blame for the destruction of 
your homeland.
  These statements are absurd. Somebody tell me how the hundreds of 
horrified boys, girls, babies, mothers, and fathers in that Russian 
school were responsible for the terrorists who tormented and killed 
them. Somebody tell me how the Nepalese contractors, 12 of them, who 
were slaughtered as though they were nothing more than cattle were 
responsible for their deaths. Somebody tell me how the American 
citizens who had their heads sawed off on a videotape while sick, evil 
men listened to their screams of horror were somehow responsible for 
their death.
  There are those who say things are not going as well as they could be 
in Iraq. We know they are right, but let the first person come forward 
who will say that it will be going better in Iraq if we let Mohamed al 
Sadr or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi be in charge.
  Now is not the time for those with the courage of the meek to come to 
the rescue of the strong. Now is the time for strong, determined 
leadership to work with our allies, those who agreed with our efforts, 
and those who did not, to bring this world together.
  Our President, the leader who has liberated 50 million human beings 
and has stood resolute when even the strongest among us would look for 
a way out, goes to the U.N. today. He goes there not as an adversary of 
that august body but as an ally of the civilized world. He goes to 
stand with the world, those who have suffered from the terrorists, 
those who have fought them, and those who fear them.
  He goes to the U.N. not preaching the gospel of global despair but of 
the obligation of a mighty nation to not only fight those with guns 
with guns, but to bring peace to so many others who simply hope and 
pray that their children will live to see a better day.
  He will stand with those who stood with us in the liberation of Iraq, 
and with those who stood against us, because this President knows that 
as important as it is to sometimes lead even when others are not 
prepared to follow, it is important to walk together when many will 
agree to do so.
  It is important for us to mind the words of China's U.N. Ambassador, 
who opposed the war, who said:

       I think all of us have views on the Iraqi war. I think 
     definitely the views are different among council members. 
     What is important now is to help achieve peace and stability 
     in that country.

  There will be better days in Iraq, and there will be worse days. 
There will be better days in the war on terror and, God willing, there 
will be far fewer worse days. But whatever the future brings, we must 
stand with this President and with this nation and its soldiers and 
diplomats, and we must on bended knee pray that our efforts bear the 
fruit of a more prosperous and more peaceful world.
  Let me finish with this. Yesterday, I missed my first major vote as a 
Member of this body. At home, before I left Minnesota for Washington, I 
attended the wake of the son of one of the folks who works in my 
office, one of my staff, Bart Cedergren. His son David died in Iraq.
  While the cause of death remains unclear, let there be no doubt that 
he died in the cause of freedom and liberty for the people of Iraq and 
the people of America.
  As I stood there contemplating the loss of the life of this young man 
and the loss of his life from those who loved him, as I stood there 
trying to comfort a father who did more to comfort me and those around 
him, I was once again reminded of the fact that freedom is never free.
  Petty Officer 3rd class David A. Cedergren, 25, who was assigned to 
the Second Marine Division Marine Forces Atlantic, did not join the 
military to fight war or kill people. He joined it to bring peace and 
comfort to those afflicted and tormented. David was a medic. He was 
trained to be a licensed nurse, his heart was filled with compassion. 
Yesterday, as I watched those whom he loved and those who loved him and 
his Navy comrades who stood

[[Page 18714]]

