RequiredReadingPreemption

Required Reading

for 2004 Essay Contest

An excerpt from British Prime Minister Tony Blair's speech in Brighton, England on October 2, 2001

"Democrats For Preemption: An Old Doctrine" By Gleaves Whitney

Excerpt from November 8, 2003 issue of the Economist

An Excerpt From British Prime Minister Tony Blair's speech
in Brighton, England on October 2, 2001

And here in this country and in other nations around the world, laws will be changed, not to deny basic liberties, but to prevent their abuse and protect the most basic liberty of all, freedom from terror.

New extradition laws will be introduced. New rules to ensure asylum is not a front for terrorist entry; this country is proud of its tradition in giving asylum to those fleeing tyranny--we will always do so--but we have duty to protect the system from abuse. It must be overhauled radically, so that from now on those who abide by the rules, get help, and those that don't, can no longer play the system to gain unfair advantage over others.

Around the world, the 11th of September is bringing government and people to reflect, consider and change. And in this process, amidst all the talk of war and action, there is another dimension appearing, there is a coming together; the power of community is asserting itself. We are realizing how fragile are our frontiers in the face of the world's new challenges.

Today, conflicts rarely stay within national boundaries. Today, a tremor in one financial market is repeated in the markets of the world. Today, confidence is global, it's presence or its absence. Today, the threat is chaos, because for people with work to do and family life to balance and mortgages to pay and careers to further pensions to provide, the yearning is for order and stability. And if it doesn't exist elsewhere, it's unlikely to exist here.

I have long believed that this interdependence defines the new world we live in.

You know, people say, ``Well, we're only acting because it's the USA that was attacked.'' ``Double standards,'' they say. But when Milosevic embarked on the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Kosovo, we acted. And the skeptics said it was pointless, that we made matters worse, we made Milosevic stronger and look what happened. We won. The refugees went home. The policies of ethnic cleansing were reversed. And one of the great dictators of the last century will finally see justice in this century.

And I tell you that if Rwanda happened again today as it did in 1993 when a million people were slaughtered in cold blood, we would have a moral duty to act there also.

We were there in Sierra Leone when a murderous group of gangsters threatened its democratically elected government and people, and we, as a country, should--and I, as a prime minister, do--give thanks for the brilliance, dedication and shear professionalism of the British Armed Forces.

We can't do it all, neither can the Americans. But, you know, the power of the international community could, together, if it choose to. It could, with our help, sort out the blight that is the continuing conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo where 3 million people have died through war or famine in the last decade. A partnership for Africa between the developed and the developing world based around a new African initiative, it's there to be done if we find the will.

On our side: provide more aid untied to trade, write off debt, help with good governance and infrastructure, training to the soldiers with U.N. blessing and conflict resolution, encouraging investment and access to our markets so that we practice the free trade we're so fond of preaching.

But it is a partnership. On the African side: true democracy, no more excuses for dictatorship, abuses of human rights, no tolerance of bad governments from the endemic corruption of some states, to the activities of Mr. Mugabe's henchmen in Zimbabwe...

... proper commercial, legal and financial systems, the will, with our help, to broker agreements for peace and provide troops to police them. The state of Africa is a scar on the conscience of the world. But if the world, as a community, focused on it, we could heal it. And if we don't, that scar will become deeper and angrier still.

We could defeat climate change, if we chose to. Kyoto is right. We will implement it and call upon all other nations to do so.

But it's only a start. With imagination, we could use or find the technologies that create energy without destroying our planet, we could provide work and trade without deforestation. If human kind was able, finally, to make industrial progress without the factory conditions of the 19th century, surely, we have the wit and will to develop economically without despoiling the very environment we depend upon.

And if we wanted to, we could breath new life into the Middle East peace process, and we must.

The state of Israel must be given recognition by all; fear from terror, know that it is accepted as a part of the future of the Middle East not its very existence under threat.
And the Palestinians must have justice, the chance to prosper and in their own land as equal partners with Israel...

We know that it is the only way. Just as we know that, in our own peace process in Northern Ireland, there will be no unification of Ireland except by consent. And there will be no return to the days of Unionist or Protestant Supremacy because those days have no place in the modern world.

So the Unionists must accept justice and equality, the Nationalists. The Republicans must show that they have given up violence, not just a cease-fire, but weapons put beyond use. And not only the Republicans, but those people who call themselves Loyalists, who do by acts of terrorism sully the very name of the United Kingdom.

We know this also: The values we believe in should shine through what we do in Afghanistan. To the Afghan people, we make this commitment: The conflict will not be the end. We will not walk away as the outside world has done so many times before that. If the Taliban regime changes, we will work with you to make sure its successor is one that is broad based, that unites all ethnic groups and that offers some way out of the miserable poverty that is your present existence.

And more than ever before, with every bit as much thought and planning, we will assemble a humanitarian coalition alongside the military coalition so that, inside and outside Afghanistan, the refugees--4.5 million in the move even before September 11--are given shelter, food and help during the winter months.

The world community must show as much its capacity for compassion as for force.

The critics will say, ``But how can the world be a community, nations act in their own self-interest.'' Of course, they do, but what is the lesson of the financial markets, climate change, international terrorism, nuclear proliferation or world trade? It is that our self-interest and our mutual interest are today inextricably woven together.

This is the politics of globalization. And I realize why people protest against globalization. We watch aspects of it with trepidation, we feel powerless as if we were pushed to and fro by forces far beyond our control. But there is a risk. The political leaders, faced with street demonstrations, pander to the argument rather than answer it. The demonstrators are right to say, ``There is injustice, poverty, environmental degradation.''

But globalization is a fact, and, by and large, it is driven by people not just in finance, but in communication, in technology, increasingly in culture and recreation, in the world of the Internet, information technology, television. There's going to be globalization. And in trade, frankly, the problem is not there's too much of it. On the contrary, there's too little of it.

