Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us requires us to make an enormously difficult decision. There are many cases to be made against Iraq and Saddam Hussein, but the only one that justifies this debate is the danger Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and particularly its nuclear program, pose to the United States. Recognizing this danger, however, does not inform the appropriate response, and in this extremely complex situation, finding the right response is not easy.
There is no greater responsibility for a Member of Congress than voting whether to initiate war. This is a responsibility I take very seriously. For the last several weeks I have immersed myself in the details of the situation with Iraq. I have consulted with experts and people whole opinions I value. I have spoken with Rhode Island veterans and have considered the opinions of the more than 1,100 constituents who have contacted me on this matter. I have received a number of security and intelligence briefings from Administration officials, the National Security Advisor, the Director of Central Intelligence, Defense Department officials and military leaders. I have been carefully deliberating, weighing the potential risks of a war with Iraq against the inevitable danger of a nuclear-armed Iraq.
In considering the options, I have paid careful attention to the position of President Bush, to his speech this week and his other statement on Iraq. Since September 11, I have consistently supported the President's efforts to safeguard our national security and eliminate the threat of terrorism. I believe he deserves great credit for rallying the American people to a new challenge and building strength from tragedy.
While giving special consideration to the request of the Commander- in-Chief, I must also exercise my own judgment on this most critical life and death question of war. One of the great strengths of a democracy is that decisions that emerge from the marketplace of ideas tend to be stronger, for they have been challenged and questioned. If we do not question and do not challenge, if we do not carefully deliberate, we weaken rather than strengthen our nation's purpose.
It is for this reason that the Framers of our Constitution, in their wisdom, gave the power to declare war to Congress. Congress represents the voice of the people, and it is only the people of a democracy who should have the power to send their sons and daughters to war. I therefore feel that it is incumbent upon every Member of Congress, indeed on every citizen, to carefully weigh the factors counseling for and against war with Iraq and make a decision accordingly.
After much deliberation, I have concluded that the dangers of an Iraq armed with nuclear weapons are so significant that we have no choice but to act. At the same time, I recognize that a U.S. war with Iraq could complicate our struggle against terrorism and create new, serious risks. It is therefore clear that we must make every effort to enlist the United Nations in our effort to disarm Iraq and address that threat. Whether we accomplish our goals through diplomacy or by arms, our course will be less dangerous if the world community is with us. I will support the bipartisan resolution negotiated by President Bush and House leaders because I believe it represents our best hope for delivering the multilateral coalition we seek to eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
In his address to the nation this week, his speech to the United Nations, and his other statements, President Bush has clearly and forcefully articulated Iraq's threat to U.S. security. Saddam Hussein unquestionably is one of the world's most detestable tyrants. He harbors a deep hostility towards the United States and an unquenchable thirst for conquest and power. He has demonstrated that he does not view weapons of mass destruction merely as deterrents, but rather as offensive weapons to be used to further his quest for power and give him leverage over the United States.
Given this record, it is a national security imperative that he not develop a nuclear weapon. Nuclear non-proliferation is a longstanding objective of this country, but nowhere is it more critical than Iraq. Saddam Hussein has made clear that he believes a nuclear weapon would give him the ability to act with impunity. The experts I have spoken with from former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross to former Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke to members of the current Administration believe that the risk of terrorism would increase substantially after Iraq obtained nuclear capability. Iraq would then be more apt to provide shelter, technology, and weapons to terrorists targeting the U.S. The large chemical and biological weapons stockpiles would pose a much greater risk to our security at that point then they do now. A nuclear Iraq would be an enormous danger to the U.S. and be a major setback in our war on terrorism.
Not only would the direct threat to the U.S. be intolerable, but acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iraq would roil an already volatile region. Saddam Hussein's hegemonic ambitions for the Gulf region virtually ensure that he would resume his military adventurism if he believed he had a deterrent to U.S. action. Hussein said after the Gulf War that his greatest regret was not waiting to invade Kuwait until after he had acquired a nuclear weapon.
Experts like Jim Steinberg, former Deputy National Security Advisor to President Clinton, have predicted an arms race in the Middle East in response to the threat of a resurgent Iraq. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey would feel a need to counter Iraq's new strategic advantage.