there side by side, all grieved in his passing, I saw in their grief 
great pride in this young man. He liked this Nation. He did not join 
this war on terror to fight a war of killer people. He didn't ask for 
this war to be fought. We joined it and we lead it to bring peace and 
comfort to the afflicted and the tormented. May God bless America and 
David Cedergren and that we prevail.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of the 
Republican time in this morning session.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Under the previous order, the next 60 minutes of morning business for 
debate only is under the control of the Democratic leader or his 
designee and the final 60 minutes under the control of the majority 
leader or his designee.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, how much time have I been allotted under the 
agreement?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Twenty minutes.
  Mr. CONRAD. I ask for an additional 10 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I saw this morning in the Hill newspaper 
an attack by the Speaker in which he said, in response to a reporter's 
question, that ``al-Qaida would operate better if Kerry were elected 
President.''
  Two weeks ago today, the Vice President said, ``It is absolutely 
essential that eight weeks from today on November 2 we make the right 
choice because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we 
will get hit again and we will be hit in a way that will be devastating 
from the standpoint of the United States.''
  Mr. President, this is dangerous talk. It is dangerous talk for 
either side to suggest we will be attacked if the other is elected. I 
remind my Republican friends that when we were attacked on September 
11, we on the Democratic side did not say it was because Republicans 
were in control. That would have been wrong. We did not do that. 
Instead, we stood shoulder to shoulder, we stood united, we all agreed 
on an attack on Afghanistan, and we all supported an all-out attack on 
al-Qaida because it was al-Qaida that attacked the United States.
  The President of the United States, when he was running for office, 
said he would be a uniter and not a divider. But now this President and 
this administration are dividing us in the most fundamental way. I 
believe that is a dangerous tact. It is a mistake.
  Only the President of the United States can stop this kind of talk. I 
urge him to do so, to rein in the Vice President, to rein in the 
Speaker, because when this election is over, we need to stand united.
  The debate we need to have is how best to defend our Nation from 
terrorist attack. It is important for us to recall what happened on 
September 11. When we saw these images of the attack on the World Trade 
Center, when we saw the smoke rising from the Pentagon, we were under 
attack. But it is important for us to remember who attacked us. It was 
not Iraq. The attackers were al-Qaida led by Osama bin Laden, not Iraq 
led by Saddam Hussein. As evil as Saddam Hussein was and is, he was not 
part of the September 11 attack. Here is the man who should be the 
target, the primary target of the United States. This is Osama bin 
Laden, the leader of al-Qaida. Al-Qaida are the ones who attacked the 
United States. Al-Qaida are the ones we have a responsibility to bring 
to account.
  President Bush said in convening his Cabinet at Camp David just a few 
days after the 9/11 attacks, ``There is no question about it, this act 
will not stand. We will find those who did it. We will smoke them out 
of their holes. We will get them running and we will bring them to 
justice.'' That is what President Bush said just days after the 9/11 
attack. It is now 1106 days after that attack--1106 days after the 
attack on the country, and we have still not gotten Osama bin Laden. We 
still have not kept the primary focus on al-Qaida. Instead, the 
President diverted our attention and launched an attack on Iraq.
  This is from the March 29 edition of USA Today. It says this:

       In 2002 troops from the 5th Special Forces group who 
     specialized in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt 
     for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next 
     assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with 
     expertise in Spanish cultures.

  Mr. President, let's get this straight. It was not Iraq that attacked 
us. It was al-Qaida. Al-Qaida is led by Osama bin Laden, not Saddam 
Hussein. And yet this administration shifted the focus from going after 
Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida and instead shifted special forces to the 
hunt for Saddam Hussein. He replaced those special forces in 
Afghanistan with units that were experts in Spanish culture.
  The article goes on to say:

       The CIA meanwhile was stretched badly in its capacity to 
     collect, translate and analyze information coming from 
     Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it 
     took specialists away from Afghanistan to ensure Iraq was 
     covered.

  The former Secretary of Navy in the Reagan administration says this 
was one of the biggest blunders, strategic blunders in modern memory. 
We attacked the wrong target. That is his conclusion. That is the 
Secretary of Navy in the Reagan administration saying we attacked the 
wrong target. We have to have a debate in this country about how best 
to defend America. The first thing we have to get straight is who 
attacked us and who is preparing to attack us again. It was al-Qaida, 
not Iraq.
  There were no Iraqis on board the planes that attacked on September 
11--not one. There is no evidence that Iraq was behind the attack on 
September 11. It was al-Qaida led by Osama bin Laden.
  This administration has diverted its attention from finishing 
business with Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida and diverted our resources, 
diverted our attention to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. I believe that was a 
mistake.
  I voted against authorizing this administration to launch this attack 
because, as I said on the night of our vote, I did not believe it was 
in the national security interest of the United States to attack Iraq 
and open up a second front before we finished with the first. The first 
had to be with the people who attacked us; that was al-Qaida led by 
Osama bin Laden, not Iraq led by Saddam Hussein.
  This is an article that appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer last 
year. It says:

       Some senior officials concede that the Iraq war also 
     diverted resources from two problems that could prove to be 
     even more pressing than Iraq was: Rooting out the remnants of 
     Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorism network and confronting 
     Iran. A senior intelligence official who spoke on condition 
     of anonymity said that the CIA reassigned to Iraq more than 
     half of the operatives tracking al-Qaida in Afghanistan and 
     Pakistan. As a result, U.S. forces were not able to pursue 
     bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders as aggressively.