The issue is not how to stop globalization; the issue is how we use the power of community to combine globalization with justice. If globalization works only for the benefit of the few, then it will fail and it will deserve to fail.

But if we follow the principles that have served us here so well at home--that power, wealth and opportunity must be in the hands of the many, not the few--if we make that our guiding light for the global economy, then it will be a force for good and an international movement we should take pride in leading.

"Democrats For Preemption: An Old Doctrine" By Gleaves Whitney

hen it comes to Iraq, most Democrats straddle a line. They concede that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, and that he would show no compunction about using them under certain circumstances, but they do not support a preemptive strike to eliminate him or the weapons. Jesse Jackson, addressing an enthusiastic crowd near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, intoned: "If we launch a preemptive strike on Iraq, we lose all moral authority."

Among the early presidential candidates who intend to challenge Bush, Democrats Howard Dean and Al Sharpton are vociferously opposed to a preemptive strike. They are representative of a position that argues not just that a preemptive war is unjust, but that it runs counter to the American tradition.

Counter to the American tradition?

It might surprise Democrats to learn that there was a time when leaders — nay, giants — in their own party defended America's right to strike preemptively. Either today's Democrats are willfully ignorant of that tradition, or ashamed of it. Either way, in the Senate floor debate over whether to authorize President Bush to use force against the Butcher of Baghdad, Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke more truthfully than she realized: "My vote" she said, in support of authorizing the use of force, "is not … a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption."

True enough, senator. For there is an old doctrine of preemption developed and articulated within your own party.

During the Cuban missile crisis, John F. Kennedy told the American people, "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security…" [emphasis added].

Kennedy then got in a dig at Hitler's appeasers. "The 1930's taught us a clear lesson: aggressive conduct, if allowed to go unchecked and unchallenged, ultimately leads to war…. Our policy has been one of patience and restraint," the president said. "But now further action is required — and it is under way; and these actions may only be the beginning…. But the greatest danger of all would be to do nothing."

JFK was hardly the first Democratic president to make the case for preemption. In a fireside chat three months prior to Pearl Harbor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt warned the Nazis that the U.S. would not look passively on their menacing arms buildup and aggression on the high seas. "Do not let us split hairs. Let us not say: 'We will only defend ourselves if the torpedo succeeds in getting home, or if the crew and the passengers are drowned.' This is the time for prevention of attack" [emphasis added].

And then FDR uttered these famous words: "When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him." A vivid metaphor for preemption, that. (Roosevelt, by the way, delivered this 1941 fireside chat on a date that would take on significance to a later generation — September 11.)

Perhaps the most recent Democratic President, Bill Clinton, was aware of his predecessors' eloquent defense of preemption when in 1998 he launched Operation Desert Fox, an intense 70-hour bombing campaign against Saddam Hussein. At the end of the campaign, the president told Americans, "we will maintain a strong military presence in the area, and we will remain ready to use it if Saddam tries to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction."

Clinton left no room for doubt. If the U.N. could not undertake weapons inspections on a regular basis, the U.S. would "remain vigilant and prepared to use force if we see that Iraq is rebuilding its weapons programs" [emphasis added].

FDR, JFK, Bill Clinton. Three presidents. Three generations of leadership. Three public defenses of preemption. Democrats, it turns out, have eloquently made the case for President Bush.

— Gleaves Whitney is the author of a forthcoming book on the wartime speeches of American presidents and editor of American Presidents: Farewell Messages to the Nation, 1796-20

Congressional Record

Federalist Paper No. 63 specifically notes the responsibilities of the Senate in foreign affairs as follows:

An attention to the judgment of other nations is important to every government for two reasons: The one is that independently of the merits of any particular plan or measure, it is desirable, on various accounts, that it should appear to other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy; the second is that, in doubtful cases, particularly where the national councils may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world may be the best guide that can always be followed.

Senate September 26, 2002

Senator Feingold
In the context of this debate on Iraq, we are being asked to embrace a sweeping new national doctrine. I am troubled by the administration's emphasis on preemption and by its suggestion that, in effect, deterrence and containment are obsolete. What the administration is talking about in Iraq really sounds much more like prevention, and I wonder if they are not using these terms, "preemption" and ``prevention'' interchangeably. Preemption is knowing that an enemy plans an attack and not waiting to defend oneself.

Prevention is believing that another may possibly someday attack, or may desire to attack, and justifying the immediate use of force on those grounds. It is the difference between having information to suggest that an attack is imminent and believing that a given government is antagonistic toward the United States and continues to build up its military capacity.

It is the difference between having intelligence indicating that a country is in negotiations with an unquestionably hostile and violent enemy like al-Qaida to provide them with weapons of mass destruction and worrying, on the other hand, that someday that country might engage in such negotiations.

Of course, prevention does have an important role in our national security planning. It certainly should. We should use a range of tools in a focused way to tackle prevention--diplomatic, sometimes multilateral, economic. That is one of the core elements of any foreign policy, and I stand ready to work with my President and my colleagues to bolster those preventive measures and to work on the long-term aspects of prevention, including meaningful and sustained engagement in places that have been far too neglected.

Unilaterally using our military might to pursue a policy of prevention around the world is not likely to be seen as self-defense abroad, and I am not at all certain that casting ourselves in this role will make the United States any safer. Would a world in which the most powerful countries use military force in this fashion be a safer world? Would it be the kind of world in which our national values could thrive? Would it be one in which terrorism would wither or would it be one in which terrorist recruits will increase in number every day?

Announcing that we intend to play by our own rules, which look as if we will make up as we go along, may not be conducive to building a strong global coalition against terrorism, and it may not be conducive to combating the anti-American propaganda that passes for news in so much of the world.

