Statements
and Speeches
Statement
Regarding the Possible War with Iraq
Oct.
10, 2002
By
Henry A. Waxman
PDF
Version
Mr Chairman,
we face today one of the most important questions that can ever
come before us as Members of Congress: whether to authorize the
use of force, and commit the men and women of our armed forces to
defend liberty and to protect the United States, at the possible
cost of their lives - and the lives of many in a country far from
our shores.
It is an issue
Americans care deeply about. I have received hundreds of calls during
the past few weeks, and many of my constituents are raising similar
and very serious concerns.
They are suspicious
of the timing of this debate. They see political overtones to it,
and question whether this vote is being used for political purposes.
Many are worried
about the precedent of a preemptive and unilateral attack, and how
that precedent might be used by other countries looking to justify
aggressive and hostile acts.
Others have
expressed doubts about the Bush Administrations handling of
foreign policy. They point to the Administrations abysmal
record on a series of international efforts, including the Kyoto
Protocol, the Biological Weapons Convention, and the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty with Russia. The Administration has created its own
credibility problem by consistently going its own way instead of
being the leader of a world coalition.
Many callers
have told me they dont see evidence that Saddam Hussein poses
a current threat to the United States. They think terrorism by Al
Qaeda is a greater and more immediate danger, and that Iraq is a
diversion from our failure to capture Osama Bin Laden.
And over and
over Ive been told that war should be a last resort. Unfortunately,
to many of my constituents, the Administration has created the perception
that war with Iraq is our first and only resort.
All of those
concerns have been on my mind as Ive deliberated on this vote.
Ive spent the good part of these last few weeks listening
to experts from this Administration, from the Clinton Administration,
and from non-partisan, independent organizations. Ive tried
to sort out what we know to be true and what we just suspect to
be true. And Ive tried to evaluate our best course when faced
with the uncertain but potentially catastrophic threat that Saddam
poses and the unpredictable horror a war can bring.
Eleven years ago, in the face of Saddams aggression against
Kuwait, I voted reluctantly to oppose the use of force. I thought
then that more time should be given to diplomacy, and to the enforcement
of sanctions against Iraq. But once Congress acted, there was no
question of the commitment of all of us to the success of Desert
Storm. The liberation of Kuwait was effected; our casualties were
thankfully quite small; and stability was, for an extended period
of time, restored to the region.
To be certain,
many of us thought, and fervently hoped, that the crushing military
defeat suffered by Saddam would result in his overthrow. Other monstrous
dictators - such as Milosevic in Serbia - have crumbled in the face
of far less of an onslaught. It is a mark of Saddams cunning
and ruthlessness that he survived the upheavals in his country that
did unfold after the Gulf War, that he is still in power, and that
he is still able to oppress his people.
Whether one
agrees or disagrees with the Administrations policy towards
Iraq, I dont think there can be any question about Saddams
conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the
past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded
that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons,
and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and
cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons
inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against
enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations,
the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are
simply the facts.
And now, time
has run out. It has been four long years since the last UN weapons
inspectors were effectively ejected from Iraq because of Saddams
willful noncompliance with an effective inspection regime.
What Saddam
has done in the interim is not known for certain - but there is
every evidence, from the dossier prepared by the Prime Minister
of Britain, to President Bushs speech at the United Nations,
that Saddam has rebuilt substantial chemical and biological weapons
stocks, and that he is determined to obtain the means necessary
to produce nuclear weapons. He has ballistic missiles, and more
are on order. He traffics with other evil people in this world,
intent on harming the United States, Israel, other nations in the
Middle East, and our friends across the globe.
We know Saddam
quite well. We know he kills a lot of people, even in his own family.
We know when he gives his word it cannot be trusted. We know he
is a shameless propagandist. We recall that he held women and children
hostage for a time in Baghdad as human shields in 1990 to try to
deter armed attack to liberate Kuwait. We know what he does to his
own people in the north and south of his country and what he did
to his neighbors in Iran and Kuwait.
We also know
that Saddam is the patron saint of the homicide bombers in Israel.
He pays their families when their youth go to kingdom-come from
the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. And Iraq, under Saddam, is
one of only seven nations designated as a state sponsor of terrorism
because of his aid and training of terrorists, according to the
U.S. State Department.
