Thursday, January 30, 2003

Mr. President, the news has been focusing, and much of the discussion in this Chamber has been on, the threat that Iraq poses. I have listened to some of my colleagues today on the question of what to do about Iraq. Over and over, there is this clarion call for more time: more time for inspectors to do their work; more time to enlist more allies; more time for Saddam Hussein to comply.

With all due respect, I ask them: How much is enough? We have already been at this for 12 years, 12 years since the end of the Persian Gulf war. Do we need 12 more years? One more year?

I would like to flip the question on my colleagues and ask: How much time do we have? Every minute we wait, Saddam Hussein's efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and to share them continue. Every minute we wait, the surviving al-Qaida terrorists plot their next attack. We fear it may be a weapon of mass destruction, particularly chemical and biological attack.

Sooner or later, either here or somewhere else in the world, we will run out of time. We ran out of time in New York, Pennsylvania, and the Pentagon on September 11. Brave sailors on the USS Cole ran out of time. Our two embassies in Africa ran out of time in 1998. Over 200 innocent victims, mostly Australians, ran out of time in a Bali, Indonesia, nightclub.

How many more attacks must we absorb before we realize that time is not on our side? Where will the next attack be? Will it be against a soft target? Certainly the soft targets are the ones the terrorists say they want to attack. Will it be St. Louis, Kansas City, San Francisco, New York, or someplace in New Hampshire or someplace in South Carolina?

What will it be the next time? More airplanes flown into buildings? Probably not. Truck bombs against sports stadiums? Suicide bombers in crowds? More likely a toxin released in a subway or a skyscraper or at a large public event.

Right now there are people who are sworn enemies of this Nation plotting the next attack. We know their intentions and, unfortunately, we know their capabilities. What we do not know is their next method of attack, although they have a track record of intentional unpredictability.

Will they get their next weapon from Iraq? After 12 years of cat and mouse or rope-a-dope--whatever one wants to call it--we want to call Saddam Hussein's strategy of delay and deception unacceptable.

We cannot wait much longer. We already know too well the true nature of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. He has failed to live up to his obligations under the 1991 cease-fire after the gulf war. Still, some friends on the other side of the aisle plead for more time. I cannot understand why anyone would plead for more time for Saddam Hussein, a man who has been in clear breach of U.N. obligations since 1992.

Specifically, Iraq has been in material breach of U.N. Resolution 687 which was passed in the spring of 1991. That resolution called upon Iraq to ``unconditionally accept'' the destruction, removal or rendering harmless ``under international supervision'' of all ``chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components of all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities.''

Some may be unable to understand that Iraq has been in material breach of the U.N. obligation since 1991. Sadly, this is nothing new. This latest round under U.N. Resolution 1441 was Saddam's last chance to get back into compliance.

Dr. Hans Blix reported to the U.N. Security Council on Monday that in large part, Saddam Hussein has failed to get back into compliance. Even the Washington Post editorialized that it is an ``indisputable truth'' that ``Iraq is in material breach'' of 1441. If Iraq is not complying, then it must be lying.

Iraq has not only failed to disarm, it has worked to obstruct and evade international supervision. There are reports Saddam Hussein has tried to infiltrate the U.N. teams; that Iraq has threatened its scientists with death if they cooperate with U.N. inspectors; that Iraqi security agents have posed as scientists to thwart the inspectors' work. Clearly, Iraq is in violation of 1441 for having failed to comprehensively account for missing weapons of mass destruction.

Secretary Colin Powell had it right when he said it makes no sense for the inspectors to stumble around in the dark looking for evidence of noncompliance. It is instead Saddam Hussein's legal obligation to turn the lights on and turn over the goods.

In addition, Saddam Hussein continues to violate U.N. resolutions by firing at coalition aircraft. He refused U.N. inspectors' request for aerial surveillance, and yet some still plead for more time.

We have drawn so many lines in the sand that we are running out of desert, we are running out of sand in which to draw lines.

The American people will not forgive us if another attack comes when we dither with procedures and process in the corridors of the United Nations. What do we say to the victims then? What words of comfort could we possibly give to widows or children who have lost their parents? Can we say: I am sorry, but we had to enlist the support of the French before we could act? What solace would that provide a family mourning a loved one lost forever?

What about our military troops ordered into harm's way? Every moment of delay allows Saddam Hussein to ready himself for battle, and the more ready he is will quickly translate into higher casualties among U.S. and allied forces.

