Blogs
Bookstore
Commentators
Documents
Links
Mega Links!
News
Newspapers
Political
States
Topical
Useful Info  
Web Cams & Scanners
My Daily Reading

National Strategy for
   Victory in Iraq 

  Democrats' Plan:
  Retreat & Defeat

Who said what...
About WMDs
About Plamegate

ABC News
BBC News
Boston Globe
CBS News
Chicago Tribune
CNN.com
Los Angeles Times
MSNBC
New York Times
NPR
PBS
Washington Post

News Aggregates 
Alta Vista News
Breitbart.com
   (AP) (Reuters)
Google News
Myway.com
Netscape News
Newseum.org
Yahoo! News

Wire Services
Associated Press
: : : Business
: : : MyWay Feed
: : : National
: : : Politics
: : : Raw News
: : : United States
: : : World 
Reuters
UPI

Video Blogging
The Political Teen

2004 Election
George Bush
Dem Debates
John Kerry
Kerry Chronology

ARCHIVES
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
June 2005
Old Site
  

[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation.  * * *

In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value.

Iraq has the expertise to quickly resume a small-scale BW program at known facilities that currently produce legitimate items such as vaccines and other pharmaceuticals. Without effective U.N. monitoring, Baghdad could probably begin production within a few days. For example, Iraq can convert production of biopesticides to anthrax simply by changing seed material.  * * *

Baghdad retains the expertise to quickly resume CW production. In the absence of UNSCOM inspectors, Iraq could restart limited mustard agent production with a few weeks, full-scale production of sarin within a few months, and pre-Gulf war production levels -- including-VX -- within two or three years.  * * *

Baghdad's interest in acquiring or developing nuclear weapons has not diminished.  Iraq retains a large cadre of nuclear engineers, scientists, and technicians who are the foundation of its nuclear program. We have concerns that scientists may be pursuing theoretical nuclear research that would reduce the time required to produce a weapon should Iraq acquire sufficient fissile material.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information, and ideas. And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.  * * *

Remember, as a condition of the cease-fire after the Gulf War, the United Nations demanded -- not the United States, the United Nations demanded -- and Saddam Hussein agreed to declare within 15 days -- this is way back in 1991 -- within 15 days his nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them; to make a total declaration. That's what he promised to do.  * * *

Now, instead of playing by the very rules he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has spent the better part of the past decade trying to cheat on this solemn commitment. Consider just some of the facts. Iraq repeatedly made false declarations about the weapons that it had left in its possession after the Gulf War. When UNSCOM would then uncover evidence that gave lie to those declarations, Iraq would simply amend the reports. For example, Iraq revised its nuclear declarations four times within just 14 months, and it has submitted six different biological warfare declarations, each of which has been rejected by UNSCOM.

In 1995, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the chief organizer of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, defected to Jordan. He revealed that Iraq was continuing to conceal weapons and missiles and the capacity to build many more. Then, and only then, did Iraq admit to developing numbers of weapons in significant quantities, and weapon stocks. Previously it had vehemently denied the very thing it just simply admitted once Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.

Now, listen to this. What did it admit? It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say, UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production. As if we needed further confirmation, you all know what happened to its son-in-law when he made the untimely decision to go back to Iraq.

Next, throughout this entire process, Iraqi agents have undermined and undercut UNSCOM. They've harassed the inspectors, lied to them, disabled monitoring cameras, literally spirited evidence out of the back doors of suspect facilities as inspectors walked through the front door -- and our people were there observing it and have the pictures to prove it.  * * *

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation, since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feedstocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

[I]t's not simply a matter if these inspectors going out and basically trying to find chemically tipped, or biologically tipped, needles in a haystack which is the size of Wyoming.  That's not the test and measure of success.  * * *

[The Iraqis] must show that they, in fact, destroyed 130 tons of chemical precursors.  They must show, in fact, that they've destroyed some 15,600 chemical munitions.  They have failed to do so, and until such times as they do, we cannot say that there has been compliance [with the 1991 surrender].

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

Notes: Passed the House 360-38 (with 36 not voting).  Passed the Senate by unanimous consent.  Singed by Pres. Clinton on 10/31/98.  See the vote here.

[Baghdad] continues to withhold information about (nuclear) enrichment techniques, testing data, foreign procurement, and weapons design. . . . Iraq could be conducting covert nuclear research and develeopment that would be difficult to detect.  * * *

It is certain that if sanctions are lifted, Iraq will proceed expeditiously with its nuclear, chemical and biological programs as well as the corresponding delivery systems.

The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly, those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of U.S. troops participating in the current action.

I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is, unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program. While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a lasting solution through diplomatic means.

