|
CounterPunch
October
10, 2002
"Confused
Justifications and Vague Proposals"
Why I Oppose Bush's Iraq War Resolution
by SENATOR RUSS FEINGOLD
(text of a speech
on the Senate floor, delivered October 9, 2002)
Many of us have spent months reviewing the issue
of the advisability of invading Iraq in the near future. From
hearings and meetings on the process and the very important role
of Congress to the difficult questions of substance, including
foreign policy and military implications, after my own review
and carefully listening to hundreds of Wisconsin citizens in
person, I spoke on the floor on Thursday, September 26, and,
Mr. President, I indicated my opposition to the original draft
use of force authorization by the President, and I also used
that opportunity to raise some very important questions, to which
I needed answers before supporting a narrower and more responsible
resolution.
Now, after many more meetings and reading
articles and attending briefings, listening to my colleagues'
speeches, and especially listening to the President's speech
in Cincinnati on Monday, Mr. President, I still don't believe
that the President and the Administration have adequately answered
the critical questions. They have not yet met the important burden
to persuade Congress and the American people that we should invade
Iraq at this time.
Both in terms of the justifications for
an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the
invasion, Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just
don't add up. They don't add up to a coherent basis for a new
major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against
the terrorism of al Qaeda and related organizations. Therefore,
I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us.
My colleagues, my focus today is on the
wisdom of this specific resolution vis-a-vis Iraq, as opposed
to discussing the notion of an expanded doctrine of preemption,
which the President has articulated on several occasions. However,
I associate myself with the concerns eloquently raised by Senator
Kennedy and Senator Byrd and others that this could well represent
a disturbing change in our overall foreign and military policy.
This includes grave concerns about what such a preemption-plus
policy will do to our relationship with our allies, to our national
security, and to the cause of world peace in so many regions
of the world, where such a doctrine could trigger very dangerous
actions with really very minimal justification.
Mr. President, I want to be clear about
something. None of this is to say that I don't agree with the
President on much of what he has said about the fight against
terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree post-9/11,
we face, as the President has said, a long and difficult fight
against terrorism and we must be very patient and very vigilant
and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices.
And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine
threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction:
chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree
that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if
not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support
the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several
despots from the international community -- whom the international
community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership
in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion,
I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this
time.
And I agree, therefore, Mr. President,
we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons
of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. And I agree a return
to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious,
credible policy.
I also believe and agree as important
and as preferable as U.N. action and multilateral solutions to
this problem are, we cannot give the United Nations the ability
to veto our ability to counter this threat to our country. We
retain and will always retain the right of self-defense, including,
of course, self-defense against weapons of mass destruction.
When such a threat requiring self-defense would present itself
-- and I am skeptical that that is exactly what we're dealing
with here -- then we can, if necessary, act alone, including
militarily.
So, Mr. President, these are all areas
where I agree with the Administration.
But, Mr. President, I am increasingly
troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion
at this time. My colleagues, I'm not suggesting there has to
be only one justification for such a dramatic action. But when
the Administration moves back and forth from one argument to
another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and
the belief in its urgency. I believe that this practice of shifting
justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of
many Americans questioning the Administration's motives in insisting
on action at this particular time.
What am I talking about? I'm talking
about the spectacle of the President and senior Administration
officials citing a purported connection to al Qaeda one day,
weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein's treatment
of his own people on another day, and then on some days the issue
of Kuwaiti prisoners of war.
Mr. President, for some of these, we
may well be willing to send some 250,000 Americans in harm's
way. For others, frankly, probably not. These litanies of various
justifications -- whether the original draft resolution, the
new White House resolution, or regrettably throughout the President's
speech in Cincinnati -- in my view set the bar for an alternative
to a U.S. invasion so high that, Mr. President, I'm afraid it
almost locks in -- it almost requires -- a potentially extreme
and reckless solution to these problems.
I am especially troubled by these shifting
justifications because I and most Americans strongly support
the President on the use of force in response to the attacks
on September 11, 2001. I voted for Senate Joint Resolution 23,
the use of force resolution, to go after al Qaeda and the Taliban
and those associated with the tragedies of September 11. And
I strongly support military actions pursuant to Senate Joint
Resolution 23.
But the relentless attempt to link 9-11
and the issue of Iraq has been disappointing to me for months,
culminating in the President's singularly unpersuasive attempt
in Cincinnati to interweave 9-11 and Iraq, to make the American
people believe that there are no important differences between
the perpetrators of 9-11 and Iraq.
Mr. President, I believe it is dangerous
for the world, and especially dangerous for us, to take the tragedy
of 9-11 and the word "terrorism" and all their powerful
emotion and then too easily apply them to many other situations
-- situations that surely need our serious attention but are
not necessarily, Mr. President, the same as individuals and organizations
who have shown a willingness to fly planes into the World Trade
Center and into the Pentagon.
