*EPF304 07/23/2003
Text: War's Opponents Forget Vile Nature of Saddam's Regime, Says Senator
(Senator Cornyn cites Clinton warning on Saddam's possession of WMD) (1640)

Senator John Cornyn (Republican of Texas) says those criticizing President Bush on his reasons for going to war with Iraq forget the vile nature of Saddam Hussein's rule.

In remarks to the Senate July 22, Cornyn, who along with fellow Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison, represents the President's home state in the Senate, defended the decision to remove Hussein and the Baath Party from power in Iraq.

Cornyn, the junior senator from Texas, also quoted a warning by then-President Bill Clinton in 1998 that if Saddam Hussein were allowed to "rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction," that some day he would use it.

The Texas Republican said the United States has a "clear duty to ensure America's security in the post-9/11 world by removing state-sponsors of terrorism and opposing regimes that threaten other nations with weapons of mass destruction."

Cornyn, who was elected to the Senate in 2002, serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Following is the text of Senator John Cornyn's July 22 remarks from the Congressional Record:

(begin text)

THE JUSTIFICATION FOR WAR

Senate

July 22, 2003

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about the war in Iraq.

My recent visit to the Middle East confirmed that the largest obstacle to a free and prosperous Iraq is the significant number of people who still live in fear of Saddam Hussein and his sons. That is an understandable fear, considering the years of torture so many endured under the iron fist of the Hussein regime.

With today's news from Central Command of the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein, we are two steps closer to removing that fear, two steps closer to rebuilding a once-great nation, and two steps closer to ensuring lasting security and freedom for the Iraqi people. I thank all the dedicated men and women in our Armed Forces who helped make these two steps possible.

Throughout the past few weeks, we have heard some on this floor raise questions about the justification for the war in Iraq.

Last week on this floor, the senior Senator from North Dakota had this to say, and I quote:

This administration told the world Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that they are trying to develop nuclear capability, there is a connection to al-Qaida, and each and every one of those claims is now in question, every one of them. It is not just 16 words in the State of the Union. It is far more serious than that.

I find this charge to be simply indefensible. It is an accusation that flies in the face of everything that we have seen about Saddam Hussein's regime. It offends the reasoning mind. It maligns all good Members of this body who weighed the intelligence about Iraq in the balance and decided that this war was just and right -- and voted for it. I might add, months before the President's State of the Union speech.

We have heard similar statements echoed from others on this floor and in the press in recent weeks. I have the utmost respect for my fellow Senators. Yet I must confess I am dumbfounded at how soon they forget the truth about the vile regime of Saddam Hussein.

I believe their line of reasoning goes something like this: They charge that the President was looking for excuses to go to war with Iraq, and that his claims concerning weapons-of-mass-destruction were just a pretense for this war.

I find this line of reasoning nonsensical at best -- and downright offensive at worst.

First, if one buys the idea that Saddam Hussein did not possess the weapons or the capabilities the administration assigned to him, the dictator did not fool us alone as to his guilt. Every significant intelligence service in the world, including the vast majority of those in nations who opposed this war, were convinced that Iraq possessed these weapons. That is why the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, which declared Iraq in material breach of its obligations under numerous previous resolutions, including failing to account for weapons of mass destruction that Iraq had previously admitted to building and stockpiling.

As Richard Butler, the former head of the U.N. arms inspection team in Iraq, wrote in 2001:

It would be foolish in the extreme not to assume that [Saddam] is developing long-range missile capabilities; at work again on building nuclear weapons; and adding to the chemical and biological warfare weapons he concealed during the UNSCOM inspection period.

Yet it is that same logical position that some in this body are arguing against today. Those who make accusations based on their political desires, not the facts, lump the international political community, the media, the intelligence community, and the President of the United States into some fantastic form of shadowy conspiracy. This is hardly responsible, and I believe it does a great disservice to the American people.

Second, if one honestly argues that because of one offending sentence every other claim made by the administration concerning Iraq is now under question, you run into a very hard brick wall of solid fact. Perhaps my colleagues will explain what form of gas Saddam used to kill more than 100,000 Kurds, including 5,000 in just one day. Perhaps they will explain why, prior to kicking out the U.N. inspection team in 1998, Iraqi officials admitted that they had produced biological weapons agents -- including 4 tons of VX, 8,500 liters of anthrax and 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- and biological weapons delivery munitions, including aerial bombs, aerial dispensers, and Scud missile warheads. Perhaps they will explain why, for more than a decade, Saddam Hussein stymied inspectors, buried research facilities, built mobile biological weapons labs, intimidated scientists, and even removed the tongues of those who questioned his regime.

I would ask my colleagues who have made these arguments to answer a question for me, then. Under their line of reasoning, why did our President seek the authority to pursue this war? If, as they claim, there was no overarching consensus that Saddam Hussein represented a danger to American security and peace in the Middle East and around the world, why did the President undertake this war? Why did so many vote to support the President, here in the Senate and in the United Nations?

War is a serious enterprise, one that is not undertaken without risk. The fact that Baghdad fell in 3 weeks, with so few casualties among coalition forces, fulfilled our greatest hopes for this conflict. I know I am thankful for that fact, and I know the President is as well. I also know that the case for this war remains solid.

This was a case built not on one piece of evidence provided by British intelligence, but on a much deeper long-term purpose. It was built on the noble goal of ending the decades of brutal and violent works by Saddam Hussein, and on our clear duty to ensure America's security in the post-9/11 world by removing state-sponsors of terrorism and opposing regimes that threaten other nations with weapons of mass destruction.

Three hundred thousand people, maybe more, are buried in mass graves spread throughout Iraq, in nearly a hundred reported sites. They stretch from Basrah to Baghdad, from Najaf to Kirkuk. They are silent monuments to Saddam's legacy of ruthlessness and evil.

The suggestion in the face of these silent witnesses that Iraq, the Middle East, and America are not better off today than we were before this war is simply ludicrous.

We have finished the fighting. Now we must finish the job. We seek to make Iraq secure, to make it a place where the rule of law can be established, so that civilian leaders and the Iraqi Governing Council can establish a new government for a new nation.

This is not an easy task -- and it is not without cost. But it must be done, so that Iraq can flourish as a free nation, and so that the victories won, the lives risked and lost, will not be in vain.

Those who spend their time playing political games with our mission in Iraq, even while our brave men and women labor to secure and stabilize this fledging nation, dishonor our soldiers in the field and the memories of all of those who sacrificed their lives opposing the bloodthirsty regime of Saddam Hussein.

President Clinton argued in 1998 that if America did not act, Saddam Hussein would:

..... go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he's use the arsenal.

President Bush agreed with that argument, and he decided to do something about it. Many of us agreed with that argument, and we voted to support the President. And I am confident history will record it as the right decision -- a decision based strongly on the principles of human freedom that inspired America's foundation.

Last week, Prime Minister Blair reminded us that we have a duty as a powerful nation to take great care regarding what kind of world we leave for our children. I believe that the task that falls to us at this moment in history is spreading the blessings of liberty, bringing the light of freedom to a nation imprisoned in the darkness.

Let those who are more comfortable playing political games -- play on. Those of us who wish to accomplish something greater will labor on, undeterred, always confident in our ultimate goal: We seek a just, free, and peaceful world -- for ourselves, for the Iraqi people, and for future generations.

(end text)

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

Return to Public File Main Page

Return to Public Table of Contents