The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized for 7 minutes.
Mr. Chafee: Mr. President, the American people need and deserve a thorough, reasoned discussion on the question of going to war against Iraq. I appreciate the opportunity to share with my colleagues my thoughts during this momentous debate.
A great deal of the justification for a United States military intervention in Iraq centers on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. I recognize that there are international criminals capable of unspeakable horrors and Saddam Hussein is one of those. President Bush has urged us to believe the threat from Saddam Hussein is urgent and immediate, and thus this impending vote. I have listened carefully to every shred of evidence presented by the administration.
And I have also listened carefully to other world leaders. Of particular concern to me is the position of those nations that share a border with Iraq--Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iran.
The Turkish Prime Minister said, "We're trying to dissuade the American Administration from a military operation."
King Abdullah of Jordan said, "In all the years I have been in the international community, everybody is saying this is a bad idea. Our concern is . . . that a miscalculation in Iraq would throw the whole area into turmoil."
The Kuwaiti Defense Minister said, "Kuwait will participate in the military campaign to remove the Iraqi regime only if the military action came in compliance with a United Nations' resolution." This in Kuwait, a country that suffered greatly under the hands of the Iraqi dictator. These nations share a border with Iraq. Their leaders know their neighborhood and they have expressed their opposition to our intervention at this time.
I would also like to quote President Mubarak of Egypt who said, "If you strike Iraq . . . not one Arab leader will be able to control the angry outburst of the masses." And President Mussharaf of Pakistan said, "this will have very negative repercussions around the Islamic world." I believe it is wise to heed the concerns of our friends. And our friends are telling us that we are ratcheting up the hatred.
In two nations' recent elections the defining issues seemingly revolved around American arrogance. The fact that the two countries are our friends, Germany and Brazil, is alarming.
What Congress does this week and next will have very serious implications throughout the world.
Demagogues in the Middle East and elsewhere are surely ready and willing to exploit a U.S. invasion of Iraq. And today the CIA is warning Americans of the connection between a rise in terrorism and military activity in Iraq. Certainly it is preferable to address the threat posed by any international criminal in concert with our allies and within the confines of the United Nations. This is the preference outlined in the amendment offered by Senator Levin--an amendment I support.
We need to provide people susceptible to anti-Americanism with a positive message that respects international cooperation and friendship. The Levin substitute upholds the values I have heard in discussions with the people of Rhode Island; it recognizes the benefit of an international coalition in taking on the tremendous challenge of disarming the Iraqi regime. It authorizes military force against Iraq only as part of a new UN-approved resolution, and failing that, allows Congress to return to session to consider an alternative approach.
As a nation, we are united in opposing the tyranny and repression of Saddam Hussein. But there are real disagreements both here at home and abroad as to how best to ensure that this man cannot threaten world peace. Adoption of the Levin amendment would not give Saddam Hussein a chance to further obstruct and delay--it is the prudent idea most consistent with the values that have made the United States a great nation. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Levin amendment.
The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, the Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 25 minutes.
Mr. Hutchinson: Mr. President, I am pleased this evening to rise in strong support of the underlying resolution. I am pleased this bipartisan resolution Senators Lieberman and McCain and Senator Warner have introduced is before the Senate. I am pleased to be able to cosponsor that. I believe after a full debate, the Senate will pass this resolution in its current version, and I urge it to do that.
The decision to authorize the use of force is a very serious, grave decision. I will further acknowledge that some Members of Congress, men and women of good conscience, have very significant concerns about this resolution. They have been articulated well. They have been argued well. I also acknowledge that when we take a vote on anything that deals with war and peace and life and death, that it must be done in the most sober and serious manner. I have had a number of moms and dads who have come to me concerned about what this might mean for their children, their young men and women who may face war. I see the tears in their eyes. I have heard their anxieties and worries. I approach this with a great deal of serious contemplation and prayer.
However, I believe this resolution is not only warranted but necessary in order to protect our Nation. We are rapidly reaching a point at which the risk of utilizing military force is far outweighed by the danger that Saddam Hussein poses to the American people. I have heard that we are setting a dangerous precedent. There are concerns about what this new strategic policy might mean, and how other nations might interpret it.
I respond, with all respect, the case of Saddam Hussein, the case of Iraq, is in every way unique. It is unique in law because here is a man and here is a nation that has stood now for a decade in defiance of the world community; that is in violation and defiance of resolution after resolution from the United Nations. They are, as they have rightly been called this evening, an international outlaw. How is it that enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations, and in doing so defend our Nation, set a dangerous precedent?