Let me say that the President is right
that we've got to view the world, the threats and our own national
security in a very different light since 9-11. There are shocking
new threats. But, Mr. President, it is not helpful to use virtually
any strand or extreme rhetoric to suggest that the new threat
is the same as other preexisting threats. Mr. President, I think
common sense tells us they are not the same and they cannot so
easily be lumped together as the President sought to do in Cincinnati.
Mr. President, I've reviewed the intermittent
efforts to suggest a connection of 9-11 and Saddam Hussein or
suggest the possibility that such a connection has developed
since 9-11. Let me be very clear. If in fact there was a connection
in planning together for the 9-11 attack by Saddam Hussein or
his agents and the perpetrators of 9-11 and al Qaeda, I've already
voted for military action. I have no objection.
But if it is not, if this is premised
on some case that has supposedly been made with regard to a subsequent
coalition between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, I think
the President has got to do better. He's got to do better than
the shoddy piecing together of flimsy evidence that contradicts
the very briefings we've received by various agencies, Mr. President.
I'm not hearing the same things at the
briefings that I'm hearing from the President's top officials.
In fact, on March 11 of this year, Vice President Cheney, following
a meeting with Tony Blair, raised fears of weapons of mass destruction
falling into the hands of terrorists. He said, "We have
to be concerned about the potential" -- potential -- "marriage,
if you will, between a terrorist organization like al Qaeda and
those who hold or are proliferating knowledge about weapons of
mass destruction." So in March, it was a potential marriage.
Then the Vice-President said, on September
8, without evidence -- and no evidence has been given since that
time -- that there are "credible but unconfirmed" intelligence
reports that 9-11 ringleader Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi
intelligence official several months before 9-11. We've seen
no proof of that.
And finally then, the Secretary of Defense
follows on September 27 of this year and says, "There is
bulletproof evidence of Iraqi links to al Qaeda, including the
recent presence of senior al Qaeda members in Baghdad."
I don't know where this comes from, Mr. President. This so-called
potential marriage in March is beginning to sound like a 25th
wedding anniversary at this point.
The facts just aren't there, or at least
they have not been presented to me in the situations where they
should have been presented to me as an elected Member of this
body. In other words, the Administration appears to use 9-11
and the language of terrorism and the connection to Iraq too
loosely, almost like a bootstrap.
For example, I heard the President say
in Cincinnati that Iraq and al Qaeda both regard us as a common
enemy. Of course they do. Well, who else are we going to attack
in the near future on that basis alone?
Or do we see an attempt to stretch the
notion of harboring terrorists? I agree with the President, if
any country is actively harboring or assisting the terrorists
involved in 9-11, we have to act against them. But I don't think
you can bring within the definition of harboring terrorists the
simple presence of some al Qaeda members somewhere in Iraq. After
all, Mr. President, apparently we have al Qaeda agents active
in our country as well. They are present in our nation as well.
How can this be a sufficient basis on its own?
Therefore, Mr. President, without a better
case for al Qaeda's connection to Saddam Hussein, this proposed
invasion must stand on its own merits, not on some notion that
those who question this invasion don't thoroughly condemn and
want to see the destruction of the perpetrators of 9-11 and similar
terrorist attacks on the United States.
An invasion of Iraq must stand on its
own, not just because it is different than the fight against
the perpetrators of 9-11 but because it may not be consistent
with, and may even be harmful to, the top national security issue
of this country. And that is the fight against terrorism and
the perpetrators of the crimes of 9-11.
In fact, I'm so pleased to see one of
the most eloquent spokesmen of this viewpoint here in the Senate
chamber, Senator Graham, who has done a terrific job of trying
to point out our top priorities in this area. He said, "Our
first priority should be the successful completion of the war
on terrorism. Today we Americans are more vulnerable to international
terrorist organizations than we are to Saddam Hussein."
I ask: Is this war against terrorism
going so terribly well when we see the possible explosion of
the French tanker in Yemen? When we see the tremendous difficulties
in trying to pursue stability in Afghanistan itself? And when
we realize that we're not certain at all whether Mr. Osama bin
Laden is alive or dead? Will the invasion of Iraq encourage our
allies and Islamic friends to help us in the fight against terrorism
or just make them extremely nervous?
Mr. President, I had a meeting with a
group of African ambassadors the other day in my role as Chairman
of the Africa Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee,
and they told me that various people were placing bets -- placing
bets on what country would be next after Iraq under this new
doctrine that the President is putting forward.
Will this idea of invading Iraq at this
time, on this case, on these merits, help or hurt cooperation
in our fight against terrorism, against the known murderers of
Americans who are known to be plotting more of the same?