In a region as unstable as the Middle East, the prospects of a nuclear arms race should make us all shudder.
Of course, the most ominous threat is that Iraq would pass nuclear technology to terrorists. September 11th showed us that there are people willing to do the unspeakable. The spectre of nuclear terrorism, which previously seemed remote and only theoretically frightening, has suddenly become a real and horrible possibility. We can no longer count on those Cold War limits that we assumed even our enemies shared. With this new, visceral understanding, who is willing to take the risk that a nuclear-armed Iraq will not share its weapons? The degree of cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda, and other terrorists targeting the U.S. is unclear, but if we wait for that unholy alliance to form, we will have waited too long.
Unfortunately, the possibility that Iraq might develop a nuclear weapon is not remote. Its nuclear program has been disrupted but never fully dismantled. Current intelligence suggests that Iraq could have a functional bomb within a year of acquiring a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium or plutonium. Given the potential of acquiring these materials from the crumbling infrastructure of the former Soviet Union's arsenal, we cannot assume that a willing buyer will find no seller.
The people with whom I have spoken who know the region best, from the current Administration, from the Clinton Administration, and those who have spent lifetimes studying the Middle East, are nearly unanimous in concluding that we simply cannot allow Iraq to acquire nuclear capability. The risks of nuclear terrorism, of the potentially catastrophic destabilization of a Middle East arms race, and of future nuclear war in the region are all too real. Our national security will be severely compromised if we do not prevent Iraq's development of nuclear weapons.
Many have asked, why now? For eleven years we have relied on containment and deterrence to respond to Iraq. But Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst of Iraq, has explained that Saddam Hussein's history suggests a streak of irrationality that makes these policies unreliable given the stakes. Whether because he is sheltered from the facts by underlings who tell him what he wants to hear or simply unbalanced, Hussein has repeatedly and dramatically misjudged the reactions his actions would generate. From his 1974 attack on Iranian-supported Kurds that provoked a military response by Iran leading to Iraqi territorial concessions, to his ill-fated war with Iran in 1980, to the invasion of Kuwait, he has consistently miscalculated. Deterrence is predicated on rational actors operating with similar sets of assumptions. These examples raise serious questions about whether we can expect Hussein to make rational choices, and that is a risk we cannot take when the use of nuclear weapons hang in the balance.
President Bush has convincingly articulated the danger that Saddam Hussein poses and his long history of undermining security in the Middle East and throughout the world cannot be denied. We must act to disarm Iraq, and we must act soon, before he acquires nuclear weapons and before he writes the next chapter in a long history of irrational and highly destructive aggression. The question is how we act.
The first choice is, of course, a diplomatic solution. The goal is a new U.N. resolution that will convince Saddam Hussein that he cannot avoid complying with international law. We must appreciate, however, that given Hussein's history, this process may well end in confrontation. And so we also need to understand the many implications of a war in Iraq.
We know, as is inscribed at the Korean War Memorial, that freedom is not free. There are times that we are called upon to sacrifice to protect our values, our homeland, and our way of life. When our national security is at stake, we will not hesitate to make the necessary sacrifice. But we know from painful experience the consequences of launching a war without first establishing the political will to see it through, and the American people have to know what sacrifices they may be called upon to make.
Obviously, the risks of war would be most directly borne by the courageous men and women who were our Nation's uniform. I know that they stand prepared to go and fight wherever their Commander-in-Chief sends them. I have made it a priority during my eight years in Congress to ensure that they are the best-trained, best-equipped, most effective fighting force in the history of the world, so that if we have to send them into harm's way, we know they will be victorious.
Regarding a war with Iraq, we have not been told what to expect in the way of call-ups, casualties, length of combat, and the like. Some experts predict that the Iraqi military will overthrow Hussein rather than face destruction and possible war crimes prosecutions. It is my greatest hope that they prove correct. But we need to be prepared for the possibility of combat involving chemical or biological attacks. We may face block-by-block, building-by-building combat in Iraqi cities that, in the words of General Joseph P. Hoar, the former commander-in- chief of the U.S. Central Command whose area of responsibility includes Iraq, could resemble the last fifteen minutes of "Saving Private Ryan." Planning conservatively, we have to assume that we may face a months-long guerrilla campaign and that casualties may be far higher than in the Gulf War.