Fundamentally, I think broadly applying this new doctrine is at odds with our historical national character. We will defend ourselves fiercely if attacked, but we are not looking for a fight. To put it plainly: Our country historically has not sought to use force to make over the world as we see fit.

I am also concerned this approach may be seen as a green light for other countries to engage in their own preemptive or preventive campaigns. Is the United States really eager to see a world in which such campaigns are launched in South Asia or by China or are we willing to say this strategy is suitable for us but dangerous in the hands of anybody else?

The United States does have to rethink our approach to security threats in the wake of September 11, but it is highly questionable to suggest that containment is dead, that deterrence is dead, particularly in cases in which the threat in question is associated with a state and not nonstate actors, and it is highly questionable to embark on this sweeping strategy of preventive military operations.

Senate October 4, 2002

Senator Byrd
I respect the President of the United States. We should work with him, and we should support him when we can. But remember what Madison said: The trust and the temptation are too great for any one man.

We elected representatives of the people are not supposed to follow any President, whether he is a Democrat or Republican, meekly and without question. I do not believe there is a Republican in this body who knows me well who would believe for a moment, if we had a Democratic President today, I would not be saying exactly what I am saying right now.

I took the position against our President on the line item veto. I did not go along with President Clinton because he supported the line item veto. Nor would I go with any President in this more fateful matter, this question of peace or war, if they were a Democrat. I am standing where the Constitution says I should stand.

There is no king in the American scheme of things. There is no place for kings in our constitutional system. But there is a place for men. When I say ``men,'' of course, I am speaking of men and women, but when the Constitution was written it was only men.

There is no place for weakness. There is no place for wishy-washiness. There is only a place for steadfastness and a place for supreme dedication to the Constitution of the United States, for every word that is in it, and to stand by the spirit with which it speaks. We cannot stand by that spirit and just go along. The people want a political party that stands for something. They want men and women in office who stand for them. They do not want men and women in office who just go along because their party goes along or because the President goes along. They want men and women who think for themselves and who keep in mind that they are sent here by the people who cannot speak on this floor but who expect us to speak.

That is where I stand. That is where I am going to stand always and forever. As long as I live and have the privilege of representing the people of the State of West Virginia, that is exactly where I am going to be, regardless of where any President is. If I differ with him, I will say so, and I differ with this President on this issue.

I do not think there is any new evidence that compels us to vote on this resolution before we go home. Oh, they say we need to get it behind us. We cannot get this issue behind us. We can vote for this resolution, but that will not get the issue behind us. The President will have us back on that question every day until the election is over, and he can do that. He has the bully pulpit. Do not think for a moment this issue is going to be put behind us before this election is over.

Another thing we will not get behind us is the record of where we stand, the record of where I stand, the record of where he or she stands. We will not get that behind us. That will be there engraved in stone, in marble, and in bronze, until the Lord comes home. Until kingdom come, it will be there. You cannot efface it. You cannot erase it. It is there.

I intend to let my record stand. I do not intend to put a blemish on it by walking away from the Constitution in this fateful hour.

There are questions to be asked. What is going to happen to Israel? What is going to happen to the people of Israel? What is going to happen to the Palestinians? What are the ramifications of going to war in a preemptive strike, which this Constitution does not represent and does not allow? What are the ramifications around the globe? What is the image of the United States then going to be: A nation that is a rogue nation, that is determined to wipe out other nations with a preemptive strike?

And what will happen if we deliver a preemptive strike? Will other nations be encouraged to do the same? What will be the cost? How many men and women do we expect will become casualties if this country goes to war in a preemptive strike against Iraq? What is going to be the cost in dollars?

The President's economic advisor says: Oh, $100 billion or $200 billion. He says that is nothing, $100 billion. That is nothing. Even $9 billion has been a stumbling block and a bone in the craw of this administration when it comes to appropriations bills. All that has kept us from having agreements on appropriations bills is $9 billion.

What is going to be the price tag? What is it going to cost in terms of homeland security? Might we expect other terroristic acts if we launch a preemptive strike? How can we be sure we will not be subject to preemptive strikes of terrorists? What will be the cost? What is likely to happen on our borders? Are we going to have to maintain greater vigilance in our ports? What is going to happen to the needs of veterans? What is going to happen to the needs of education? What is this going to do to the American pocketbook? What is it going to do to the deficits?

There are these and many more questions. They ought to be questioned. It is not unpatriotic to ask. …

This Nation itself helped to build, helped to create the building blocks of biological weaponry years ago when we sent to Saddam Hussein, this country made available to Iraq, back in the days when we thought that Saddam Hussein would be our friend. A few years later, after we provided Iraq help in making biological weapons, today we find he is our enemy.

This is the way it is. Yesterday's friend is today's enemy. We have known about the biological weapons for years. We helped Iraq to have the building blocks. Now we have claimed this is something new. This is not new. This is not a new pretext. We have known this all along. The Israelis knew these things. They knew what was happening in Iraq with respect to nuclear weapons. These things are not new, but they are new just before this election. That is what I am saying. Let us come back after the election and then debate, and then, who knows? I might join with the distinguished Senator in promoting a resolution to declare war, Congress declare war. …

So what is new? That is what I am saying to my distinguished friend. We knew about their packaging. Why didn't the CIA Director say it to me when I asked him twice, once up in 407 and once in my own office, What is there that is new from your standpoint of intelligence that we did not know 3 months ago, 6 months ago? He has not been able to come up with anything.

