Dick Durbins floor speech on October 10, 2002 courtesy of Thomas.gov

Mr. DURBIN . Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, I call up my amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Illinois proposes an amendment numbered 4865 to amendment No. 4586.
(Purpose: To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq)

On page 7, line 20, strike ``the continuing threat posed by Iraq'' and insert ``an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction''.

Mr. DURBIN . Mr. President, I call up this amendment to the underlying resolution presented by the President and sponsored by Senator Lieberman and others on the floor of the Senate.

In this Capitol Building, there are many historic rooms. There is one that is of great significance to me. It is only a few steps down the hall. It was in room 219 where I gathered with about a dozen of my colleagues among the Senate Democrats for a meeting on the morning of September 11, 2001. I can still recall the meeting vividly as we watched the television screen and its report, as we heard of the evacuation of the White House, as we jumped from our chairs and looked down The Mall to see the black smoke billowing from the Pentagon. And then we were told immediately to leave this great building and rushed down the steps and far away.

That is my image of September 11. Everyone who is following this debate has their own image of September 11. My world changed. America changed. Perhaps things changed all around the world on that day.

I came to work on that morning never believing that just a few days later, on September 14, I would stand on this floor and join every one of my colleagues in the Senate in a unanimous bipartisan vote of support for President Bush's request for war on terrorism. I am not a person who comes to that vote easily. I am one who grew up with the specter of war during our war in Vietnam. I am a person who served in the Congress and considered the momentous decision of the Persian Gulf war. I always took those votes extremely seriously. But there was no doubt in my mind on September 14, this was the right one. The war against terrorism was the right one. We were going to go after those parties responsible for what they had done to us on that day of infamy.

Now we gather in the Senate, a little over a year later, to face another historic vote. The President has asked Congress for the authority to wage another war, a war against Iraq. It is fair first to ask what progress we have made on the war against terrorism. Some things have happened for which we can be very proud.

The Taliban is out of power in Afghanistan. They no longer will be catering to the kind of extremist we saw with al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden is at least on the run, and that is certainly good news. Afghanistan is moving back toward a civilized state. Women are returning to the streets without the burkas. Girls are going to school. Positive things are happening. We saw an intelligence network created around the world to support the U.S. war on terrorism, an amazing display of unity and support for what we were doing.

But still, as I stand here today and make this assessment of the war on terrorism, the manhunt continues for Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants. Afghanistan is still in its national infancy. Hamid Karzai, leader of Afghanistan, is a good man but barely escaped an assassination attempt a few weeks ago, an assassination that, had it resulted, would have thrown that nation into chaos. Al-Qaida is still known to be in 60 nations around the world, and this war is far from over.

Make no mistake, we cannot dedicate the resources, the manpower, the skills, and the weapons of war to a new war in Iraq without sacrifices in our war on terrorism. This will be a war on two fronts; sacrifices will be made.

Let's speak to the President's request for a war against Iraq. If you have followed the comments from the President since August until today, you will note that his approach has changed. In fact, this is the third version of the resolution before us.

In one respect it is a tribute to the President that he has worked with others to try to improve the resolution. We expect that. In another, it suggests a change in attitude and philosophy and perhaps an intent as this resolution develops.

The speech the President gave on Monday night I listened to, every single word of it. I wanted to hear everything he had to say. The speech the President gave to the American people was far different than the language of the resolution before us.

What has happened since August when the President first raised the specter of Iraq as a threat to the United States?

Initially the White House said: We don't need congressional approval. We can move forward. They went on to say: We can do it unilaterally. We don't need any allies. We can attack Iraq if necessary by ourselves. And the President said our goal is regime change. We want Saddam Hussein gone. We have had enough of him. And he went on to say--Vice President Cheney backed him up--inspections by the U.N. are worthless. We tried that.

That was the first cut, the first position of the White House.

Last Monday, when the President gave a speech, it was a much different message. He is seeking congressional approval. That is why we are here today. He said that he is going to help lead a coalition of forces against Saddam Hussein, far different than what this resolution says, far different than what he said at the outset.