Not only is Iraq in violation of resolutions, and in defiance of the civilized world, but Iraq is also unique in the threat it poses to the civilized world in amassing weapons of mass destruction.
It is not at all that the United States is some kind of international bully wanting to throw its weight around the world. It is, rather, we are the one Nation in the world that is capable of doing something about this threat to the civilized world. Not only do we have the ability to do it, but we have the will to do it.
The President has come to Congress as he was asked. He believed, I believe, that he had the legal authority already from previous resolutions from this Congress to have acted without coming to us. But Congress said: We want to be involved in this, we want to be consulted. So he came to Congress and laid out his case.
Administration officials have appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee. Briefings have been provided for all Senators. Certainly, this issue has been a matter of public discourse now for months.
It is time now for this distinguished body to act. As we continue debate on this resolution, we must remember this debate is not about arms inspectors, it is not primarily about United Nations resolutions, and it is not about assuaging the international community. History has not looked well upon those who fail to act for fear of provoking a tyrant.
What this debate is about is the protection of the American people, the protection of our national security. The best way for the Senate to do that is to provide the President with the authority he has requested.
It is helpful to recount what has brought us to this point, to the brink of being forced to use military force. For over a decade, the United States has pursued diplomatic and economic avenues to deal with the threat that Saddam Hussein poses.
We have tried to contain, we have tried to deter. But in truth, we have been in a virtually unbroken state of conflict with Iraq since the beginning of the gulf war in 1991. After the American military along with coalition allies routed the Iraqi military, the international community pledged to ensure that Saddam Hussein would never have the capability to threaten the region again.
Toward that end, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 687. This resolution, which Iraq accepted as part of the cease-fire, required Iraq to end its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, destroy its stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, and end its support of terrorism.
As we convene this evening, more than a decade later, Saddam Hussein stands in violation of this agreement in virtually every point. To ensure that Iraq was complying with its commitments, the United Nations established a weapons inspection program. In recent times, there has been a great deal of discussion about the inspectors. Forgotten in the debate is the original purpose of the inspectors. Inspections were only supposed to confirm that Iraq was living up to its commitment to cease the development of weapons of mass destruction. Inspectors were not sent in to play a cat-and-mouse game. Saddam Hussein used every means at his disposal to thwart the inspections.
In the past decade, Iraq has stood in violation of 16 different resolutions. The world community has spoken strongly and frequently against Saddam Hussein. Saddam's response has been continual deception and defiance. Saddam Hussein has made every attempt to accelerate his development of weapons, biological and nuclear weapons.
Based on intelligence we have a very frightening picture of Iraq's capabilities. We have had the briefings. I had the most recent briefing this afternoon. We have solid information, public information, that Iraq currently has a large stockpile of chemical weapons. In the initial aftermath of the gulf war, the U.N. inspectors were able to ensure that some chemical weapons were destroyed. A disturbing amount were not uncovered. In fact, 31,600 chemical munitions, 550 mustard gas bombs, and 4,000 tons of chemical precursors were unaccounted for by the U.N. inspectors. Even more disturbing is the likelihood that Iraq retained the means to produce chemical weapons. The U.N. has stated Iraq has imported enough raw materials to produce 200 tons of the VX gas.
Since inspectors were ejected from Iraq in 1998, there is a substantial body of evidence that Saddam Hussein has reconstituted his ability to produce VX and other chemical weapons. People question whether there is an imminent threat? People question the currency of the threat that faces us? They think we have time to burn? Time to delay? Perhaps even more terrifying, Iraq continued virtually unabated to produce biological weapons. Senator Frist spoke of this earlier today. In fact, the Iraqi Government has admitted in the past to the weaponization of anthrax, botulism, and aflatoxin on Scuds and on aircraft.
United Nations inspectors never accounted for at least 4 tons of raw material that can be used to produce biological weapons. Recent reports are that the Iraqis are testing unmanned vehicles that could be used to deliver these weapons over wide territories.
I am told these unmanned vehicles would be almost impossible to be detected or to be shot down.
We also have reason to believe that Saddam Hussein has developed mobile biological weapon laboratories that would be virtually impossible for inspectors, were they to get back in, to detect, to locate, and to destroy.