Mr. President, I'm especially dismayed
at the weak response to the potential drain on our military capability
and resources in our fight against terrorism if we go forward
with this invasion at this time. The Administration likes to
quickly say, whenever asked whether we can do this and fight
the war against terrorism, they just simply say, "we can
do both." There's no proof, there's no real assurance of
this. I find these answers glib, at best.
When former Secretary of State Kissinger
was asked in this regard, he said, "It is not clear to me
what measures that are required in the war against terrorism
would be interrupted or weakened by the actions that may be imposed
on us if it is not possible to do away with the stockpiles of
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by other means." That's
the only explanation the former Secretary of State gave us on
this tough question.
But let's look at what the current Secretary
of State, Colin Powell, said in response to a similar question.
He said, "So the campaign against terrorism is going in
full swing. And I don't see why there is a suggestion that somehow,
if we had to undertake this mission, it would be at the expense
of the campaign against terrorism." That is all he said.
Now, that is a pretty weak reassurance, to me, that such an enormous
undertaking will not call into question some of our other military
efforts and priorities.
What about what we are doing in Bosnia?
What about what we are doing in Kosovo? What about all the resources
stretching from the Philippines to portions of the former Soviet
Union to the Middle East to parts of Africa that are being employed
in the fight against terrorism? What about the fact that we are
using our National Guard and Reserves many times within our country
to protect our own citizens and public -- at public events with
regard to the challenge of the fight against terrorism? Mr. President,
all of this and an invasion of Iraq, too? I wonder. As mighty
as we are, I wonder if we aren't very close to being overextended.
An invasion of Iraq in the next few weeks
or months could in fact be very counterproductive. In fact, it
could risk our national security.
In any event, I oppose this resolution
because of the continuing unanswered questions, including the
very important questions about what the mission is here, what
the nature of the operation will be, what will happen concerning
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the attack proceeds and
afterward, and what the plan is after the attack is over. In
effect, Mr. President, we're being asked to vote on something
that is unclear. We don't have answers to these questions. We're
being asked to vote on something that is almost unknowable in
terms of the information we've been given.
In my judgment, the issue that presents
the greatest potential threat to U.S. national security, Iraq's
pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, has not been addressed
in any comprehensive way by the Administration to date. Of course,
I know that we don't need to know all the details, and we don't
have to be given all the details, and we shouldn't be given all
the details. But we've got to be given some kind of a reasonable
explanation. Before we vote on this resolution, we need a credible
plan for securing <W.M.D>. sites and not allowing materials
of concern to slip away during some chaotic course of action.
I know that's a tall order, but, Mr. President, it's a necessary
demand.
As I said, I agree with the Administration
when it asserts that returning to the same restricted weapons
inspection regime of the recent past is not a credible policy
for addressing the <W.M.D>. problem in Iraq. But, Mr. President,
there is nothing credible about the we'll-figure-that-out-later
approach that we've heard to date. What if actors competing for
power in a post-Hussein world have access to <W.M.D>.?
What if there is chaos in the wake of the regime's fall that
provides new opportunities for nonstate actors, including terrorist
organizations, to bid on the sinister items tucked away in Iraq?
Some would say those who do not unquestionly
support the Administration are failing to provide for our national
security. But, Mr. President, I'm sure of this. These issues
are critical to that security, and I have yet to get any answers.
Mr. President, we need an honest assessment
of the commitment required of America. If the right way to address
this threat is through internationally-supported military action
in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime falls, we will need to take
action to ensure stability in Iraq. This could be very costly
and time consuming, could involve the occupation -- the occupation,
Mr. President, of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is not
a small matter. The American occupation of a Middle Eastern country.
Consider the regional implications of that scenario, the unrest
in moderate states that calls for action against American interests,
the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can extricate
ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil. Mr. President, we
need much more information about how we propose to proceed so
that we can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security.
In Afghanistan, the government and President
Hamid Karzai work under constant threat and instability plagues
the country outside of Kabul. Many Afghan people are waiting
for concrete indicators that they have a stake in this new Taliban-free
future. The task is daunting. Mr. President, we've only just
begun that task. What demands might be added in a post-Saddam
Iraq?
I do believe that the American people
are willing to bear high costs to pursue a policy that makes
sense. But right now, after all of the briefings, all of the
hearings, and all of the statements, as far as I can tell, the
Administration apparently intends to wing it when it comes to
the day after or, as others have suggested, the decade after.
And I think, Mr. President, that makes no sense at all.
So, Mr. President, I believe that to
date the Administration has failed to answer the key questions
to justify the invasion of Iraq at this time. Yes, September
11 raises the emotional stakes and raises legitimate new questions.
This makes the President's request understandable, but it doesn't
make it wise.
I am concerned that the President is
pushing us into a mistaken and counterproductive course of action.
Instead of this war being crucial on the war on terrorism, I
fear it could have the opposite effect.
