[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7316-7317]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, like all of my colleagues, I went back home 
during the Easter recess and listened to the feelings of Oregonians. It 
is clearly on the minds of the people of my State and much of the 
country the circumstance we find ourselves in Iraq. I thought I would 
come and share some of my perspective on where America is, as this one 
Senator sees it, in the war on terrorism.
  I shared these feelings with many of my constituents. I wanted to 
share them with the Senate today as my reflections on the week I have 
just had.
  When I first came to the Senate 7 years ago, I was privileged to 
spend my first term as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee. I came to the Senate with many preconceived views about the 
values of many of our alliances and our involvement in all kinds of 
international architecture--the United Nations, NATO, and many 
treaties. I have been an advocate of these institutions and treaties on 
many occasions. But I find myself now in a position where I am 
questioning some of my earlier positions, based upon my experience as a 
Senator.
  My questioning first began when I watched with dismay the U.N. 
essentially stand by as nearly 1 million Rwandans were hacked to death.
  I watched with further dismay when approximately a quarter of a 
million Bosnian Muslims were murdered in cold blood by Mr. Milosevic 
and his minions, and I wondered why they couldn't do anything?
  I remember the occasion when a number of us were invited to meet with 
President Clinton as our European allies were pleading with the 
President to intervene with them as Europeans to help stop genocide on 
Europe's backdoor. I remember saying to the President: Mr. President, I 
think stopping genocide is a value that I share with the international 
community, it certainly is and ought to be an American value. So, Mr. 
President, you have my support, but I urge you to seek a resolution 
from the Security Council so we go in with the ``legitimacy'' of the 
United Nations.
  He said to me: Senator, I can't because I have been promised a U.N. 
resolution to intervene to stop genocide in Kosovo would be vetoed by 
the Russians and the Chinese.
  President Clinton believed that was a value high enough that nobody 
ought to veto it, and America's hand should not be held back by such a 
veto. I could not have agreed with him more.
  As a Republican, I voted with President Clinton consistently in our 
efforts to bail out our European friends in Kosovo to stop genocide. I 
am proud of those votes. I am proud of President Clinton for that. But 
I left the experience scratching my head about the United Nations and 
its role in the security architecture of our planet and particularly my 
country.
  Then after 9/11, I heard lots of great speeches and then began to 
become aware of lots of wonderful resolutions and was so disappointed 
that there was no resolve in the resolutions; that it ended at words.
  Now we find ourselves confronted with an investigation in the United 
Nations in which an oil for food program is going to be revealed to all 
the world as a monstrous corruption. It would be better titled a 
``Fraud for Food Program.'' I wonder how well served we are by a 
Security Council that would tolerate such a thing.
  I am not suggesting we withdraw from the United Nations, but I am 
telling you I believe we should question that is the place we go for 
legitimacy. I have concluded that the U.N. can do a few things well. 
Mr. Brahimi's efforts are to be applauded and gratitude expressed, but, 
frankly, to go there for legitimacy, as some suggest, I think is very 
misplaced because we cannot get legitimacy from the kind of corruption 
that has been engaged in the United Nations in its ``Fraud for Food 
Program.''
  What happened here, as Mr. Volcker will soon reveal to the world, is 
a system of price fixing, price kiting, skimming, bribes, paybacks in 
which the

[[Page 7317]]

United Nations bureaucracy, or at least some members of it, were deeply 
complicit. What Saddam Hussein got out of that, according to the 
Washington Post, was $4 billion. According to the New York Times, it is 
$10 billion. According to other estimates, it could run as high as $100 
billion. Somewhere in that range the truth will be found.
  What did he do with the billions, whether it is 4 or 100? He went 
about systematically rebuilding his murderous machine to buy weapons 
and palaces and to exterminate about 400,000 Shiite Muslims. Then I 
wonder why it is we are going to the U.N. for resolutions for 
legitimacy.
  I tell you these things because, frankly, I was astounded when our 
friend and colleague, the Democratic presumptive nominee for President, 
was on ``Meet the Press.'' When asked what was the first thing he would 
do, he said: I will go back to the U.N.
  I remember Dwight Eisenhower, when he became the Republican nominee, 
we were in trouble in Korea. He said: I will go to Korea. And John 
Kerry is essentially saying: I will go to Paris. For what? Legitimacy? 