Our armed forces are unquestionably prepared to carry out this and any mission they might be given. Should they be called upon, they will have my unconditional support for the duration of any armed conflict. I will do my utmost to give the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our nation whatever they need to accomplish their mission. We should not send them into battle, however, until the American people have been fully prepared for the cost in American lives that we may pay for victory.
The American people must also be better prepared for the long-term consequences of action in Iraq. Even if the war goes quickly and the worst-case scenarios do not play out, there is a consensus that an extended American presence in Iraq will be required to maintain stability in that ethnically and politically divided country. It is critical that a centralized, unified Iraq emerge, and we cannot leave that outcome to chance. If we win the war but do not win the peace, the great risks we take and blood we shed will be for naught.
American troops will, at least initially, be responsible for protecting Iraq's borders with Iran and Syria, governing tinder-boxes on the brink of civil war, like the city of Kirkuk, and preventing revenge-induced massacres in the Shiite south. The economic costs will be high and the risks to our troops serious. Although specifics may vary depending on the breadth and impact of the war, under virtually any scenario we face the prospect of a major, long-term reconstitution of Iraq in dollars, energy, attention, and most importantly, lives.
I know that we are capable of meeting the challenge of rebuilding Iraq, just as we are capable of meeting the military challenges. Like possible economic and budgetary implications, these are not considerations which will deter us from acting to protect our national security, but they are consequences of war that we must be prepared to realize.
As great a danger as Iraq represents, we should not pursue military action there without considering its impact on the wider war on terrorism that we are currently fighting. As many thoughtful commentators have noted, a war in Iraq carries its own dangers above and beyond the immediate risks to our soldiers, sailors, and airmen.
The fight against Al Qaeda is not only a military engagement at this point, but even more so, a law enforcement and intelligence operation. Unilateral war with Iraq runs the risk of drying up critical support in the war on terrorism. We need the cooperation of foreign governments in countries like Yemen and Pakistan to find and detain Al Qaeda's leadership. The arrest of Ramzi Binalshibh in Pakistan last month is the perfect example. A suspected ringleader in the planning of the September 11th attacks, he is now providing us with valuable intelligence. If what is perceived to be an American imperialistic attack on Iraq costs us allies in our struggle against terrorism, it could become much more difficult for us to thwart future terrorist attacks.
While an Iraqi war could cause some governments to stop working as closely with us, more troubling is the prospect that I could cause massive destabilization in the Middle East and surrounding areas. The first President Bush's National Security Advisor, Brent Scowcroft, and others have cautioned that a war in Iraq could metastasize into a regional war. If Iraq attacks Israel and Israel responds as promised, the smoldering Israeli-Arab conflict could explode. Turkey, Syria, and Iran all have substantial Kurdish populations and could be drawn into war.
A geopolitical nightmare scenario is President Musharraf's government in Pakistan toppling and a radical Islamic regime taking control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Experts have said his grip on power is somewhat shaky. Could an American attack on Iraq prompt large street demonstrations in Pakistan? Could that in turn lead to Musharraf's downfall?
Middle East experts are even more concerned about the impact of a war on the moderate government of Jordan's King Abdullah. Not only could a change of governments there cost us a reliable ally in the fight against terrorism, but it could lead to a cataclysm whose ripple effects would harm us in other ways. Jordan is one of the few countries that has signed a peace treaty with Israel. But half of its population is made up of Palestinian refugees. If Jordan were to fall into the hands of a radical government, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could explode into a multi-front war. An Arab-Israeli war is the surest way to inflame Islamic militants.
Even without a deterioration of the Israeli-Palestinian situation, General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, warned the Senate Armed Services Committee that a unilateral war by the United Sates on Iraq would "supercharge" Al Qaeda's recruitment. There are a billion Muslims in the world, some of whom unfortunately harbor a great distrust of the United States. Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda and their sympathizers would portray a U.S. attack on Iraq as an attack on Islam, and many would view it that way.