In this debate, it is important that we have an appreciation for the terrible power of these kinds of weapons. VX nerve gas is one of the most dangerous chemicals known to man. It operates by cutting off a person's nervous system, making it impossible for them to breath. Exposure to only a few drops can kill in minutes.
The danger of anthrax was made shockingly clear during last year's attacks. Over 20 Americans were infected, and 7 were killed, and it could have been much, much worse. The letter that was sent to Senator Leahy's office contained enough spores to kill tens of thousands of people, in one single envelop. There is every indication that Saddam Hussein has enough anthrax to kill millions of Americans.
Iraq has accelerated work on its missile development program. In fact, some of his chemical and biological weapons are deployable with 45 minutes warning.
According to the dossier recently released by the British Government, Iraq currently has ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. He is actively working to extend the range of his armaments, with the ambition of being able to strike as far as Europe in the coming years.
Even with his success in developing chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein continues to pursue the ultimate weapon of mass destruction . . . a nuclear bomb.
He has scoured the world attempting to procure enriched uranium to finalize his development of a nuclear weapon. Estimates are that, should Iraq be successful in getting this material, a nuclear weapon would take no longer than a few months to produce. We can't be sure he hasn't succeeded already.
It is evident that Saddam Hussein has the capabilities to inflict great devastation. His intentions are even clearer.
His hatred of the United States is only matched by his hunger for power. The Iraqi Government has repressed its own people, committed acts of aggression against its neighbors, and been an active supporter of international terrorism. In a very unstable region, Saddam Hussein has taken every opportunity to add to the turmoil in the Middle East.
He has plotted to assassinate a former U.S. President. In 1993, the Iraqi Government plotted to kill former President George Bush during his trip to Kuwait.
American pilots are taking fire from the Iraqi military virtually every day during patrols of the no-fly zones. Unprovoked? Hardly. It does not set a dangerous precedent to act in a preemptive way in light of his violations of international law and his continual firing upon American aircraft.
So far this year, American and British aircraft have been fired on over 406 times. In the past 2 weeks alone they have been fired on over 60 times.
Until his recent death, Iraq harbored Abu Nidal, who masterminded terrorist attacks in 20 countries, resulting in the deaths of 900 people.
There are credible reports that members of al-Qaida have found sanctuary in Iraq. It is becoming increasingly clear that Iraq has provided training to al-Qaida, including instruction on the use of chemical weapons.
Earlier this year, Saddam Hussein offered $25,000 to each of the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The only condition is that the bomber has a full belt of explosives when he blows himself up. This despicable offer essentially provides a bounty for the deaths of innocent Israelis and establishes a perverse incentive program for terror.
His invasion of Kuwait is well-documented. However, I would like to take a moment to discuss the atrocities he has committed against his own people. I believe that it will shed further light on the horrors of which Saddam is capable.
The U.N. Commission on Human Rights and the U.N. General Assembly has issued a report criticizing "systematic, widespread, and extremely grave violations of human rights," and cited "all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror."
That is the diplomatic language of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.
In "The Threatening Storm," Kenneth Pollack puts it a little plainer. He said:
This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents. This is a regime that will crush all of the bones in the feet of a two-year-old girl to force her mother to divulge her father's whereabouts. This is a regime that will hold a nursing baby at arm's length from his mother and allow the child to starve to death to force the mother to confess. This is a regime that will burn a person's limbs off to force him to confess or comply. This is a regime that will slowly lower its victim into huge vats of acid either to break their will or simply as a means of execution. This is a regime that applies electric shocks to the body of the victims, particularly their genitals, with great creativity. This is a regime that in 2000 decreed that the crime of criticizing the regime, which can be as harmless as suggesting Saddam's clothing would not be matched, would be punished by cutting off the offender's tongue.
And on and on it goes.