And so this moment -- in which we are
responsible for assessing the threat before us, the appropriate
response, and the potential costs and consequences of military
action -- this moment is of grave importance. Yet there is something
hollow in our efforts. In all of the Administration's public
statements, its presentations to Congress, and its exhortations
for action, Congress is urged to provide this authority and approve
the use of our awesome military power in Iraq without knowing
much at all about what we intend to do with it.
We are about to make one of the weightiest
decisions of our time within a context of confused justifications
and vague proposals. We are urged, Mr. President, to get on board
and bring the American people with us, but we don't know where
the ship is sailing.
On Monday night, the President said in
Cincinnati, "We refuse to live in fear." I agree, but
let us not overreact or get tricked or get trapped out of fear
either.
Mr. President, on the 11th of September,
2001, our country came under attack and the world suddenly seemed
shockingly small and unquestionably dangerous. What followed
that horror continued to be frightening and disorienting -- anthrax
attacks, color-coded threat levels, report after report of terrorist
cells seemingly everywhere. In the weeks and months since September
11, Americans have had to contend with these changes and to come
to grips with the reality that this could happen again, that
there are forces planning to do us harm, and that we cannot unconditionally
guarantee our own safety. In this new world, we cannot help but
sense that the future is uncertain, that our world is disordered,
unpredictable, up for grabs.
So when our leaders propose taking action,
Americans do not want to resist. But they are resisting this
vague and worrisome proposal, Mr. President.
My constituents have voiced their concerns
in calls, at town meetings, in letters and through e-mail or
with faxes. They aren't calling for Congress to bury our heads
in the sand. They are not naively suggesting that Saddam Hussein
is somehow misunderstood. But they are asking questions that
bear directly on our national security, and they are looking
for answers, Mr. President, that make sense. They are setting
the standard, Mr. President, just as they should do in a great
democracy. Their standard is high. We should work together to
develop a policy toward Iraq that meets it.
Russ Feingold
is a senator from Wisconsin.
Today's Features
Jason Leopold
The New
York Times, Salon, Enron and Me
Jennifer Loewenstein
Khan
Yunis:
Before the Juggernaut
Ben Tripp
Let Wag
the Dogs of War or No Peace at Any Price
Will Youmans
Israel's
Plans to "Transfer" Palestinians During Iraq War
Linda S. Heard
Israel's
Image Problem:
Fire Up the Propaganda Mill
Lawrence McGuire
Eight
Ways to Smear Chomsky
Baruch Kimmerling
Why
is the US Scaring Me?
Alexander Cockburn
Dwarf-Throwing
& the UN:
Shape of Things to Come
Tom Walker
The Work
Ethic and Its Discontents
New
Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- How to Change the Subject: Corporate Scandal and Pension
Reform as Weapons Against Warmongering;
- Padilla's Predecessor: Court Ruling Cites 1904 War
Against Mining Union;
- Adios Hitchens: the Dorian Gray of Our Time;
- Object of Suspicion: How the FBI Watched Janis Ian
From Birth;
- First Carter, Then Clinton,
Now Sen. John Edwards:
Another "New South" Slimeball;
- Corporate Crooks: Nature or Nurture?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
October 9,
2002
Hesham Hassaballa
Here
We Go Again:
Rev. Falwell's Slurs
Ann Pettifer
Brainwashing
in America
Anita Ramasatry
Airline Security Run Amok
Josh Frank
Iraq: It's
About Globalization
Rep. Cynthia
McKinney
Iraq:
the Double Standard
Robert Jensen
Bush's
Illogical War Speech
David Vest
Dylan in
Eugene
October 4,
2002
Ahmad Faruqui
The Anvil
of War and the Ailing American Economy
Norman Madarasz
The
Truth and Violence
of a Symbolic Act
William Hughes
Political
Show Trial for
Marwan Barghouti
Ron Jacobs
The Struggle
Against
Another Oil War
Sen. Robert
Byrd
Bush War
Plan:
Blind and Improvident
Michael Schwalbe
The
Costs of American Privilege
Ralph Nader
Holding
Politicians' Feet to the Fire on Corporate Crime
Robert Buzzanco
Pacifica
Caves in to Zionist Smear Campaign
October 3,
2002
Gary Leupp
Talking
to Your Kids About Fascism
Will Youmans
The New
Anti-Apartheid Movement: The Campaign to Divest from Israel
Deb Reich
Report from a Mad World
Todd Chretien & Sue Sandlin
"It's All About Power on the
Docks"
Kurt Nimmo
Poetry
as Treason
Amiri Baraka
Somebody
Blew Up America
Alexander
Cockburn
October Surprises
October 2,
2002
Carol Wolman,
MD
Is the
President Nuts?
Diagnosing Dubya
Jeffrey St.
Clair
Something
Rotten in Klamath
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|