So I say to my distinguished friend from Virginia, yes, I am concerned about packaging and all that. But that is not new. That should not make it all-compelling that we vote on this matter of peace or war, or preemptive strike, before we go home. The people out there want us to come home. Let's go home to the people who send us here; let's talk with them in town meetings; let's tell them what we know. They have questions they want answered. Let's go to our people, our bosses, the people whom we represent. Let's go back to them before we make this fateful decision once and for all, which involves so much of the treasure and blood of the people who sent us here. Let's go back to them; let's get their feelings; and then we can come back and make this decision. …

We are voting on this new Bush doctrine of preventive strikes--preemptive strikes. There is nothing in this Constitution about preemptive strikes. Yet in this rag here, this resolution, S.J. Res. 46, we are about to vote to put the imprimatur of the Congress on that doctrine. That is what the Bush administration wants us to do. They want Congress to put its stamp of approval on that Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes.

That is a mistake. That is a mistake. Are we going to present the face of America as the face of a bully that is ready to go out at high noon with both guns blazing or are we going to maintain the face of America as a country which believes in justice, the rule of law, freedom and liberty and the rights of all people to work out their ultimate destiny? …

I think the President would be in a much better position with the United Nations to leave the case as he had made it. He made a fine case. He made a case in which there was no room for water or air. He placed it right in front of the United Nations, the fact that that body has been recreant in its duty and its responsibility. It passed resolution after resolution after resolution, and has done very little.

I think the President is in a much better position, ultimately, if we let the United Nations speak first and not go to the United Nations and say: Now, we would love to hear what you have to say, but regardless of what you have to say, we have made up our minds, and if you don't do it, we are going to do it.

Well, why not let him do it?

I think this responsibility should be left clearly in the lap of the United Nations. We will make our decision later, when the President comes back to this institution which, under this Constitution, has the power--not any President--the power to declare war.

Senate October 8, 2002

Mr. BYRD
I thank the Chair.

Madam President, I thank and commend all those Senators who have been speaking in support of the resolution that will soon come before the Senate for a decision by the Senate. I think they have rendered a service. I commend Mr. Lieberman. I commend Mr. Warner. And I commend those others who are cosponsors of the resolution. I commend them on their high level of argumentation they have put forth. This is what the country needs. The country needs to hear more of this, and I have only the utmost admiration for those who feel as they do in support of this resolution.

The Senate is the anchor of the Republic, and it is here on this battlefield many of the country's great Senators have expounded their views and taken sides, one way or the other, on the great issues that have come before the Nation over this period of more than 200 years.

I have listened, as best I could, to the various Senators who, for the most part this morning, have spoken in support of the resolution, S.J. Res. 45, which will be at least soon attempted to be amended by S.J. Res. 46.

Madam President, I am not against just any and every resolution of this nature. I could very well be for a resolution. If this debate were to go on for a while, or perhaps to go until after the election, giving us time to debate it thoroughly, giving Senators time to amend it, modify it, to change it, it might very well be I, too, could support a resolution. After all, that is what we should strive for. We should strive for a national consensus.

If this country is going to engage in a military conflict in the near future, it should not be a slapdash resolution that in its makeup looks, for all intents and purposes, as though it were just thrown together, it was a cut-and-paste operation.

I would hope we could come to a conclusion, after ample debate, that we could join hands across the aisle, join hands between the two parties, join hands with the executive branch. I would hope we could do that. And I do not think that is beyond the realm of possibility.

I think it would be possible to develop a resolution which might get a unanimous vote in this Senate, but it would take time. It cannot be this resolution which would be unanimous because it will not be unanimous.

My concerns about this resolution are, in the main, two--two concerns. Getting into further detail, I can express several concerns. But in the main, I would say my concerns are two in number.

One, this resolution authorizes the President to determine and authorizes the President to use military forces as he will, when he will, how he will, and wherever he will, as long as the thread is tied to Iraq, and beyond that--I do not have the resolution in front of me--as long as it is tied, by the thread, to ``defend[ing] the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforc[ing] all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.''

Madam President, I can talk in considerable detail and at considerable length with respect to the ``whereas'' clauses and with respect to the authorization section, section 3. Suffice it to say this is a blank check, this authorization paragraph is a blank check, given over to the Chief Executive, not just this one but Chief Executives who will succeed him. There is no sunset provision. There is no termination under this authorization. It can go on and on and on until Congress sees fit to terminate it.

So it is open-ended. It is a blank check. And it cedes the decisionmaking power of the Congress under the Constitution to declare war. It cedes that to a Chief Executive--for the moment, Mr. George W. Bush. Succeeding him, who knows? But it is open-ended.

If Congress is going to waive that part of the Constitution which gives power to the Congress to declare war--and I am not sure Congress can waive that--but if it is going to, why don't we at least have a sunset provision? Why don't we at least have a cutoff at which time the cession of that power is no longer existent?

Is that asking too much?

No. 1, my opposition to this resolution in the main is because Congress is ceding--lock, stock, and barrel--its power to declare war, handing that over to a Chief Executive and, by its own terms, as much as to say, that President will determine that. He will use the military forces of these United States--that means the Marines, the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, all the military forces of this country--he shall use all of the military forces of this country in whatever ways he determines, wherever he determines, whenever he determines, and for as long as he determines. That is the way it is written--lock, stock, and barrel.

Congress might as well just close the doors, put a sign over the doors and say: ``Going fishing.'' Put a sign on the Statue of Liberty up here: ``Out of business.'' That is exactly, that is precisely what we are about to do, if we vote for this resolution as it is currently written. If there is anybody who disagrees with me, they can try to show me that. But they cannot refute the words written in this resolution. All the ``whereases'' constitute nothing more than fig leaves, beautifully dressed, beautifully colored, pretty fig leaves, with sugar on them.