International involvement? We have gone to the U.N. and gotten 17 
resolutions. Apparently, another is needed? For what? Legitimacy?
  We are going to get people to sanction what we are doing when we will 
soon learn who was on the take and providing the money that Saddam 
Hussein used for palaces, weapons, and mass murder.
  I hope John Kerry runs his new ad in Oregon a lot because he repeats 
his ``Meet the Press'' statement in a slightly different version. He 
says: The first thing I will do is internationalize this. I will go to 
the international community.
  I want the people of Oregon to know how vacuous a statement that is. 
I want my friend from Massachusetts to know I don't want the 
international community defending my family and my country. I know the 
American people want a sense of how do we get out of this because we 
don't want an open-ended commitment.
  I hear it said by some of our European friends: You did it for oil. I 
tell the American people, if we had done it for oil, we would have 
invaded Venezuela. There is a lot of oil there, and they have no 
military. We did it for values. We did it because we believed in a 
post-9/11 world that Saddam Hussein was part and parcel of the war on 
terrorism. We believed, like all the other intelligence communities in 
the world, that he had weapons of mass destruction because he had 
declared them but not disclosed them. That is why Bill Clinton bombed 
Saddam Hussein for 4 days and nights in 1998. That is why this place, 
the United States Senate, under the direction and urging of Bill 
Clinton, passed a resolution calling for regime change.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). The time of the Senator from 
Oregon has expired.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, we passed the resolution on regime change. 
In a post-9/11 world, with that intelligence that we had from President 
Clinton's administration and with that belief that he was a clear and 
growing danger to this country, and for all the reasons which President 
Bush has articulated, we did what President Clinton said we would 
ultimately have to do: Change that regime.
  I tell you, my belief is that those who would say the war on 
terrorism is here, but Saddam Hussein is somehow exempted from that, 
are engaging in a theory because the truth is, he was, by every 
measure, a central financier and tormenter of terrorism. Ask the 
Israelis.
  Where did Hamas get its money? There is a way out. There is a 
deadline that is drawing out of the shadows all those who want to 
compete for power. A lot of poison is being drained out of the Iraqi 
system and America is bearing the burden, but we will see a gradual 
transition of power and sovereignty from us to the Iraqi people because 
our country does not aspire to the territory or treasury or oilfields 
of Iraq. We desire a more peaceful world.
  President Bush has concluded, yes, we can swat flies and we can send 
cruise missiles here and there, but the truth is, if the fundamentals 
on the ground cannot be changed to give the people some democratic 
institutions, frankly, nothing is going to be changed in the Middle 
East.
  Now, there is a very tribal culture there and ultimately Iraq may be 
evolving into a three-part state, with Kurds in the north and Shia in 
the south and Sunnis in the center, and there may be a very loose 
confederacy of Iraq, but to avoid civil war they will have to have some 
religious and ethnic elbowroom as Iraqis. We are going to allow that to 
happen, I hope.
  I say to the people of my State, regard with humor if you can but 
great skepticism if you will those who call for internationalizing 
America's war on terrorism. They can come in any time. The problem is, 
they are complicit in the financing of Saddam Hussein and they run at 
the first shot.
  Tony Blair recently addressed this body and the House of 
Representatives. In conclusion, I share with my colleagues his words. 
Said the Prime Minister: I know how hard it is on America. And in some 
small corner of this vast country out in Nevada or Idaho, I know out 
there is a guy getting on with his life perfectly happy, minding his 
own business, saying to you, the political leaders of the country, why 
me and why us and why America? And the only answer is because destiny 
has put you in this place in history, in this moment of time, and the 
task is yours to do.
  This world is a better place because of American leadership and 
because America's foreign policy is still based on the best values of 
our Bill of Rights, democracy, human rights, the spread of freedom and 
enterprise through trade, religious freedom, thought, press, assembly. 
Things that we are privileged to take for granted are, frankly, unknown 
in the Middle East. This is our idealism and it is a centerpiece now of 
our foreign policy, but those who would go to the U.N. to establish 
those principles, they will do it in vain and they will do it with my 
opposition, if to internationalize this means my family and theirs are 
protected by institutions which the Russians, the French, the Chinese, 
or anyone can veto when it involves the security of the American 
people.
  I yield the floor, and 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________