He is now working through the United Nations; something that had been dismissed early on in the debate has now become a big part of it. The President went on to say that he is now focusing on weapons of mass destruction and destroying them. There won't be any argument here. I have yet to meet a single Member of Congress who defends Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

The President said we need an inspection regime through the United Nations. That is a big departure from where he was. But that speech basically described a process the President suggested and endorsed, which many of us endorse as well.

In 8 weeks the administration has changed its rhetoric but the resolution we have before us has not. This resolution is important for many reasons. First, it is a war resolution. With this expression of authority from Congress, the President will have what he needs under our Constitution to move forward, to dispatch troops, mobilize reserves, move the men and women in uniform into harm's way, and be prepared for battle. That is, of course, the most important part of the resolution.

Another part rivals it in importance. This resolution is historically important because it marks a dramatic departure in the foreign policy of the United States of America. It is not simply a question of our policy toward Iraq or Saddam Hussein; it is a question of our policy toward the world.

This resolution still authorizes a unilateral, go-it-alone invasion of Iraq. This resolution contains no requirement to build a coalition of allies behind us. It has been said over and over again, isn't it better for the United States to have a coalition behind us than to have a coalition against us? This resolution does not specify that we are targeting weapons of mass destruction. This resolution represents a dramatic departure in foreign policy. That is why I have offered this amendment.

Senator Levin of Michigan was here earlier speaking about the role of the U.N. As much as any nation, the United States has guided and nurtured the U.N. We have gone through painful, frustrating moments when we have disagreed with their actions and could not agree with Security Council decisions, but by and large we have stood by the U.N. since its creation. In the words of Kofi Annan, ``The U.N. is the international community at work for the rule of law.''

That is as succinct a description of what the U.N. is all about as I have ever read. We have been with the U.N. through NATO, in the cold war, on questions of post-Soviet transatlantic order, and a variety of other issues. Now comes the President, on September 12 of this year, who visits the U.N. and issues a significant challenge. He says to the U.N. on September 12: If this organization has a backbone, it is going to stand up to Saddam Hussein, demand inspections for the weapons of mass destruction, and remove or destroy them. And if it does not, the President basically said that the U.N. is irrelevant; it has become the League of Nations.

Well, since then, progress has been made. A man whom I respect very much, Secretary of State Colin Powell, has been involved in shuttle diplomacy with the Security Council to put together U.N. support for just the very approach the President asked. It is the right approach--to really put our inspectors on the ground with no holds barred, nothing off limits, with no exemptions for Presidential palaces, so that we can go in and discover, with the help of our intelligence community, which will provide information where we think the weapons can be found and, in finding them, be able to establish once and for all that Iraq is in violation of U.N. resolutions and destroy the weapons.

If Saddam Hussein and Iraq should resist or stop us, consider the position we are in. We can then turn to the U.N. and say: We gave you your opportunity. You know this man will not comply with orders. Now stand together in enforcing the U.N. inspection. What a strong position that is--for us to have a coalition of nations, through the U.N., working with us, rather than the Bush resolution, which says we will do it by ourselves.

I think we have seen progress, but this resolution would brush it all aside. This resolution would say to the U.N. and others around the world: Go ahead and finish your debate and engage yourself as much as you like, but in the final analysis this Nation, the United States of America, will do exactly what it wants to do.

I don't think that has been our approach historically. We have always said: If you attack us, expect an answer. That is what happened on September 14, when we voted on the resolution on the war on terrorism. But why, if the U.N. is making progress toward this goal, do we want to say we are going to ignore the progress you have made, ignore the fact that you have accepted this challenge, we are going to ignore the possibility of meaningful inspections to disarm Iraq, and we will go it alone, we will launch a land invasion?

I think that is a mistake. This U.N. coalition effort is very important. In October of last year, President Bush stated, with some pride, that we had launched our war on terrorism, and he said: ``We are supported by the collective will of the world.'' And we were. The President has a right to be proud of that. The fact that we mobilized nations around the world to come behind us in the war against al-Qaida and the terrorists meant something in the war on terrorism.