My second objection in the main is that Congress is being stampeded, pressured, adjured, importuned into acting on this blank check before Congress goes out for the election. Doesn't that make this somewhat suspect? Recall, it was only in late August, around August 23, I believe it was, I read in the newspaper where the President was concerned about the intensified talk that was going on with reference to his plans in respect to an attack on Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld, in that same newspaper report, referred to it as a ``frenzy.'' So even the President, 6 weeks ago, was seeking to allay the concerns of the people in Washington, people all over the country, with respect to any ``plans'' that he might have to attack Iraq. In other words, he was saying: Cool it.

Well, that was just 6 weeks ago. Then all of a sudden, the whole focus of attention in this country seems to be directed several thousand miles away from these shores to a country called Iraq, to which the distinguished Senator from Connecticut correctly alluded as that great land between the two great rivers, the old Biblical country of Mesopotamia is such a threat we don't dare wait until after the election. Saddam doesn't present that kind of imminent threat to this country. He doesn't have these kinds of weapons that he would level at this country before the election. Now, something could happen in our midst before the election. It can happen tonight. It can happen today. It has been happening in this area over the past several days, with a sniper taking six lives, and he shot eight persons.

People are concerned about issues here at home. We should not try to divert their attention to a threat. I don't say Saddam is not a threat. I say he is not the immediate threat the administration is trying to make him out to be at this point. We have some time. We ought to utilize it. We cannot let Saddam Hussein continue to have weapons, such as biological and chemical weapons. We cannot let him acquire weapons of mass destruction. But there is some time, and I think it is very important we get the United Nations involved here, and the President has made a good start in that direction. He made a fine statement when he spoke to the U.N. He put the burden on them. He laid it at their door. They have been recreant in their duty.

We should utilize the time we have to let the U.N. marshal its forces and try to get other countries to assist this country in carrying the burden. Eleven years ago, the cost of that war was $61.1 billion, and other countries helped shoulder the expenses, with the exception of about $7.5 billion. We ought to be seeking to get others' help.

We ought to let the inspectors go back in and have restrictions such that they will have a full and free opportunity to inspect wherever they want, wherever they think they should. So I am for all that. I am not one who says Saddam is not a threat; he is a threat, but he has been a threat for many years. I think it is a disservice to the American people to insist their elected representatives in the House and Senate showdown on this fateful decision before the election. Now, that is highly suspect. To those who are pushing it, I have to say it is suspect.

Why do they want this vote before the election? I am not the one who determines when the election will fall. We know it is going to take place on November 5. Where is the threat that is so imminent to this country we have to declare war here and now, before the election? It is a distraction. Our Senators and House Members need to be concentrating on the matter, debating it, debating other matters. There are many more matters that cry out for the attention of this country. Why should we not be giving attention to them and not be distracted in this vote by what may happen to me on November 5, if I vote this way or that way? That is not right. It is wrong. It is not doing right by the people of this country. They are entitled to better than that.

So I have two main concerns. One, we are ceding the constitutional authority to declare war, and it is open-ended, a blank check. Mr. President, here it is, you can have it. We will just go fishing. You take it and we are out of it. We are out of business. We are out of business for the next year or 2 years or as long as this piece of paper--this blank check--is in effect. You have it. We are cheating the people back home when we vote for that kind of resolution.

Madam President, I have much more to say, but I told the Senator from Virginia I would be glad to yield. I do that now, without losing my right to the floor. …

I call the Senate's attention to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer of October 6 entitled ``Allied Support On Iraq Exaggerated, Officials Say'':

President Bush and some of his top aides, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, have exaggerated the degree of allied support for a war in Iraq, according to senior officials in the military and the Bush administration.

These officials, rankled by what they charge is a tendency by Rumsfeld and others to gloss over unpleasant realities, say few nations in Europe or the Middle East are ready to support an attack against Iraq unless the United Nations Security Council explicitly authorizes the use of force.

In the latest sign that international support for the administration's plans is soft, key ally Turkey said Friday that it would participate in a campaign against Iraq only if the world body blessed it.

``An operation not based on international law cannot be accepted,'' a Turkish presidential spokesman said after a meeting of top Turkish civilian, military and intelligence officials in Ankara.

The backing of Turkey, which borders Iraq's north, is vital because it hosts air bases at Incirlik and elsewhere that would be necessary to conduct a major air campaign against Iraq and protect the ethnic Kurdish population in northern Iraq from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's retaliation.

``Turkey is the key,'' a senior administration official said.

Turkey, which also has a large Kurdish population, is concerned that Iraq's Kurds would try to form their own mini-state and that a war with another Muslim country could aggravate tensions between Islamists and secularists in Turkey and damage the Turkish economy.

Turkey is not alone: No country near Iraq has agreed to serve as a launching pad for a U.S. strike without U.N. authorization, the senior official said. He and others spoke on condition of anonymity.

As they have tried to persuade Congress to give Bush broad war-making authority,

Rumsfeld and other officials have sought to create the impression that there is widespread international support for the Iraq endeavor. That, one top official said, ``is at best premature and at worst deceptive.''

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the total article from the Philadelphia Inquirer of October 6 be printed in the RECORD at the close of my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. BYRD
Madam President, I quote another article from the Philadelphia Inquirer, this one October 8, 2002, entitled: ``Officials' Private Doubts On Iraq War'':

While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war.

These officials say administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses--including distorting his links to the al-Qaeda terrorist network; have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq; and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East.

They say that the administration squelches--squelches--dissenting views that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Hussein poses such an immediate threat to the United States that preemptive military action is necessary.

``Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books,'' said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

A dozen other officials echo his views in interviews with the Inquirer Washington Bureau. No one who was interviewed disagreed.

How much time do I have left, Madam President?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four and a half minutes.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

(Continuing the article):

They cited recent suggestions by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network were working together.

Rumsfeld said Sept. 26 that the U.S. government had ``bulletproof'' confirmation of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda members, including ``solid evidence'' that members of the terrorist network maintained a presence in Iraq.

