THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
RESOLUTIONS TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST IRAQ -- HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR. (Extensions of Remarks - September 26, 2002)
[Page: E1664] GPO's PDF
---
HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR.OF MICHIGAN
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, September 25, 2002
- Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress face few decisions as important for their constituents as the issue of war or peace
- I oppose the resolution requested by President Bush that would give him a blank check to start a war against Iraq at any time and in any manner that he chooses. This clearly is too broad. It authorizes the President to act unilaterally no matter what the U.N. decides or does. That would abdicate congressional responsibility and is reminiscent of the equally open-ended Tonkin Gulf Resolution in 1964. It also fails to limit his authority to working within the U.N. framework on peaceful measures
to enforce U.N. sanctions. Finally, the President's proposal embodies his alarming new doctrine of pre-emptive U.S. attacks on other nations even when they pose no imminent threat to the U.S.
- Instead, I join with many of my colleagues who support a more sensible, more justified and far less dangerous position: we advocate that the U.S. pursue inspections through the U.N., while continuing to deter Saddam Hussein, as we have been able to do for the past decade. To implement this view, we have introduced an alternative resolution endorsing President Bush's request for U.N. inspections.
- The Administration simply has not made the case that Iraq threatens the United States with weapons of mass destruction, and that we are in such imminent danger of attack that U.S. military action is either the prudent or the justified course. Everyone agrees that Saddam Hussein is a very brutal dictator. He has: ruthlessly repressed his own people; committed aggression in the past; violated U.N. sanctions; sought to develop weapons of mass destruction; and remained hostile to the United States.
- But that does not end the matter, for two reasons. First, the same could be said for any number of other countries, such a North Korea, China, and Iran. Will the U.S. attack each of them, and others, because some day they might be able to threaten us with weapons of mass destruction?
- A U.S. attack poses other severe dangers:
- American military commanders fear it would dilute our fight against al Qaida. We have not yet captured those who killed thousands of Americans, and who, we know, are still trying to kill more. That is job number one.
- America's attacking Iraq alone would ignite a firestorm of anti-American fervor in the Middle East and Muslim world and breed thousands of new potential terrorists.
- As we see in Afghanistan, there would be chaos and inter-ethnic conflict following Saddam's departure. A post-war agreement among them to cooperate peacefully in a new political structure would not be self-executing. Iraq would hardly become overnight a shining
- If we violate the U.N. Charter and unilaterally assault another country when it is not yet a matter of necessary self-defense, then we will set a dangerous precedent, paving the way for any other nation that chooses to do so, too, including those with nuclear weapons such as India and Pakistan and China.
- We will trigger an arms-race of nations accelerating and expanding their efforts to develop weapons of destruction, so that they can deter
- The war, plus the need to rebuild Iraq and create a united, peaceful country, would cost billions of dollars badly needed at home. For millions of Americans, the biggest threat to their security in the lack of decent wage jobs, health insurance or affordable housing for their families. For senior citizens, it is their need to choose between buying enough food and buying prescription drugs. Indeed, most Americans are more frightened about security at our airports than about some strutting dictator
thousands of miles away. Yet the Bush Administration's deficit budget won't even permit meeting the year-end deadline for installing new baggage and passenger screening systems to protect us against an immediate threat here at home.
- The huge costs of war and nation building, which will increase our deficit, along with the impact of the likely sharp rise in oil prices, will deal a double-barreled blow to our currently fragile economy.
- If it were plausible that we had to attack Iraq now, in order to head off strategic threats to the United States in the near future
- In fact, it is precisely because they lack such evidence that the President, Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President CHENEY have increasingly downplayed claims of an impending nuclear threat from Iraq and have switched to elaborating on what a bad person Saddam has been.
- But such a departure from the principles of our tradition
- In addition, Americans should ask the White House and the Congress about the timing of the vote on any IRAQ resolution. What's the rush? According to press reports, our military leaders have made clear they will not be ready to launch an attack for months, and would prefer to do so in January or February. Why, then, do we need to decide such a complex and consequential issue in a few days? Why cut short the national debate to which the American people are entitled? Is it because the Administration
is aware that a growing number of Americans are troubled by all of the unanswered questions? Americans are puzzled why Iraq has suddenly become such a threat that the White House is prepared to go to war and shed the blood of American men and women, not to mention great numbers of innocent Iraqi civilians.
- They are right to ask. What has changed in the last six months or year that suddenly makes an attack on Iraq the leading item on
[Page: E1665] GPO's PDF
the Administration's agenda? All of the reasons now being cited by the White House
- I would hope that this headlong rush to judgment does not have anything to do with the November elections.
- I expect the Bush Administration to present very soon some conveniently last-minute
- Is this because the White House knew it would be unhappy with the result?
- Is it because the Administration was unable to pressure all of the intelligence agencies to reach the
- Is it because the White House has been pressing the Intelligence Community to find some new
- Mr. Speaker, It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that one or more of these considerations played a role in the otherwise inexplicable delay. Therefore, I have asked the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Intelligence to vigorously investigate what dissents any of the intelligence agencies may have registered from the NIE's overall conclusions, from its component findings and from its assumption
- This summer, several major newspapers reported that senior officers at the Pentagon, including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not believe that Iraq posed a sufficient threat to the U.S. to warrant the risks and the costs of a war. Now they apparently have been brought on board a White House war train that is about to leave the station. Why have they suddenly reversed their position? I trust their initial professional judgment.