We can assume that in the event of war, Hussein will place anti- aircraft guns and other military targets in mosques, schools, hospitals, and residential neighborhoods. In order to win, the U.S. military may be forced to strike these sites, and al-Jezeera would likely broadcast daily images of U.S. bombs destroying important cultural, religious, and other apparently civilian buildings. Military victory could well come at the cost of an enormous public relations defeat, one which make us an army of new enemies willing to take their own lives to inflict pain on Americans.
It is also far from clear that war with Iraq will reduce the threat of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons being used against Americans or our allies. A newly released CIA report details the danger that an attack on Iraq could lead Hussein to aid terrorists in chemical or biological attack as a way to exact a last measure of revenge.
We know that Iraq has mobile labs producing these potentially devastating weapons. Can we be sure that our troops would eliminate them before he had a chance to launch weapons at Israel or put them in the hands of terrorists? For that matter, can we be sure they are not already in the hands of Iraqi agents or other terrorists outside of Iraq, awaiting a signal to use them? When you corner a dangerous animal, you have to expect it to lash out. A war to disarm Hussein may paradoxically increase rather than decrease Americans' vulnerability to those very weapons.
If there is one lesson of warfare that has been true throughout human history, it is that wars have unintended consequences. Writing 2400 years ago, the Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, called this uncertainty the "fog of war." We ignore this timeless truth of warfare at our peril. It would be the hubris of the world's lone superpower to assume that our plans will be carried out exactly as we foresee them.
While these dangers are real and caution us against war, inaction still leaves us with the prospect of a nuclear Iraq in the relatively near future. Through no choice of our own we have entered a minefield. On one side lies the danger of Iraq with nuclear weapons. On the other, an unfinished war against fanatics who hide in shadows and who may be inadvertently strengthened by our actions in Iraq. We need to pick our way carefully through this minefield, making every effort to minimize the risks on both sides.
Obviously, our best option is to disarm Iraq without resort to war. This outcome can only happen if the world unites in pressuring Iraq to comply with UN resolutions. For this reason, I am pleased that the President has brought our case to the United Nations and has been aggressively pursuing a new, forceful resolution in the Security Council. The Security Council should pass a new resolution, giving weapons inspectors truly unfettered access to any site in Iraq at any time with no conditions. I believe any new resolution should be backed up with the realistic threat of force.
But it must act quickly. If the UN is to remain a credible international agent of stability, it must, as the President has insisted, begin disarming Iraq in a matter of days and weeks not months and years. Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security Advisor, has told me that we can expect an inspections and disarmament regime to take several years. Given the timeline for Iraq's development of a nuclear weapon, the window for diplomatic action is therefore very small. If we want a peaceful option to prevail, we must set down that road immediately.
We can hope that Saddam Hussein will recognize that he has lost the battle for world opinion and will capitulate to international law by giving up his weapons of mass destruction. Even if diplomacy fails, however, our national security would be much better protected if we forcibly disarm Iraq at the head of a multilateral coalition rather than on our own.
As the first President Bush realized, perceptions are critically important in global diplomacy. A number of the dangers war poses to our efforts against terrorism are exacerbated by a perception, warranted or not, that the United States is using its military dominance to bully Arabs or Muslims. If, on the other hand, the U.S. is seen exhausting diplomatic efforts and any conflict is between Iraq and the community of nations rather than just the sole superpower, a war at that point is less likely to undermine American efforts to combat terrorism.
A multilateral war with Iraq would do less to diminish the support we have received from Muslim nations in the war on terrorism. It would be less risky to our fragile allies in the region. It would be harder for the terrorists and anti-American propagandists to use to inflame young Muslims to attack the United States.
We seek the auspices of the United Nations not because we must, but because doing so is in the nation's best interest. As President Kennedy said forty years ago during the Cuban Missile Crisis, "This nation is prepared to present its case against the Soviet threat to peace, and our own proposals for a peaceful world, at any time and in any forum-- in the Organization of American States, in the United Nations, or in any other meeting that could be useful--without limiting our freedom of action."
We will not defer decisions of our national security to the United Nations, but where it is useful we should take advantage of the international structures that our nation was instrumental in creating. In this case, it is in the overwhelming best interest of the United States to push the UN to disarm Iraq, and I therefore stand foursquare behind President Bush's efforts to push the Security Council to address Iraq's lawlessness.