The facts are much less conclusive. Officials said Rumsfeld's statement was based in part on intercepted telephone calls in which an al-Qaeda member who apparently was passing through Baghdad was overheard calling friends or relatives, intelligence officials said. The intercepts provide no evidence that the suspected terrorist was working with the Iraqi regime or that he was working on a terrorist operation while he was in Iraq, they said.

Rumsfeld also suggested that the Iraqi regime had offered safe haven to bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. While technically true, that, too, is misleading. Intelligence reports said the Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, a longtime Iraqi intelligence officer, made the offer during a visit to Afghanistan in late 1998, after the United States attacked al-Qaeda training camps with cruise missiles to retaliate for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But officials said the same intelligence reports that bin Laden rejected the offer because he did not want Hussein to control his group.

In fact, the officials said, there is no ironclad evidence that the Iraqi regime and the terrorist network are working together, or that Hussein has ever contemplated giving chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda, with whom he has deep ideological differences.

I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of this article from the Philadelphia Inquirer, dated October 8, 2002, be printed in the RECORD at the end of my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 2.)

Mr. BYRD
The President indicated he would lead a coalition, and I hope he will. I hope he will continue to work until he gets a solid coalition together. But if, as the President claims, America will lead a coalition against Iraq, it certainly appears that we have much work to do. The first article I read from the Philadelphia Inquirer bears out a clear message: We have asked the United Nations to act and we should give the United Nations that opportunity.

Last night, the President of the United States asked Congress to fully consider the facts in this debate, but I believe that many of the facts are still unclear. We have many questions that demand answers, and we need the time to find those answers.

So I suggest we try to get the facts, and the representatives of the American people in Congress need the facts, the clear, unadulterated facts, before Congress votes on the resolution.

The questions I have are the same questions the American people have. A poll published last Sunday in the New York Times reports that a majority of Americans think that Congress is not asking enough questions about Iraq policy. By a 2-to-1 margin, those polled would prefer to see U.N. inspectors have more time to do their job. Sixty-five percent of those polled think it is better to wait for allies before any attack on Iraq--in other words, not go it alone.

Obviously, the American people are far from convinced that we must attack Iraq. I think as time goes on, if this matter is fully debated, we will find a reverse in the polls from what we have been seeing lately. We are going to find that the American people are not all that ready to invade Iraq all by themselves; not all that ready to put the U.N. aside and say we will go it alone--if you do not do it, we will--and not all that ready to send their boys and girls, their men and women, their loved ones, to war in a foreign land without leaving it up to Congress as to when war should be declared.

I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 6, 2002

Allied Support on Iraq Exaggerated, Officials Say

By Warren P. Strobel

WASHINGTON.--President Bush and some of his top aides, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, have exaggerated the degree of allied support for a war in Iraq, according to senior officials in the military and the Bush administration.

These officials, rankled by what they charge is a tendency by Rumsfeld and others to gloss over unpleasant realities, say few nations in Europe or the Middle East are ready to support an attack against Iraq unless the United National Security Council explicitly authorizes the use of force.

``An operation not based on international law cannot be accepted,'' a Turkish presidential spokesman said after a meeting of top Turkish civilian, military and intelligence officials in Ankara.

The backing of Turkey, which borders Iraq's north, is vital because it hosts air based at Incirlik and elsewhere that would be necessary to conduct a major air campaign against Iraq and protect the ethnic Kurdish population in northern Iraq from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's retaliation.

``Turkey is the key,'' a senior administration official said.

Turkey is not alone: No country near Iraq has agreed to serve as a launching pad for a U.S. strike without U.N. authorization, the senior official said. He and others spoke on condition of anonymity.

As they have tried to persuade Congress to give Bush broad war-making authority, Rumsfeld and other officials have sought to create the impression that there is widespread international support for the Iraq endeavor. That, one top official said, ``is at best premature and at worst deceptive.''

The defense secretary told a House of Representatives committee Sept. 18 that Bush aides ``know for a fact'' that the United States would not be fighting Iraq along if it failed to obtain a U.N. resolution. ``There are any number of countries that have already announced their support,'' he said.

Bush said Thursday that if the United Nations and Iraq didn't eliminate Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, ``the United States in deliberate fashion will lead a coalition to take away the world's worst weapons from one of the world's worst leaders.''

Several officials said that while those statements were technically true, there was a coalition yet. Diplomats said privately that only staunch ally Britain and Bulgaria--a member of the U.N. Security Council that wants to join the U.S.-led NATO alliance--had said they were willing to act without United Nations cover.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has been working intensively to persuade other U.S. Security Council members to back a tough resolution that would force Iraq to accept strict new rules for inspections or face a U.S.-led invasion. He has run into stiff resistance, particularly from France and Russia, both of which hold veto power on the council.

Congressional Record October 9, 2002

Senator Feingold:
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 very minimal justification. …

Senator Leahy
I have never believed, nor do I think that any Senator believes, that U.S. foreign policy should be hostage to any nation, nor to the United Nations. Ultimately, we must do what we believe is right and necessary to protect our security, whenever it is called for. But going to war alone is rarely the answer. … If September 11 taught us anything, it is that protecting our security involves much more than military might. It involves cooperation with other nations to break up terrorist rings, dry up the sources of funding, and address the conditions of ignorance and despair that create breeding grounds for terrorists. We are far more likely to achieve these goals by working with other nations than by going it alone. …

Senator Hagel
While I cannot predict the future, I believe that what we decide in this Chamber this week will influence America's security and role in the world for the coming decades. It will serve as the framework, both intentionally and unintentionally, for the future. It will set in motion a series of actions and events that we cannot now understand or control.