  I believe this is a strategic mistake of significant proportion. 
Again, our primary target has to be al-Qaida led by Osama bin Laden. 
Instead, the President shifted resources from the hunt for Osama bin 
Laden and al-Qaida to a hunt for Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
  Again, as bad and as evil as Saddam Hussein was and is, he should not 
have been the primary target of the American military. Instead, we 
should have focused, I believe, like a laser on the people who attacked 
us and who are planning to attack us again; that is, al-Qaida led by 
Osama bin Laden.
  This article concludes saying:

       Al-Qaida's continuing threat has shown that the Department 
     of Homeland Security

[[Page 18715]]

     raised its terrorism alert level Tuesday after bombings in 
     Saudi Arabia and Morocco.

  It is not just these articles. It is not just intelligence officials. 
We look to the Bush administration's own Web site, the State Department 
Web site. This is very interesting. Thirty days after the September 11 
attack, the State Department had this on their Web site:

       Countries where al-Qaida has operated--
       This is 30 days after the attack on the United States. This 
     is on the State Department's Web site. Here are the countries 
     they list where al-Qaida was active. They list Albania, 
     Algeria, Bahrain, Belgium, Bosnia, India, and Iran. There is 
     no Iraq. There is no Iraq. There is no Iraq. This is a report 
     signed by the President. This is after the attack. There is 
     no mention of Iraq being a locale for al-Qaida.

  But it is not just the State Department. The President himself tried 
to correct the record last year after the Vice President was asserting 
and I think fundamentally confusing people suggesting that Iraq and al-
Qaida were involved in the September 11 attacks.
  The President seeking to correct ``reports no evidence of Hussein tie 
to 9/11.''
  In the article, it says:

       President Bush said today that he had seen no evidence that 
     Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11 terrorist 
     attacks, as the White House tried to correct an assertion 
     that Vice President Cheney left extremely murky on Sunday. 
     Mr. Cheney on Meet the Press was asked about polls that 
     showed a majority of Americans believe that Mr. Hussein had 
     been involved in the attack.

  This is what Mr. Cheney said: ``I think it is not surprising that 
people make that connection.''
  Asked whether the connection existed, Mr. Cheney said: ``We don't 
know. He described Mr. Hussein's reported connections to al-Qaida, 
connections that American intelligence analysts say were not very deep. 
Mr. Bush, asked by a reporter today about that statement, said: ``No. 
We have had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September 
11, a far more definitive statement than the Vice President's.''
  That doesn't end the evidence. The evidence is powerful with respect 
to the question of who is behind September 11. It was al-Qaida led by 
Osama bin Laden, not Iraq led by Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 bipartisan 
commission said this:

       The intelligence reports describe friendly contact and 
     indicate some common themes on both sides, ``hatred of the 
     United States.'' But to date we have seen no evidence that 
     these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a 
     collaborative operational relationship, nor have we seen 
     evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al-Qaida in 
     developing or carrying out attacks against the United States.

  That is the report of the 9/11 Commission.
  It doesn't end there. The Secretary of State was just recently on 
``Meet the Press.'' This was in the early days of this month. He said 
he ``had seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam 
Hussein and that awful regime and what happened on 9/11.''
  We have all kinds of evidence that al-Qaida was not linked to Iraq in 
the September 11 attacks or that Iraq was not a link to al-Qaida in the 
September 11 attacks. The evidence is overwhelming that al-Qaida, led 
by Osama bin Laden, led those attacks.
  I believe deeply that our strategy must be to focus like a laser on 
those who attacked us. We ought not to allow ourselves to get diverted 
into this attack on Iraq. We have 10 times America's resources in Iraq 
as we have in Afghanistan.
  We are 1106 days after the attacks on this country and the President 
has failed to do what he said he would do in holding al-Qaida and Osama 
bin Laden to account. Osama bin Laden is still at large. His top 
adviser, al-Zawahiri, is at large. This murderous ally of theirs 
beheaded an American yesterday, and we have diverted resources from the 
hunt from those monsters to go after Saddam Hussein in Iraq when the 
evidence is overwhelming that Iraq was not involved in the September 11 
attack.
  What doesn't add up here? What doesn't make sense? The Secretary of 
the Navy in the Reagan administration says we attacked the wrong 
target. I believe that is correct. We should have kept our focus on 
Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida and not have been diverted to Saddam 
Hussein and Iraq.
  Let me say to my colleagues that there is additional evidence as 
well. Our own Intelligence Committee has made findings. For example, 
Conclusion 96 of the Senate Intelligence Committee says:

       The Central Intelligence Agency's assessment that to date 
     there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance 
     in an al-Qaida attack was reasonable and objective.