Why, then, does it not mean something today? Why, then, when we are considering this war resolution, are we not committing to build a coalition of force to make sure we are successful? We know what the coalition means. It means strength in numbers. It means a sharing of the burden. Why should it only be American soldiers walking through the deserts on the way to Baghdad? Should we not have an international force? Because the threat Saddam Hussein poses is certainly to the Middle East and other countries before it threatens the United States. Why should other nations not defray the cost of this war? The fact that we would spend $100 billion or $200 billion when we are currently in deficit--why should that not be shared? Certainly, when we fought in the Persian Gulf, that was what happened. There is nothing in the Bush resolution for a coalition of force to join us in this effort in Iraq.

Also, the creation of a coalition establishes vital cover for other nations to join us. Do you recall the comments made by Saudi Arabia a few days after the President's visit to the U.N.? They had been not only cold but antagonistic to the idea of the United States going it alone against Iraq. They announced, after his visit to the U.N., that if the U.N. took action, they would cooperate. Why is that significant? It is as significant today as it was in the Persian Gulf. President Bush's father realized that when you bring Arab States into the coalition, it is critically important as we consider action against an Arab nation, Iraq.

Think of this for a moment, too: If our coalition includes Arab States and countries from around the world, it minimizes the impact this will have on the fundamentalists and extremists who are trying to breed and educate and train the next generation of terrorists. A third of the people living in the Arab world today are under the age of 14.

If this is a coalition including Arab States, then we are in a much stronger position to argue that it is U.N. action, collective action, it is not the United States going it alone. This will help to defuse any terrorists who might come out and will help to establish stability after the attack.

Let me go to the particular reason to raise this amendment to this resolution. The House has passed the resolution we are considering. It tells you we are drawing that much closer to the possibility of war. It is a historic decision, one which now is in this Chamber. If this Chamber agrees to the same resolution and presents it on the President's desk, my guess is it will be signed very quickly. It is more than just war against Iraq. Just a few weeks ago, the administration released what they called ``The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.'' It is a document which outlines what they consider to be the new parameters of foreign policy in our Nation. It is well worth the read.

You will find in this document, on page 15, a significant and historic departure from the foreign policy of the United States. The argument is made in this publication by the administration, by President Bush's White House, that the world has changed so significantly since September 11, 2001, that the principles and values and norms of conduct of our foreign policy must be changed dramatically in this respect. We have always said to the world: The United States is not an aggressor nation. We are not seeking to invade your country for territory or treasure. But if you threaten us, you can expect that we will return with all the force and power we have.

We are not trying to conquer you, but if you threaten our territory, our people, our allies, our Armed Forces, you can expect the worst. That is the way it should be.

We have said historically we are a defensive nation. Even at the height of the cold war, we did not endorse a first strike against the Soviet Union. No, we are a defensive nation. This new foreign policy reflected in the resolution before us is a dramatic departure from that.

The argument is made that we have no choice. Because we are now fighting terrorism, we can no longer wait for an imminent threat against the United States. We have to be able to move preemptively for what might be, as is said in this resolution, a continuing threat.

What does it mean? If you list the nations of the world that pose any threat to the United States, unfortunately the list is fairly long. It would not just be Iraq. The President's ``axis of evil'' includes North Korea and Iran. One would certainly put Syria, Libya, and maybe many other countries on that list.

What the President's foreign policy is calling for is the right of the United States to attack these countries without provocation, without imminent threat. That, I say to my friends in the Senate, is a dramatic departure in foreign policy. We are not just talking about how to deal with Saddam Hussein, how to deal with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, what to do through the United Nations. The supporters of this resolution are calling for a dramatic departure in American foreign policy.

From my point of view, it is a departure which is unwarranted and unwise. This is why I believe it: For over 50 years, with nuclear Armageddon facing us, with nuclear missiles poised in the Soviet Union and in the United States, our position was one of deterrence. We said, as I mentioned before, we would not strike first. We held that position, with some rare exceptions. That was our position as a nation, and it prevailed. It prevailed to overcome the Soviet Union and, frankly, to bring the Russians closer to our position in the world and to bring the world closer to peace.

Look what has happened in the last 10 years in our relationship with Iraq. Since the Persian Gulf war, we have made it clear to Saddam Hussein and his leaders that if they make one bad move with a weapon of mass destruction, either through a terrorist organization or directly against the United States, its neighbors, or any of our allies, frankly, they will pay a heavy price. There has never been a doubt about that. There is no doubt about that today.