In authorizing the use of force against Iraq, we are at the beginning of a road that has no clear end. The votes in Congress this week are votes for an intensification of engagement with Iraq and the Middle East, a world of which we know very little and whose destiny will now be directly tied to ours.

America cannot trade a new focus on Iraq for a lesser effort in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The bloodshed between Israel and the Palestinians continues, and the danger mounts. Stability in Afghanistan is not assured. We must carry through with our commitment. Stability in this region depends on it. America's credibility is at stake, and long-term stability in central and South Asia hangs in the balance.

We must also continue to pay close attention to North Korea where there is no guesswork about nuclear weapons. There on the Korean peninsula reside nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and 37,000 American troops. Despite setting the right course for disarmament in Iraq, the administration has yet to define an end game in Iraq or explain the extent of the American commitment if regime change is required, or describe how our actions in Iraq might affect our other many interests and commitments around the world.

I share the hope of a better world without Saddam Hussein, but we do not really know if our intervention in Iraq will lead to democracy in either Iraq or elsewhere in the Arab world. America has continued to take on large, complicated, and expensive responsibilities that will place heavy burdens on all of us over the next generation. It may well be necessary, but Americans should understand the extent of this burden and what may be required to pay for it and support it in both American blood and trade.

As the Congress votes on this resolution, we must understand that we have not put Iraqi issues behind us. This is just the beginning. The risks should not be understated, miscast, or misunderstood. Ours is a path of both peril and opportunity with many detours and no shortcuts.

We in the Congress are men and women of many parts. For me, it is the present-day Senator, the former soldier, or concerned father who guides my judgment and ultimate vote? It is pieces of all, for I am pieces of all. The responsibilities of each lead me to support the Lieberman-McCain-Warner-Bayh resolution, for which I will vote.

In the end, each of us who has the high honor of holding public office has the burden and privilege of decision and responsibilities. It is a sacred trust we share with the public. We will be held accountable for our actions, as it must be.

Senator Domenici
“…we have people saying we shouldn't get involved in this, as if we are some big bamboozling country wrought on doing damage. History will tell us and tell the world that that is not why America would get involved in this situation. Isn't that right? Historically, the United States has only used military force when we can do some good. We stand for some principle or concept that we really think is tremendous--in this case, democracy versus dictatorship, democracy and freedom versus the kind of despicable character about whom our President has been speaking to us for a long time. The world is seeing a new kind of war that started with the destruction of our towers and our Pentagon.

This war has its origins right there in that Middle East where, if action is not taken, humankind is going to have some big problems. … I am sure that resolution has been read to the American people and those watching us more than once.

But let me just state a couple of them. Prior to using force or within 48 hours after exercising the authority, the President is required to certify to Congress that diplomatic and other peaceful means cannot protect our national security against the threat posed by Iraq. Also, he must certify that such means are not likely to bring Iraq into compliance with all relevant U.N. resolutions.

Second, only in the event that diplomatic efforts fail and Iraq continues to breach its international obligations and the inspectors are given every opportunity for unimpeded access, then our President can use the military. He doesn't have to come back to us under those circumstances.

Believe me, Saddam Hussein and his military and his scientists will immediately understand what it means if we give our President the authority to use force. There is no longer the delay in communications. Iraq will know we are serious, and we can be more effective in our diplomacy. If it doesn't work, we leave it in the hands of our President.

Some observers think this resolution gives the President too much authority. In fact, the resolution gives the President no more authority than he already has as Commander in Chief to provide for the national security for the United States. What the resolution does is to recognize the clear and present danger of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction. It says he is a weapon of mass destruction. It calls the President to exercise this authority as a last resort, and only in the event that all negotiations are fruitless, and with the added condition that he explain his actions to the Congress.

I believe the best way to prevent the Middle East, in this moment of history, from exploding into a war is for us to recognize how important we are to achieving peace, how important it is that we ask our President to be our instrument of peace in this very troubled part of the world.

Even a person as culpable and as lacking in human decency as Saddam Hussein will understand that our President, once given the proper authority, will take all necessary action to ensure the security of America and humankind against the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. I believe he is far less likely to unleash weapons of mass destruction when he knows that the American military, with the full support of Congress, is poised to stand in his way.

We have just today approved the biggest Defense bill ever in the history of America. We have given the President most of what he asked for in that bill. I believe it could not be worse news for Saddam Hussein than to learn that the U.S. Congress has approved the money needed to bolster our military and then, to learn shortly thereafter, that it has approved a resolution giving our President the real authority he needs to use military force to disarm Iraq. I believe this is the best way to secure peace.

Senator Sarbannes
I ask my colleagues to consider how important it is for our future, in so many ways--not just in military and security terms, but also for our economic and political and indeed the whole range of our interests--that we seek to work with others and not set out on a path of unilateral action. That the U.S. has such great military resources at its command makes the decision that much more urgent. It may seem paradoxical, as Stanley Hoffman has observed, so powerful a nation should choose to work in concert with other nations rather than through willful imposition of its power on others. But that principle has served our national interests well, and that is where our long-term interests lie.

Mrs Murray
In the past few weeks, the Bush administration unveiled its new preemption doctrine. This marks a shift from our longstanding national policy, and so far we have not been told how it applies to the world beyond Iraq. Obviously, if troops or tanks are amassing at the border, we have the right to defend ourselves, but to strike on the basis of suspicion alone is another matter. It is something this Congress and the American people need to fully explore and debate before we endorse the preemption doctrine.

From November 8, 2003 issue of the Economist

Greatest danger, or greatest hope?
Yes, America is different. But it always has been.
Mostly, the difference is good for the world, not bad.