I ask unanimous consent that this citation from "The Threatening Storm" by Kenneth Pollack be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents. This is a regime that will crush all of the bones in the feet of a two-year-old girl to force her mother to divulge her father's whereabouts. This is a regime that will hold a nursing baby at arm's length from its mother and allow the child to starve to death to force the mother to confess. This is a regime that will burn a person's limbs off to force him to confess or comply. This is a regime that will slowly lower its victims into huge vats of acid, either to break their will or simply as a means of execution. This is a regime that applies electric shocks to the bodies of its victims, particularly their genitals, with great creativity. This is a regime that in 2000 decreed that the crime of criticizing the regime (which can be as harmless as suggesting that Saddam's clothing does not match) would be punished by cutting out the offenders tongue. This is a regime that practices systematic rape against its female victims. This is a regime that will drag a man's wife, daughter, or other female relative and repeatedly rape her in front of him. This is a regime that will force a white-hot metal rod into a person's anus or other orifices. This is a regime that employs thalium poisoning, widely considered one of the most excruciating ways to die. This is a regime that will behead a young mother in the street in front of her house and children because her husband was suspected of opposing the regime. This is a regime that used chemical warfare on its own Kurdish citizens--not just on the fifteen thousand killed and maimed at Halabja but on scores of other villages all across Kurdistan. This is a regime that tested chemical and biological warfare agents on Iranian prisoners of war, using the POWs in controlled experiments to determine the best ways to disperse the agents to inflict the greatest damage.
Mr. Hutchinson: Mr. President, freedom of speech does not exist in Iraq, and summary executions are commonplace.
Torture is seen as a legitimate tool of control, and violence against women is not just condoned but perpetrated by the Iraqi government.
Political opponents of Saddam Hussein are subject to unimaginable cruelty. They are jailed without cause. Amnesty International reports "Detainees have been threatened with bringing in a female relative, especially the wife or the mother, and raping her in front of the detainee. Some of these threats have been carried out."
In 1997, the UN reported that Iraq executed more than 1,500 people for political reasons. There are even reports that the victims families are forced to pay the cost of the execution.
Saddam stays in power through fear. It is terror--sheer terror--that sustains his evil regime.
Saddam Hussein has never been called to account for the Kuwaitis that are still missing from the Gulf War. There are still 609 cases of missing Gulf War POW/MIAs.
Included in that number is one American Navy Pilot. The Iraqi government continues to refuse to provide full information about his fate.
The passage of this resolution will provide the President with authority he requires in order to address the grave threat posed by Iraq.
I fully support his efforts to rally the international community, and believe that a strong vote on this resolution will strengthen his case before the United Nations.
It is the hope of all of us that military action will not be necessary. However, after a full decade of effort, we have almost completely exhausted diplomacy.
There are some who believe that preemptive military action against Iraq represents a break from our nation's traditions.
My colleagues, unfortunately, we are facing untraditional threats. We have tried containment. It was built upon the idea of inspection and sanction. The inspectors were thrown out, and the sanctions have been broken.
Again, from Kenneth Pollack and from "The Threatening Storm," he says:
Unfortunately, it is difficult to know exactly what is going into Iraq. This is the main problem; if the United States and United Nations knew, they might be able to stop it. As it is, we know only that between the smuggling and the surcharges Saddam is making $2 billion to $3 billion per year that he can spend as he likes. In addition, we have been able to intercept some shipments and get intelligence on others that give at least a sense of what Saddam is using his illegal revenues to import. For instance, in June 2002, the Indian government brought charges against the executives of an Indian company for selling atomized aluminum powder and titanium engine parts to Iraq in such quantity and of such quality that India's Defense and Research Development Organization concluded they could only have been intended for chemical warfare and ballistic missile production.
We tried inspections. The sanctions have been eroded, and deterrence only works with a rational person. It assumes rationality. And the fact that he can transmit weapons of mass destruction to terrorists who could inflict enormous damage upon the United States with no fingerprints--with Saddam's fingerprints not even being on it--is evidence that the idea of containment to no longer be a workable approach.
The attacks of 9/11 tore our hearts and left us with a grief that will never be forgotten. At the same time, those acts of evil have brought forth a new resolve and a new commitment.
It is the responsibility of the U.S. Government, and it is the responsibility of this Senate to ensure that the heartbreak of September 11 is not repeated.
Our enemies have grown more cunning and their methods more sinister. We must move swiftly and decisively to deny them the opportunity to attack us. When the threat is real, preemption is not just tactically critical, but, I believe, it is a moral imperative.
In Saddam Hussein we are facing a menace that has long expressed hatred of the United States, established links to international terrorists, and has amassed large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. He has been accorded every opportunity to cooperate with the international community, and he has refused.
Every day that goes by, the threat grows. He continues to amass his stockpile and strengthens his ties to terrorists. We cannot--we must not--stand by and allow this to continue. And we must not delay. There have been many people quoted in this debate, so let me add one more to the record. Winston Churchill said:
There is no merit in putting off a war for a year if, when it comes, it is a far worse war or one much harder to win.
