[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24973-24974]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I thank the chairman and distinguished 
ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. It is more with sadness 
than in anger that I rise to respond to recent allegations made by some 
Democrats that the Bush administration ``manufactured and manipulated 
intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq.'' War is serious 
business. I don't need to remind my colleagues that more than 2,000 
Americans have sacrificed their lives fighting to liberate the Iraqi 
people, and many brave Texans are among them.
  Today, Iraq represents the central front in the global war on terror. 
Yet we have even seen the sad occasion of having sustained 2,000 deaths 
of America's fighting men and women in Iraq spark an ill-advised and 
premature call for withdrawal of our troops by the angry antiwar left. 
That call has been picked up, in part, if not in whole, by some 
politicians seeking to capitalize on that anger. But merely venting 
anger without proposing alternative solutions is not the work of 
serious people. It is a sad commentary on our public discourse when 
politicians seek to use the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform 
to advance a political agenda.
  While the critics focused on 2,000 Americans killed in action in 
Iraq, another important number to remember is 3,000--the number of 
innocent Americans killed on September 11. Is there any doubt that if 
we pulled out of Iraq prematurely without stabilizing security, without 
building the necessary infrastructure, and without allowing Iraqis to 
build successful democratic institutions as they are doing, that 9/11 
would be repeated over and over and over again by an enemy that would 
continue to target innocent civilians in pursuit of their perverse 
ideology? If Iraq descends into civil war or is overrun by terrorists, 
if Iraq becomes a place where terrorists recruit, train, and export 
terror with impunity, how long do the critics believe it would take 
until we would be hit again on our own soil?
  The war on terrorism is a war we must win. The stakes are too high to 
use the war on terror as a political football. If there is any doubt 
about the enemy and their goals, all one needs to do is read the letter 
from Osama bin Laden's chief deputy, Zawahiri, his chief lieutenant in 
Iraq. Zawahiri clearly describes al-Qaida's vision of establishing an 
Islamic caliphate that would rule the Middle East and eventually the 
world. It would also, not incidentally, include the destruction of our 
best ally in the Middle East, the state of Israel.
  Although we are making progress in Iraq, as we saw most recently 
during the successful referendum on the constitution, there is 
obviously more work that needs to be done. We know that our troops have 
the will to win. I am concerned that there are some here at home and 
even in the Senate who do not share this same resolve because they 
stubbornly refuse to learn the lessons of 9/11.
  The latest accusation by some in the Democratic leadership, that the 
administration has manipulated intelligence and has exaggerated the 
threat, is nothing more than an effort to use the war in Iraq for 
political gain. That is shameful. It devalues the sacrifice our men and 
women are making on the battlefield every day. It places at risk 
everything that Americans have sacrificed on behalf of the cause of 
liberty here and abroad. Do the critics need to be reminded that it was 
a few years ago when Democrats joined Republicans in a bipartisan 
acknowledgment that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the world?
  In fact, it was the Senate, in 1998, that unanimously passed the Iraq 
Liberation Act that called for the United States to support efforts to 
overthrow that terrible dictator. It was President Clinton who so 
eloquently described the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and the 
consequences of inaction when he said:

       The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, 
     he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of the 
     region, the security of the world. The best way to end that 
     threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a 
     government ready to live at peace with its neighbors, a 
     government that respects the rights of its people.

  President Clinton went on to say:

       Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed 
     against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and 
     we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the 
     future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will 
     make war against his own people. And mark my words, he will 
     develop weapons of mass destruction. He did will deploy them, 
     and he will use them.

  President Clinton was correct in that assessment made in 1998. We are 
fortunate that today Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the region 
or to the world due to the bipartisan vote of the Congress to authorize 
the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein in October of 2002. It was a 
bipartisan vote of the Senate that authorized that use of force.
  Today, the political dynamics have changed. For their own cynical 
reasons, some Democrats have charged