Time, regrettably, is not on our side. We know what we have to know to act. Indeed, I believe we would be failing our sworn obligation to defend this Nation if we fail to act in light of all we know about the threats we face in Iraq.

For all of my colleagues who are still asking for more time, I plead with them to read the key findings about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction efforts taken directly from the CIA's unclassified Web site. It was reported there last fall.

We know from U.S. and British intelligence reports that have been made public that since 1991, Iraq has repeatedly been caught red-handed lying about the extent of its missile and weapons of mass destruction programs.

With the defection of Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein al-Kamel, in 1991, as head of the Iraq WMD program, he revealed the extent of the continued illegal operations in the face of sanctions and prohibitions. Baghdad illegally retained proscribed al-Hussein missiles and launchers. It constructed a new test engine for the development of missiles capable of threatening much of the region. And it pursued illegal programs to procure materials for illegal development of longer-range missiles. We know that if Iraq acquires sufficient weapons grade material, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year and, as the President said last night, from the British Government we know that Baghdad has sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa, despite having no active civil program that could require it.

Iraq has recalled specialists to work on its nuclear programs. All key aspects of Iraq's biological warfare program are still active, and most elements are larger and more advanced than before the gulf war. Iraq has begun renewed production of chemical warfare. Iraq has mobile laboratories for military use, corroborating reports about the mobile production of biological weapons. Dr. Blix has corroborated much of U.S. and British intelligence citing unresolved disarmament issues and complaining Iraq's cooperation is not active and should not be a game of catch-as-catch-can.

Mr. President, clearly, Iraq is in material breach of its international obligations, and that should serve as a sufficient trigger for forced disarmament by the international community led by the U.S. and its willing allies at the appropriate time.

After 12 years of consistent evasion, I cannot foresee any circumstance in which the Iraqi regime would now change its stripes. Deception is a reflex of Saddam Hussein's government, and it will persist until the regime is gone.

Iraq has had 12 years worth of opportunity to avoid war. And at every turn, it has chosen a course of action that is delivering us again toward hostilities.

I believe that at this point, the only way truly to disarm Iraq is by force.

If France does not want to go along, obviously, that is no excuse for inaction. Multilateralism should not stall us. We took oaths as Members of this body to defend this Nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic, not on the condition that the United Nations and France agree.

President Bush is well within his duty and obligation to defend this Nation by the use of force against Iraq at any time now. The Risks before this Nation and the world demand that he be ready and willing to use military force, with or without universal international support.

This is a moment of truth for our longtime allies of France and Germany. By their action or inaction, will they strengthen or weaken the international laws that protect all our nations and citizens?

Obviously, it is better to have international support than to not have it. But as Colin Powell said, multilaterialism should never be an excuse for inaction.

When I took the oath as a U.S. Senator, I did not swear to defend this Nation against all enemies foreign and domestic--only if the United Nations voted its approval.

I note the remarks of the senior Senator from Delaware yesterday who lamented that never in his career had he heard such disapproval from so many of our allies.

I too am saddened by this situation. I genuinely wish it were not so.

But I disagree with my colleague in assuming that the root cause of our disagreement lies in a faulty U.S. position.

Why is it that so many of my colleagues prefer the judgment of our European allies to that of our own best experts and analysts?

I think there is very little in the historical track record of many of our old European allies that inspires confidence in their ability to identify and deal with threats.

In particular, I find little in France's history to envy with regard to identifying and standing up to threats.

Frankly, I would be worried about our course of action if the French were on board in full. They have a great interest in oil. Thirty percent of the oil out of Iraq goes to a French oil company. That is not grounds to trust them.

It reminds me of when one of my hometown newspapers, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, editorialized in favor of something I had done. I immediately told my staff that I must have taken an incorrect position on the issue.

I have often found during my career that the right thing is often in direct opposition to the professional stone-throwers and nay-sayers.

But in all seriousness, in contrast to many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I believe the root cause of the disagreement between some of our old European allies and the United States lies within more within the realm of political and naked economic interests than with matters of national security.

The irony of the current situation is that American unilateralism may be the last best hope of old Europe, the Middle East and the United Nations--as it has been so many times over the last few decades.

Our President is on the right course. It is not the easy path. But it is the right one. And he deserves the support of this body and the American people.