The world is watching us. And freedom-loving people across the globe are waiting to see if America will answer the challenge that history has put before us. They are waiting to see if our Nation will assume the mantle of leadership in dealing with a tyrant with maniacal ambitions.
Our enemies are hoping we falter. They hope we will continue to be mired in the web of deception spun by Saddam Hussein. They need to be shown that our resolve to protect the American people has never been stronger.
While my greatest hope is that military action will not be necessary, it may be unavoidable. Others have come to this floor to talk about the cost of such an operation. They rightly cite estimates ranging in the tens of billions of dollars. Some may discuss the damage that might be done to our relationships with other nations. More gravely, some have spoken about the cost of human life that any military action would entail. These risks are real, but these risks must be weighed against the very real risks of delay.
The price of inaction is far too high. Mr. President, 9/11 taught us that. We will never know the complete economic damage of the terrorist attacks of last year. Some have estimated it at more than $600 billion, but the true cost can only be seen by looking in the eyes of those who lost loved ones. The true impact is only realized with the understanding that over 3,000 families are still grieving.
Saddam Hussein has the capacity to wreak even more destruction than that which we saw last year. He has weapons that could kill millions, and he consorts with terrorists who would unflinchingly do so if they had the means.
So again, I remind you, opponents say this resolution sets a dangerous precedent of preemption. I remind my colleagues of sixteen U.N. resolutions defied, rejected, ignored by Saddam Hussein. The dangerous action would be to do nothing. The dangerous precedent would be to back down in the face of a tyrant who dares us.
The resolution put forth by Senator Lieberman, and endorsed by our President, is a statement by this body that the risk posed by Iraq is unacceptable. It is a statement that we will not allow international outlaws to threaten our Nation. It is a statement that we will not sit back in the face of the growing danger that our country faces.
Thus, I call on my colleagues for their support of S.J. Res. 46.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Reed): The Senator from Tennessee is recognized under the previous order for 20 minutes.
Mr. Thompson: Mr. President, I congratulate my friend, the Senator from Arkansas, for an excellent presentation covering all the points. And if I had not been persuaded before I listened to him tonight, I would have been persuaded tonight.
This Nation has spent many dollars and many lives in defense of others around the world. Tonight, we are considering a resolution that has to do with the defense of ourselves.
People say that because our country does not go against another country without provocation that we should make the case of the need to take action, and that is true. We need to make that case before the world and before the American people.
I believe that case has been made. It is a case that has been made upon, basically, facts we have known for a long time and have chosen to ignore and sweep under the rug. It is based on a shared history that we have had together now for many years. And looking back on it, we must ask ourselves, How were we able to ignore what is so obvious and pending for so long?
We know Saddam's willingness to attack sovereign nations. We know Saddam's willingness to murder innocent individuals. We know he is in possession of weapons of mass destruction. We know he is developing missile capability that is beyond what is allowable by the United Nations resolutions and will rapidly be able to reach further and further. The only thing we do not know is how soon it is going to take him to develop nuclear weapons.
I think that is essentially, from a factual standpoint, what this entire debate is about, because if, in fact, it is true that he, in the foreseeable future, will have nuclear weapons, do any of these other points that we have been discussing really stand?
I think I have listened to many valid points and valid arguments of problems connected with moving against Saddam Hussein. I think the points that were made that the aftermath is going to be very difficult are very valid. I think the point that he might lash back against us in some way is a very valid concern. I think the point that in some places in the world they will be taking to the streets against us is a valid considerations.
But if, in fact, it is true that in the foreseeable future he might or probably will develop nuclear weapons of mass destruction, do any of these other considerations really stand up or do they together stand up to that consideration? Can we afford not to defend ourselves against that consideration?
What is the evidence pertaining to that? We are debating, again, not over whether or not he is going to have it, but how soon he is going to have it.
Unfortunately, when we have made estimates in times past with regard to Saddam's nuclear capability in the early 1990s, with regard to missile capabilities of rogue nations, when we have gone back and thoroughly examined the situation--where, in Saddam's case, we have gotten inspectors in there because of defectors' information--we have found that we have grossly underestimated the capability of our adversaries, time and time again.