If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons?  He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons.

The international community had little doubt [in 1991], and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

CIA Director George Tenet described Iraq as a threat but not as a proliferator, saying that Saddam Hussein — and I quote — "is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War."  That is unacceptable, . . .

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

Your father chose not to carry our fight into the cities of Iraq in 1991, and we have to live with his decision. He gave the Iraqi leadership a chance to reenter the community of peaceful nations. Saddam Hussein has squandered that opportunity.  We stopped the fighting based on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction.  It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict.  President Bush, if you believe the time has come to use force, this resolution authorizes you to do so.  I trust you will use this force wisely.

Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East. He could make these weapons available to many terrorist groups, third parties, which have contact with his government. Those groups, in turn, could bring those weapons into the United States and unleash a devastating attack against our citizens. I fear that greatly.  We cannot know for certain that Saddam will use the weapons of mass destruction that he currently possesses or that he will use them against us. But as we do know, Saddam has the capability to do that. We know that very well. Rebuilding that capability has been a higher priority for Saddam than the welfare of his own people, and he has ill will toward Americans.  I am forced to conclude on all the evidence that Saddam poses a significant risk. Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States and believe he would not do so. But if Saddam thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might not think it is so irrational. If he thought, as he got older and looked around an impoverished and isolated Iraq , his principal legacy to the Arab world to be a brutal attack on the United States, he might not think it is so irrational. If he thought the U.S. would be too paralyzed with fear to respond, he might not think it was too irrational.  * * *

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. The fact that an attack on our homeland has not occurred since September 11 cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future or on any day. We no longer have that luxury.  September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat, the overwhelming threat and reality of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world or in our own country.

There has been some debate over how ``imminent'' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated.  It is in the nature of these weapons that he has and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can.

The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but has failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks--and we should not minimize the risks--we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat. So I will vote for the Lieberman-McCain resolution.

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 Saddam’s 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 Bush’s 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.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security.  * * *

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections, with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.  I know the administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. If we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 United Nations resolutions, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.  * * *

Over 11 years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community.  Time and time again, he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot.  * * *

I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our Nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers, who have gone through the fires of hell, may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know I am.

In my view, and as has been stated by the President and Secretary of State, the threat to the United States is Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. The relevant U.N. resolutions are those related to Iraq's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. And the fact that we use the conjunctive clause, the word ``and,'' and not the word ``or,'' means that the authorization we are granting to the President is tied to defending the national security of the United States in the context of enforcing the relevant U.N. resolutions relating to weapons of mass destruction.  * * * 

Regime change is the ultimate goal of American policy, as embodied in the sense-of-the-Congress provision of the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. Indeed, an effective effort to disarm Iraq could well result in regime change. After all, such an effort would force Saddam to make a hard choice--either give up his weapons or give up power--and he has made the wrong choices many times before.  * * *

For two decades, Saddam Hussein has relentlessly pursued weapons of mass destruction. There is a broad agreement that he retains chemical and biological weapons, the means to manufacture those weapons and modified Scud missiles, and that he is actively seeking a nuclear capability. It remains less clear how effective his delivery vehicles are, whether they be the al-Hussein missiles, with a 650 kilometer range, short-range missiles, or untested and unmanned aerial vehicles for the dispersion of chemical and biological weapons.  Shifting weather conditions, the likely incineration of much of the chemical or biological agent in a warhead explosion, and the potential blowback on Iraqi forces, all complicate the Iraqi use of these weapons. But we are right to be concerned that, given time and a free hand, Saddam would improve this technology.

Other countries have, or seek, weapons of mass destruction. Saddam actually used them against his neighbors, against his own people. He has a lengthy track record of aggression--first, in Iran, then Kuwait. He has brutally repressed Iraqi civilians--the Kurds in the North, then the Shias in the south, and then the Kurds again. And the combination of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction is dangerous, destabilizing, and deadly.  Ultimately, either those weapons must be dislodged from Iraq , or Saddam must be dislodged from power. But exactly what threat does the combination of Saddam and weapons of mass destruction pose to the United States? How urgent is the problem? Some argue the danger is threefold: one, Iraq could use these weapons against us; two, it could use them to blackmail us; three, it could become a surreptitious supplier to terrorist groups.