Whether he is
tied in with al-Qaeda is still subject to debate, but they share
an intense hatred for the United States, Israel, and our allies,
and in their willingness to attack civilians to achieve their purposes.
In a perfect
world the Iraqi people would have been able to seize their destiny
and liberate their country. In a perfect world the UN resolutions
calling for Saddams disarmament would have been properly enforced.
But this is
not a perfect world, and so today we struggle with how best to achieve
that disarmament. That is our objective-our debate today is over
the right means to that necessary end.
Eleven years
ago, the United Nations Security Council approved a resolution calling
for the liberation of Kuwait, and the disarmament of Saddam. This
occurred before we voted in Congress to authorize the use of force
against Iraq in January 1991.
Eleven years
ago, in other words, we in Congress were voting to endorse the consensus
reached in the United Nations over what the world should do to repel
Saddams aggression in the region and provide the basis for
an Iraq that could not threaten its neighbors via war or weapons
of mass destruction.
Today, the order
is reversed and it is the Congress that is voting first on a resolution
of war. And that is being done in the hope that it will help force
a consensus in the United Nations so that the world - not just the
United States - can pursue these issues on the soundest possible
basis, with the strongest degree of support from as many nations
as possible.
This is why
we have to get this resolution right. And this is why I strongly
support the substitute, which emphasizes action by the UN and the
international community. It outlines the importance of working with
a coalition, and before American lives are placed at risk, exhausting
all other options through diplomacy and unfettered inspections.
We should do all we can to secure a Security Council endorsement
for an invasion of Iraq, and possibly to avoid a war by forcing
Saddam to abide by the UN requirements for disarmament.
War must always
be a last resort. In my view, Saddam has nearly brought us to that
point. We have tried containment and sanctions over the last ten
years, and both have failed. Sanctions hurt the people of Iraq and
Saddam did not care about them. Inspections have failed because
he has frustrated the inspectors and eventually forced them out
of his country four years ago.
Weve tried
surgical strikes on his facilities and no fly zones over large parts
of his territory. He has responded by continuing to try to obtain
weapons of mass destruction. He has turned the humanitarian efforts
to allow oil sales for food into a $2 billion pot of money for weapons.
In light of
all this, if the UN does not act, it not only leaves Saddam unchecked
but it undermines, perhaps fatally, the purpose of having or supporting
a UN in the first place.
If the UN does
not or cannot act, the substitute does nothing to compromise the
ability of the Congress to authorize the use of force to protect
Americas interests - unilaterally if necessary - if we believe
it necessary at a later time.
Under the substitute,
we sacrifice none of our sovereignty - none - and maximize every
opportunity for diplomacy and consensus. The substitute correctly
recognizes that should we reach the point of last resort, that is
the time for Congress to declare war.
For all those
reasons, I urge the House of Representatives to adopt the substitute
and hope it will be the course we follow. It is the better choice
and is the one most of my constituents and other Americans support.
It is possible,
however, that the substitute will be defeated. The question, then,
is whether to support the Resolution President Bush has sent us,
as modified through negotiations with Rep. Richard Gephardt, the
House Democratic Leader.
Although I disagree
deeply with much of President Bushs domestic policies and
some aspects of his foreign policy, I agree with his conclusion
that we cannot leave Saddam to continue on his present course. No
one doubts that he is trying to build a nuclear device, and when
he does, his potential for blackmail to dominate the Persian Gulf
and Middle East will be enormous, and our efforts to deal with him
be even more difficult and perilous. The risks of inaction clearly
outweigh the risks of action.
Despite my misgivings
about the Presidents approach, I believe its essential
that Congress send the strongest bipartisan signal of unity possible
so the UN will act. Some have even suggested that taking the threat
of force out of the equation might undermine that result.
In a post September
11 world, it is important we speak with one voice and send one message
- particularly when the lives of our men and women in the armed
forces are at stake.
And it is important
that we not send a confused signal to Iraq, so that there be no
doubt about our resolve.
Mr. Chairman,
the goal I want is decisive UN action and the effective disarmament
of Iraq. The substitute achieves that goal and should be approved.
But if it is defeated, I believe supporting the Presidents
proposal brings us closer to realizing that goal than defeating
the Resolution.
For that reason,
Mr. Chairman, I will support the Presidents resolution if
it is before us.
PDF
Version
|