Yet we are told by the entire world, those who have looked at this, that it is just a matter of time, a few years, if he has to develop his own fissile material, and perhaps as early as a few months or a year if he can buy it on the open market.
I was privileged to listen to some of the weapons inspectors who went down to Iraq. I listened to some of the experiences they had. It caused me great concern to hear their lament about the way they were thwarted before and how hopeless their mission turned out to be because of what Saddam was doing, and how inspections in the future really will not work unless you actually get active cooperation from the people you are inspecting. I am talking about a country, what, the size of California, with an ability to hide anything almost anywhere.
And they talked about the fact that when they went in before, they did not think Saddam had much in the way of nuclear. And they even were almost to the point of being able to certify that when a defector gave them some information. They went back. They found that not only had Saddam developed nuclear infrastructure, but he had a virtual "Manhattan Project" is the way they put it, a virtual "Nuclear Manhattan Project" when they went in there before.
They said they had a facility there that was based on the facility down in Tennessee in Oak Ridge in terms of enriching uranium.
This is what was there before. We do not know what he has now because he has made the decision to keep out inspectors. And we know from the CIA--a letter has been introduced in this Record--that the likelihood of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal builds.
Now he has been down there for 4 years. We know he has the science. We know he has the know-how. We know he has the scientists. We know he has the desire. We know he has a history of knowing how to build facilities that will ultimately produce results for him. And we are standing here debating as to whether or not we should do something about that because we might have a little more time and we don't have eyewitness testimony as to precisely where he is at precisely this particular time.
Those are things that have been on the record along with his violation of U.N. demands for many years. We have taken them for granted. We have taken for granted that hundreds of times our airmen have been shot at in the no-fly zone during all of this time. I have always wondered what the parents of someone shot down under those circumstances must feel like, being that far away, defending the interests of your country. Nobody knows about it. Nobody talks about it. Nobody seemingly cares that much about it. That has been going on continually ever since we left the gulf.
These are things that are on the public record. They have been on the public record for a long time. We now have some additional facts that have not been on the public record that long, such as the fact he is busily trying to obtain dual-use equipment that can be used for uranium enrichment.
We know more about his relationship with al-Qaida than we knew in times past.
Again, according to the CIA director:
We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida going back a decade.
He says:
Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qaida have discussed safe havens and reciprocal nonaggression.
He says:
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qaida members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
He goes further and says:
We have credible reporting that al-Qaida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire [weapons of mass destruction] capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qaida members in the areas of poison and gases and making conventional bombs.
These are recent things that are not as well known, have not been known over the years. Put all of that information together and you have a consensus on many things. As usual, we are spending a lot of time arguing over the things we disagree on. They are important. But I think we all agree the leader of Iraq is dangerous; that he is a threat; that that threat is growing, not diminishing; and that he is in violation of international law.
The real issue is whether or not it is going to be easier to deal with this situation once he gets stronger than he is today. The question answers itself.
The other question is whether or not we will show a reluctance to defend our own interests. We are rightfully concerned about acting precipitously. But did we act precipitously after the first World Trade Center bombing? Did we act precipitously after our men and women were killed in the Khobar Towers bombing? What was the message we sent after our two embassies were bombed and hundreds of people were killed? Were we acting precipitously after that? What did we do to avenge that or to set an example? What did we do after the Cole incident? Were we acting precipitously there? Or have we announced to the world, basically, or led Osama bin Laden to believe that we can be attacked that the response will not be commensurate with the attack? That is Osama bin Laden. We are talking about Saddam Hussein here, but the lesson is the same for tyrants throughout the world who pose a threat to this country. It has been a bad lesson that we have given for well over a decade now.
Some say we should wait until there is an imminent danger; that we should calibrate carefully as to when that danger we know is growing becomes imminent; that we should tell Saddam Hussein on the front end we will not attack him until we know he poses not only a danger but an imminent threat. That, of course, is basically consistent with the United Nations charter. It has been the law of nations for a long time. We have to recognize that. The Treaty of Westphalia was mentioned, back in the 1600s, where the sovereign nations got together and decided that sovereign nations would not be attacked. We have perfected that somewhat.
We have talked about imminent danger because traditionally we lived in a world where armies amassed on a border and that was the imminent danger. September 11 changed all that. That is not the kind of world we live in anymore. The imminent danger facing this country now does not amass itself on the border and give everybody time to debate and make up their minds as to what they are going to do. The threats we face today hide their activities. The threats we face today are not always apparent.