[[Page 24974]]

that the Bush administration has somehow manipulated intelligence to 
justify the war in Iraq. These same individuals are calling for yet 
another investigation to somehow justify their patently false claims. I 
remind my colleagues that this issue has been investigated not only by 
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence but the bipartisan 
Silberman-Robb Commission. Of course, the results of both 
investigations do not support the charges of manipulation, so we hear 
yet another call for another investigation. Wishing that the results 
were different cannot make it so. What do they propose? To initiate 
investigation after investigation until somehow they manage to will 
into existence the results they have been hoping for, I imagine.
  I wish to ask my colleagues, did President Clinton lie when he 
discussed the intelligence that led him to support the forced ouster of 
Saddam Hussein? Did he manipulate intelligence to justify his bombing 
in Iraq? Or did he rely upon the same intelligence that this 
administration and this Congress and our allies did when they came to 
the same conclusion that Saddam was a threat to the region and to the 
world? Are there Senators who today would renounce their vote to remove 
Saddam by force in October of 2002? Out of the bipartisan 77 who voted 
to authorize the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein, I have only 
learned of two who have said they regret that vote and would renounce 
it.
  Before the war, a leading Democrat--in fact, the Democratic leader--
clearly stated his position in Iraq. As of this morning, his quotation 
was still on his Senate Web site. It says:

       What is my position on Iraq? Saddam Hussein is an evil 
     dictator who presents a serious threat to international peace 
     and security. Under Saddam's rule, Iraq has engaged in far-
     reaching human rights abuses, been a state sponsor of 
     terrorism, and has long sought to obtain and develop weapons 
     of mass destruction.

  I agree with this statement on the Web site of Senator Reid of today, 
November 7, 2005. But today we are told by the same Democratic leader 
that somehow this administration was responsible for manipulating 
intelligence to authorize the war in Iraq when, in fact, he took the 
same position at the time that force was used. At least his Web site 
takes that same position today.
  For the record, I would like to read the conclusions of the 
Intelligence Committee investigation and the Silberman-Robb 
investigation so there will be no doubt that the Bush administration 
did not manipulate intelligence to justify this war. The Intelligence 
Committee report, which was supported by both Democrats and 
Republicans, states the following:

       The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration 
     officials attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure 
     analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons 
     of mass destruction capabilities.

  Likewise, the Silberman-Robb Commission, a bipartisan commission 
appointed to look into our intelligence failures, concluded:

       The Intelligence Community did not make or change any 
     analytic judgments in response to political pressure to reach 
     a particular conclusion, but the pervasive conventional 
     wisdom that Saddam retained WMD affected the analytic 
     process.
  Madam President, this much is clear. No one attempted to manipulate 
intelligence leading up to the war in Iraq--not President Clinton, not 
Members of the Senate, not this administration, all of whom, based upon 
the same intelligence, concluded that Saddam represented an imminent 
threat to the national security of the United States. Instead, we found 
that while some of our intelligence was wrong on Hussein, it was 
obvious, and it is obvious today, that he was a threat to the civilized 
world.
  I believe all of this crystallizes into a question about how doubts 
are resolved in a dangerous and uncertain world. Do we resolve doubts 
in favor of a tyrant who has used weapons of mass destruction on his 
own people, who demonstrated an interest in acquiring nuclear weapons, 
who refused to cooperate with weapons inspectors after 17 Security 
Council resolutions ordered him to do so, and who at last count 
murdered at least 400,000 of his own people who are lying in mass 
graves?
  Giving Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt would have been a 
crazy and irresponsible thing to do. Of course, the 77 Senators who 
voted for the use of force against Saddam in October 2002 weren't 
buying that Saddam was some harmless individual then.
  So why now? Sure, we need better intelligence and we have undertaken 
substantial and meaningful intelligence reform to remedy the defects. 
Intelligence by its very nature is never certain, but we are 
restructuring our intelligence community to ensure the President of our 
country, whether he be Democrat or Republican, gets the most accurate 
intelligence available.
  Meanwhile, I hope the Members of this body who have politicized this 
issue by making false allegations of manipulation of intelligence would 
realize that their allegations only serve to divide the American people 
and to dishonor the sacrifice of our brave men and women in uniform and 
undermine critical American resolve to finish the important work that 
we are about in Iraq.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as 
if in morning business but on the amendment before us.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, we have certainly no objection to that. 
At this juncture in the bill, it does not impair our ability to manage. 
I ask the Senator to please proceed.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank, as always, the distinguished senior Senator 
from the State of Virginia.

                          ____________________