Until a little over two years ago, the fashionable topic for debate in conferences, opinion pages and even bars around the world was whether globalization was really Americanisation, and whether that was a good or a bad thing. Now, few pundits anguish about whether their countries are having to become more like America. The fashionable source of anxiety in both Europe and Asia is whether America is becoming so different from everywhere else that it is becoming a problem for the world, not a solution. It is not just a reckless Bush administration leading America astray, in other words. On this view, the United States is now inherently assertive and unilateralist, and so can no longer be trusted to lead the world. Instead, it should be feared.

Inevitably, Iraq is the crucible for this debate, though other events and actions---the Kyoto Protocol, the anti-ballistic missile treaty, the International Criminal Court, Guantanamo Bay, federal budget deficits, even cotton subsidies---are being called in as thesis reinforcements. Yet Iraq ought also to cast this debate in a colder, more sobering light. Will it be better for the world if America succeeds in bringing stability, prosperity and even democracy to Iraq, or if it fails? Is it American competence that is feared, or incompetence? If America, under George Bush or a Democratic rival, were to withdraw hastily under the pressure of attacks such as the downing in Iraq on November 2nd of a military helicopter, would that be an encouraging sign of humility or a devastatingly irresponsible act? Given that foreign voices were so keen to disparage America for withdrawing from Somalia in 1994, for failing for years to intervene in the Balkans, for having "allowed" the Taliban to take power in Afghanistan, and for being reluctant recently to send troops to Liberia, why should so many be hostile now to intervention in Iraq?

Exceptionally exceptional
One answer to this final question is that incoherence is one of the luxuries of impotence. Those who cannot, or will not, take responsibility themselves fee free to snipe at those who do. Another is that it is natural to feel afraid when dramatic, ambitious actions are being undertaken, for the consequences of such actions can themselves be dramatic. But a further answer is that to the outside world America is a strangely puzzling country---strangely, given the openness of its society and the abundance of information about it---and at times the puzzlement turns to worry. This is one of those times.

Such times have, however occurred ever since the county was founded. As our Washington bureau chief writes in his survey this week, "A nation apart", the very phrase "American exceptionalism" that is so often heard these days was first exceptionalism" that is so often heard these days was first coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835-40, when that brilliant Frenchman wrote his "Democracy in America." Many of the things he pointed out then as profound differences between America and other countries continue to be remarked upon today---its vociferous democracy, its decentralization, its liking for voluntary associations, the intensity of its people's religious belief. Even during the cold war, which critics like now to describe as a time when fear of the Soviet Union acted as a bond between Americans and others, today's sorts of worries were commonplace. Graham Greene's "The Quiet American" (1955) complained that naive American idealists did more damage than good. Countless films, whether made by Americans or by foreigners, raised worries about a sinister military-industrial complex, about reds-under-the-bed obsessive ness, about zealotry.

Two other things, though, need also to be observed. One is that in recent years it is true that some of America's distinctiveness has become more marked. That is so in economics (working hou5rs, productivity, innovation), society (population growth, religious belief, patriotism) and politics (a win-at-all-costs partisanship). Indeed, the combination of demographic vitality and productivity-led economic vigor is likely to make America even stronger in future, not weaker, despite the fact that high federal budget deficits could force some strength-sapping tax rises. At least in economics, other countries are again going to have to try to follow some of America's example, if their living standards are to be kept high and unemployment low.

Democracy as solution, and as problem
The second observation, though, is that some elements of American distinctiveness divide America just as much as they divide it from others. Religious, puritanical, conservative Americans (mainly Republicans) are ranged against more secular, hedonistic, tolerant ones (mainly Democrats). Until the 2002 mid-term elections, carried out under the shadow of September 11th, successive polls had showed America to be a "50-50 nation". Both parties can find trends that could favour them in future: demography could favor Democrats, while economic drive and patriotism may favor Republicans. In America's cacophonous and hyper-active democracy, this means that actions and adventures tend to be self-regulating, at least over a period of years. Yet that offers both reassurance and worry: it may moderate excesses, and curb the influence of lobbies such as the religious right; but it could also encourage cutting and running from messes overseas.

If that were to occur, it would be a disaster for America and a tragedy for the world. The basic dilemma that was faced in Afghanistan and Iraq was that doing nothing and intervening both looked bad and risky options, but that doing nothing looked worse. In the Middle East as in Central Asia, intervention has been painful and progress has been stumbling. But despite the continued instability in both countries, life is better in both than before the intervention occurred; and much, much better than if al-Qaeda's terror camps had been left in place or if Saddam Hussein had been left in power. As the next leader argues, more needs to be done in Afghanistan, and at least some of it is likely to be. In Iraq, however, if the casualty toll among American forces keeps rising it could well prompt influential voices in Washington, including among Republicans, to press Mr. Bush to declare victory and retreat.

Fortunately, he is unlikely to. The flip side of some of the things critics dislike about him---a black-and-white view of the world, a tin ear for dissenting view---makes him also show a stubborn determination. Put more favorably, he is a man with a sense of duty. Put more cynically, perhaps, he is a man who will be keenly aware that early withdrawal will look like failure, and such failure would be politically suicidal.

By intervening in Iraq, against the majority of world opinion but with the courage of its own convictions and the support of a few allies, America showed that it was indeed a different nation from others: one prepared to shoulder responsibilities and to do what it thinks is right. Such behavior is alarming precisely because it is bold and by today's standards, different. It is never likely to bring forth a cascade of praise or gifts. It was done, however, in a way likely to reinforce the concern, as administration official poured abuse on their foreign critics and, through their violations of human rights, damaged America's own moral authority. Now though, the argument has to be won by creating facts on the ground. If the facts are of failure, America will be likely to shrink back into its shell. But success is there to be had. it will take a long, costly and painful effort. Only once it is done, however, will hope be restored and danger dispelled.

[Back][Home] [Main Menu] [Another Way] [Pilot Projects] [ Archives]