  That is our Intelligence Committee led by Republicans on a bipartisan 
basis concluding there wasn't complicity by al-Qaida and Iraq, that 
there was not Iraqi complicity or assistance in an al-Qaida attack. Our 
Intelligence Committee concluded that was reasonable and objective.
  Similarly, conclusion 93 says:

       The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that 
     there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq 
     and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts 
     did not add up to an established, formal relationship.

  If we are going to be effective in this war on terror, we have to get 
the facts right. The facts are, al-Qaida attacked America, not Iraq. 
The facts are, we are 1106 days after that attack, and Osama bin Laden 
and his chief lieutenants are still out there threatening America and 
Americans. This President diverted our attention and our resources from 
running down al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden to an attack on Iraq and 
Saddam Hussein. That was a mistake, and the sooner we admit to it and 
the sooner we get about the business of tracking down those who 
attacked us, the better off our country will be and the safer we will 
be. That is my strong, deep belief. Whoever wins this election, I 
believe we have to reorient the resources of America into going after 
those who attacked us. It was al-Qaida, not Iraq. It was al-Qaida, led 
by Osama bin Laden, not Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein. That is what our 
9/11 Commission tells us. That is what the Secretary of State is 
saying. That is what the intelligence agencies are telling us. Yet this 
administration--this administration--made a series of decisions, 
profound decisions, decisions of enormous consequence, and diverted 
resources and attention from going after Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida 
to going after Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
  I know many people believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary, 
that somehow Iraq was deeply involved in the September 11 attack. There 
is just no evidence to support that. My own conclusion was, and is, 
this was the wrong war at the wrong time. And the overriding obligation 
of those of us who are in a position to affect U.S. decisionmaking--the 
overriding obligation and responsibility that we have--is to defend 
this country and to do so effectively.
  We know al-Qaida is plotting, right now, to again attack our country. 
We ought to focus like a laser on stopping them. We ought to focus like 
a laser on holding al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden to account. We should 
never have shifted our resources from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and 
al-Qaida leaders to the hunt for Saddam Hussein in Iraq. It was a 
mistake, and we have to be big enough to say it was a mistake and move 
on and remember who it was that attacked us and use the awesome 
resources of this country to go after those who are plotting to attack 
us again.
  We have to get these facts right. We have to reduce the confusion out 
here, when a majority of the American people thinks Iraq was behind the 
attacks of September 11 and we know full well that is not the case.
  The President and Vice President of the United States have a heavy 
responsibility. They are the leaders of this country. They are the 
leaders of the free world. They have an obligation, a solemn 
obligation, to make certain that the United States focuses on those who 
attacked us--not to confuse the issue, not to distract us from those 
who are responsible for the loss of nearly 3,000 American lives.
  Mr. President, it is hard to talk about these things when you are 
just weeks before an election and not have

[[Page 18716]]

a political component to the debate and the discussion. But we, I 
believe, as a nation, need to have a full and vigorous debate on how we 
best defend this Nation. My strong belief is that we need to keep the 
focus on the people who attacked America on September 11, and it was 
al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden, not Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein. The 
evidence is overwhelming.
  We need to refocus the efforts of the awesome American military on 
hunting down Osama bin Laden, on hunting down his chief allies and 
holding them to account. That is the best way to send a signal of 
American resolve and determination and American unwillingness to accept 
the vicious attack on our country.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  There are time allocations that have been assigned for the remaining 
27 minutes.
  Ms. STABENOW. I ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes if there is time 
available. If not, I would appreciate it if the Chair could indicate 
who has been designated the time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota has 10 
minutes, and the Senator from Arkansas has 15 minutes of the time. 
There is 26 minutes remaining, but of those, 25 has been allocated.
  Ms. STABENOW. It is my understanding, through staff, that Senator 
Lincoln will not be coming to the floor at this time. So if there is no 
objection, I ask unanimous consent to use the time of the Senator from 
Arkansas. And if she comes to the floor, I will certainly yield to her.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________