Let there be no mistake about it, the United States is the target. It is the primary target. No one likes the sound of the word unilateralism. But is there anyone who disagrees with the action the Israelis took in 1981, when they took out the Osiraq nuclear plant in Iraq? I am really curious. There is a case of unilateralism if there ever was one. Was there any imminent threat? I don't even know if the plant was finished yet. But either way, there was no imminent threat that I know of that they were getting ready to produce material out of there to put in a bomb to attack Israel.
They took it out. The United Nations condemned them. We condemned them. But is there anyone today who is really regretful the Israelis took that action?
I would think under that theory, if we had to wait for imminent danger, we would have to ask ourselves, imminent with regard to our allies, would that count? With regard to our troops in the area, would that count? With regard to the homeland only? Those would be questions we would have to ask.
We would have to ask ourselves: Does that not mean, under the philosophy of waiting for the imminent threat, we would have to wait not only until we had ironclad proof Saddam had nuclear capability and the means to deliver it, but that he was planning on actually hitting us with it? I don't think we have thought that fully through. Surely that is not what we are suggesting, that we almost have to have a missile in the air before we could act.
It is somewhat of a precedent. It would be, if it comes to that. But we are in a position no other country has ever been in, as the Senator from Arkansas pointed out. We are living in a world no one has ever lived in before, where a handful of people can take modern technology and create a mortal threat to millions of people on the other side of the world. We simply have to address the fact that is the world we live in.
Some say we should wait on the United Nations. That essentially goes to the heart of the amendment we are considering. I respectfully suggest if we pass this amendment, it would be a guarantee the United Nations would never act, because they would know they didn't have to. And so many who would rather avoid this because the United States is the target, and for other reasons, would never, ever face up to it, if they knew they didn't have to. Then I would ask: Where would we be? Some say, come back to the Senate in that weakened condition.
Would we be in better shape having been turned down by the U.N. if we then went ahead in contravention of what they said or would it be better to stand tall on the front end, with the assurance that many countries in the United Nations are going to support us in our effort?
The President has gone there and he has made the case. He has talked to our allies. The Secretary of State has been busy around the world. When people say we are going it alone, do not the British count? Does not Spain count? Does not Italy count? Do not the Arab nations I read about today in the paper, who are reluctantly coming along, count?
I think we should go back and look at where former President Bush was at this stage of the proceedings. I think the first thing that happened there was he said this will not stand. Then he went internationally, and then the British came first, and then there was a period of time before very many people came forward after the British.
Speaking of the British, I think it is ironic that the head of that government, in many respects, sees things more clearly than many of us do.
The problem--as difficult as it is to acknowledge, but it is the plain truth--is we have lost the coalition we had before. We would like to go right back and say: Remember how we were together before, and remember how we made such progress, military progress, and there for a while we had Saddam Hussein on the ropes and we laid down all these requirements. In order for us to go home, he had to make all these agreements, and he did make those agreements. Remember how we were together then before he violated each and every one of them, and gradually, year by year, we not only allowed that to happen, but one ally after another started doing business with him. We are now asked to go before a Security Council containing the country of China, which is now furnishing fiberoptics communications systems to Saddam to help shoot our airplanes down. Are they the ones we are supposed to ask permission to defend our self-interests?
We are looking at a Security Council with our friends, the Russians and the French, who want to do business with Saddam, and Saddam owes them money and they want that money back. Sure, the Arabs are kind of reluctant right now. And we are dealing with our now German friends who are led by an individual who will demagog his way to reelection on the backs of our country and, presumably, international relations.
It is not an easy thing to say, but it is a true thing to say. We want our friends, our allies, and especially our NATO partners; but as they continue to let their defense budgets slide and the American taxpayer continues to have to foot the bill for the free world, essentially, should they be given a veto when our interests are so directly involved? I think not.
I think we have to learn the lessons of the past, as difficult as it is. My friend from Arkansas mentioned Churchill. They didn't listen to Churchill after World War I. The result of their not listening to him was called World War II. Back when Hitler was on the move everything he did was not sufficient in and of itself to act. The allies thought they could always act later, and other countries should do other things-- excuse after excuse.
That is not the message we want to send this time, Mr. President. I think it is clear that strength is the only hope we have for peace, and if we cannot have peace, we must do what is in the vital interest of this country.
I yield the floor.