The struggle for these answers come in a brand new context. Our's is a brave new post 9/11 world, a time and place where things are different and more dangerous than before, much as we wish they weren't.  Those who would use terror--or those who would aid and abet that terror--pose a new danger to every one of us living in the United States, whether in midtown Manhattan or the wheat fields of Kansas.  * * *

When I consider that Hussein could either use or give to terrorists weapons of mass destruction--biological, chemical or nuclear--and that he might just be made enough to do it--I find, after careful research, the answer to my question: we cannot afford to leave him alone over the next 5 or even 3 years.  I say this with caution and worry. But I have searched my mind and my soul and cannot escape this conclusion: Saddam Hussein left unfettered will at some point create such a danger to our lives that we cannot afford to leave him be.  * * *

Unfortunately, time and again, Hussein has shown that the only language he understands is the language of power. By empowering the President to use force, we will send a message to both Hussein and the nations of the world that the threat of force is real and that we are serious about disarming him.  Without this possibility, Hussein will never allow inspections, and the probability of more terror and horror will increase. A determined U.N., backed by the possibility of force, may finally convince Saddam Hussein to submit to the real inspections he has evaded for the last 11 years. * * *

Saddam Hussein, his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the will he has shown to use them, makes the non-at-all option unacceptable.  So I will vote for this resolution. More than anything else we can do, this resolution will show Hussein and nay naysayers in the United Nations that we are serious about this war on terrorism. We understand the challenges of this brave new world and we are prepared to meet them.

Saddam Hussein has stockpiled, weaponized and used chemical and biological weapons, and he has made no secret of his desire to acquire nuclear weapons. He has ignored international agreements and frustrated the efforts of international inspectors, and his ambitions today are as unrelenting as they have ever been. 

As a condition of the truce that ended the gulf war, Saddam Hussein agreed to eliminate Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and to abandon all efforts to develop or deliver such weapons. That agreement is spelled out in U.N. Security Council Resolution 687. Iraq has never complied with the resolution.  For the first 7 years after the gulf war, it tried to deceive U.N. weapons inspectors, block their access to key sites, and make it impossible for them to do their jobs.  Finally, in October of 1998, the U.N. was left with no choice but to withdraw its inspectors from Iraq . As a result, we do not know exactly what is now in Iraq's arsenal. We do know Iraq has weaponized thousands of gallons of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. We know Iraq maintains stockpiles of some of the world's deadliest chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, and mustard gas. We know Iraq is developing deadlier ways to deliver these horrible weapons, including unmanned drones and long-range ballistic missiles. And we know Saddam Hussein is committed to one day possessing nuclear weapons.

If that should happen, instead of simply bullying the gulf region, he could dominate it. Instead of threatening only his neighbors, he could become a grave threat to U.S. security and to global security.  The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent, but it is real, it is growing, and it cannot be ignored.  * * *

Because this resolution is improved, because I believe Saddam Hussein represents a real threat, and because I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice at this critical moment, I will vote to give the President the authority he needs, but I respect those who reach different conclusions.

TALK 
Glenn Beck
Bill Bennett
Monica Crowley
Jerry Doyle
Mike Gallagher
Michael Graham
Sean Hannity
Paul Harvey
Hugh Hewitt
Laura Ingraham
Rollye James
G. Gordon Liddy
Rush Limbaugh
Michael Medved
Bill O'Reilly
Dennis Prager
Michael Reagan
Michael Savage
Laura Schlessinger
     ( more . . . )

NEWS
CNS News
Drudge Report
FOX News
FrontPage Magazine
NewsMax.com
Opinion Journal
Washington Times
World Net Daily

BIAS / WATCH
Accuracy in Media
BBC Watch
Biased BBC
Boycott CBS
C.M.P.A.
Chron Watch
CAMERA
Eye on the Post
F.A.I.R.
Honest Reporting
Media Research Center
NewsBusters.org
NewsMax: Media Bias
Oh, That Liberal Media
Rather Biased
Tampa Bay Primer
Texas Media Watch
Times Watch
>>Articles Archive

COMMENTARY
Mona Charen
Ann Coulter
Victor Davis Hanson
Michelle Malkin
Walter E. Williams

BLOGS
Backspin
BareNucklePolitics
Boing Boing
Captain's Quarters
DiscoverTheNetworks
Eschaton
Free Republic
Hugh Hewitt
Instapundit
David Limbaugh
Little Green Footballs
Lucianne.com
Mudville Gazette
NRO Media Blog
Outside the Beltway
Political Wire
Power Line
Radio Blogger
RedState.org
Stop the ACLU
Talking Points Memo
James Taranto
Unpartisan.com
Volokh Conspiracy

SELECTED
RESOURCES
Congressional Record
Cong Comm Reports
Global Legal Info Net
Government Resources
Roll Call Votes
U.S. Bills / Resolutions
U.S. Code
U.S. House
U.S. Nominations
U.S. Senate
U.S. Treaties
                     

seanrobins.com is copyright © 1999-2005 by sean robins, all rights reserved
You are visitor no.    Comments