These are the considerations I have been weighing over the past several weeks and upon which I will cast my vote in Congress. My decision is based on grave concerns about the prospect of a nuclear- armed Iraq and equally serious fears that a war with Iraq will create new, highly dangerous risks of terrorism. I will vote for the resolution I feel is most likely to lead to a multilateral disarmament of Iraq, which is the best route to safeguard our national security.
I was troubled by the first draft of the resolution sent to Congress because it was an extremely broad mandate that authorized any action not only to disarm Iraq and enforce UN resolutions, but to "restore peace and stability in the region." The process of deliberation has worked, however, Bipartisan, bicameral negotiations have subsequently improved the resolution and led to a more thorough discussion of the complex factors that must inform this decision.
The new resolution now requires the President to exhaust diplomatic efforts before resorting to force. Equally important, it authorizes the use of force in Iraq only upon certification by the President that such action will not undermine the international war on terrorism. We walk a fine line between the risks of a rogue Iraq on one side and hindering our war on terrorism on the other. These two features of the new resolution ensure that our Iraq policy walks that line if at all possible.
President Bush has made it clear that his preferred option is to lead the United Nations in enforcing its own resolutions. Secretary of State Colin Powell and others in the Administration are working to convince a reluctant Security Council that a new resolution with teeth, authorizing unconditional access by inspectors to any site in Iraq is the surest way to avoid armed conflict. Secretary Powell, his predecessor, Madeleine Albright, the U.S. ambassador to the UN in the Clinton Administration, Richard Holbrooke, and others have told me that to persuade the international community to follow us, the President needs as strong a hand as possible.
Those of us who strongly believe that America's safest path among the dangers that confront us is a multilateral approach and who want to avoid war must show the world that our nation is resolute in its determination to respond to the threat in Iraq. We know that Saddam Hussein will capitulate only if he senses that the only alternative is destruction. A clear declaration of our unity and our determination to eliminate the Iraqi threat to our own security and that of the community of nations is the best way to the multilateral, diplomatic solution that we seek.
I remain convinced that a unilateral attack by the United States on Iraq creates grave threats to the security of our people, even while it eliminates others. But I also agree with the President that a failure to confront Saddam Hussein now, before he has nuclear capabilities, would be a colossal mistake. To maximize our national security, we must balance these two dangerous and uncertain possibilities. The resolution before the United States Congress ensures that, to as great an extent possible, that precarious balance is struck. Through its focus on diplomacy, its concern for the broader war on terrorism, and the resolve it communicates to the rest of the world, it is the most likely vehicle to the multilateral, diplomatic disarmament of Iraq that I and most Americans seek. I will, therefore, vote for the resolution in the most fervent hope that the force it authorizes should never have to be used.
Mr. Weller Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution to Authorize the Use of the United States Armed Forces Against Iraq. This resolution grants to the President all the authority he needs to protect U.S. national security interests--including the use of military force if necessary--against the threat posed by Iraq.
After more than a decade of deception and defiance since the end of the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein poses a new and growing threat to the world. He has deceived and defied the will and resolutions of the United Nations Security Council through many means including; continuing to seek and develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons; brutalizing the Iraqi people, using chemical weapons against his own people and committing gross human rights violations and crimes against humanity; and supporting international terrorism.
Saddam Hussein's evil regime wields a massive stockpile of chemical and biological weapons that remains unaccounted for and is capable of killing millions of innocent people. Evidence also reveals that Iraq is rebuilding facilities that it has used to produce chemical and biological weapons--and to develop nuclear weapons technology.
The facts are clear--Saddam Hussein desperately wants a nuclear weapon--and the wretched history of his evil regime demonstrates that he will use it.
This threat grows more dangerous with the knowledge of ties between Hussein and Al-Qaida. Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network share a common enemy--the United States of America and its allies in the War on Terror. After September 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. But Saddam Hussein doesn't limit his involvement in the death of innocents to merely cheering from the sidelines. In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 his regime's payment to families of Palestinian homicide bombers. He continues to encourage violence in the Middle East and hopes his funding will help the violence to continue.
I urge my colleagues to speak with one voice in support of this bipartisan resolution. While use of military force should be used as a last resort we must support the President and speak with one voice. History has taught us that we can not wait. We must act now.
Mr. Crane: Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 114, to provide authorization for the use of military force against Iraq. While I hope and pray President Bush does not have to commit our troops to such action, I believe that he must have the authority he needs to protect U.S. national security interests.
The events of September 11th showed us that we are not protected from an attack on our homeland. A first strike made with weapons of mass destruction can result in millions dead, and the U.S. must be prepared to act preemptively.
I did not reach this conclusion easily, Mr. Speaker. But in a world with biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, a first strike capability carries with it the possibility that it will be the last strike, with millions left dead in its wake.
There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein possesses and continues to cultivate weapons of mass destruction; the U.N. weapons inspectors were thrown out of Iraq four years ago for a reason. In addition, we know that he is violating the U.N.'s oil-for-food program to the tune of several billion dollars a year; rather than feeding innocent Iraqi citizens, this is money that is undoubtedly being spent on the development of weapons of mass destruction. And we know that if he is able to buy a softball-sized amount of plutonium on the black market, he will have a nuclear weapon within a year.
Some of my colleagues ask why we must act against this threat in particular, when there are many other threats of a grave and serious nature confronting us as we wage a global war against terror. The answer is that this threat is unique; an evil dictator has gathered together the most serious dangers of our time in one place. In Iraq we see Saddam stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, and I trust I need not remind anyone that he has used such weapons already, against his own people. In addition, he has tried to dominate the Middle East, 2nd has struck other nations in the region, including our ally Israel, without warning.
Some of my colleagues have suggested that disarming Hussein will dilute the war against al-Qaeda, but I believe that the opposite is true; these dual goals are inextricably linked. We know that Saddam has harbored and trained high-level al-Qaeda who fled to Iraq after we invaded Afghanistan. Indeed, there can be no doubt that Saddam and al- Qaeda share a common enemy: The United States of America, and the freedom we represent. And let me be clear: either could attack us at any time.
Keeping this in mind, it seems to me that we, as guardians of freedom, have an awesome responsibility to act to ensure that Saddam Hussein cannot carry out such a first strike against the United States or our allies.
Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues object to this Resolution because we do not have a groundswell of international support for military intervention. The distinguished Chairman of the international Relations Committee has highlighted the key question as regards this issue: on whom does the final responsibility for protecting ourselves rest? Is it ours or do we share it with others?
While there is no doubt that unqualified support from the United Nations is preferable, we must be prepared to defend ourselves alone. We must never allow the foreign policy of our country to be dictated by those entities that may or may not have U.S. interests at heart.
Mr. Speaker, the Resolution before us does not mandate military intervention in Iraq. It does, however, give President Bush clear authority to invade Iraq should he determine that Saddam is not complying with the conditions we have laid before him. Chief among these conditions is full and unfettered weapons inspections; if Saddam fails to comply, as has been the unfortunate historical trend, we will have no choice but to take action. Our security demands it.
Mr. Speaker, the world community watching this debate ought not conclude that respectful disagreements on the Floor of this House divide us; on the contrary, we find strength through an open airing of all views. We never take this privilege for granted, and we need look no further than to Iraq to understand why.
Let us not forget those who continue to suffer under the evil hand of Saddam. To take just one example, the more than one and a half million Assyrians in Iraq have been displaced from their ancestral homes, tortured, raped, murdered and caused to suffer every conceivable degradation at the hands of the Hussein regime. They have much to lose in any failed effort to remove Saddam, yet they fully support President Bush.
And they certainly will not stand alone. As President Bush noted in his address to the nation on Monday, "When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkmen, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin." In other words, as in Afghanistan, when given hope, an oppressed people will rise up and seize the opportunity for freedom.
At the end of this debate, Congress will speak with one voice. I have no doubt that the world will witness the same expression of unity as was demonstrated by Americans across the country following the attacks on September 11th. I find comfort in the knowledge that this unity represents a promise that we will never back down from preserving our freedoms and protecting our homeland from those who wish to destroy us, and our way of life.