The establishment and maintenance of the no-fly zone is our way of keeping an eye on Saddam Hussein from start to finish. There is not a tank or truck that moves in Iraq today we do not monitor. There is not a hole that is dug and filled up we do not monitor. We made that clear under existing foreign policy, but this resolution says it is time for us to change that policy. It is time for us to argue we can preemptively strike Iraq or any other country before they pose a threat to the United States. That is a dramatic change.

My amendment goes to this issue and says the President has the authority to use force. Let me read it specifically because I do not want to misstate it for my colleagues:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

That is what my amendment says. It spells that out in terms of foreign policy that we have created, in many respects, and honored throughout our history. To state it as stated in this resolution is to endorse this new rewrite of American foreign policy and to say in the age of terrorism that preemption is the answer.

I asked Dr. Condoleezza Rice a question when she came before us a few weeks ago, as follows: If we are going to argue that we have the right as a nation to attack any nation we suspect may be a threat to us, how then can the United States play a role in the world supporting diplomacy and peace? How can we argue to countries that are in incendiary relationships, such as India and Pakistan over Kashmir, that they should not do preemptive attacks of their own? How do we make that argument?

Oh, she said, diplomacy is working in Kashmir. It depends on what day of the week that question is asked. I hope it works. I hope peace comes to that region. We really lose our right to argue and demand more diplomacy and more peacekeeping when we say the United States may preempt any perceived threat, but other nations in the world should negotiate. The same can be said of China and Taiwan and many other places in the world.

To my colleagues I say this: This resolution not only addresses Iraq, it marks a significant departure in foreign policy. I hope, even though we have not had hearings, even though we have not debated this at length, that this amendment which I offer, with just a handful of words, will call into question whether this is the wisest policy, whether this is a necessary policy.

Let me say this as well. I know the United States is in a fearful and anxious situation since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Though we have been heartened by the strength of this Nation and its unity, there is still a lingering question as to whether we will be struck again.

It is because of that anxiety, because of that fear, I think many of us are moving now to say, let's do what is necessary, let's make the changes, let's get on with it.

I caution and beg my colleagues to think twice about that. America has faced periods of fear in its past, some not from foreign threats but from domestic situations.

Am I missing something?

One of the most noteworthy in our history was the Great Depression which faced our country when then-President Franklin Roosevelt, in his Inaugural Address, said:

This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert, retreat, and advance. In every dark hour of our national life, a leadership of frankness and vigor is met with that understanding and support of the people themselves, which is essential to victory.

I have listened to speeches on this floor, speeches which have, frankly, touched the anxiety, concerns, and fear of America. I have heard people on this floor lionize Saddam's weapons of mass destruction as a threat. The President's own resolution said Saddam Hussein may launch a surprise attack against the United States, language which is almost, frankly, impossible to understand in the world in which we live.

I heard those same voices minimize the impact of weapons of mass destruction on the battlefields of Iraq if we launch a land invasion to try to force regime change.

As we know--it has been declassified this week--our intelligence community tells us the most likely scenario of weapons of mass destruction to be used against Americans is if we launch an invasion of Iraq . Saddam Hussein knows today if those weapons move or are used in any way against us and our allies, he will pay a terrible price.

Our foreign policy must not be driven by fear. We must be vigilant. We must be careful. But at this moment of national concern over our vulnerability of terrorism, we cannot lose sight of the course which guided our Nation for generations. As we search every corner of our Nation and every corner of the world for danger and threats, we can never lose our sight on true north, and that rock-solid reliable point is a commitment to a rule of law, a commitment to a foreign policy based on established values and established standards of international conduct.

We cannot now ignore the challenge of Saddam Hussein. We need to address it. We should push forward with inspections through the United Nations, and build a coalition of support to make sure he is kept under control. The Presidential resolution, which envisions the United States standing alone, is not the best course. The Presidential resolution, which calls for a dramatic departure in our foreign policy, is not the best course.

Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DURBIN . I thank the Senator for his courtesy. When we disagree, he is always courteous in his treatment and fair on the floor of the Senate.

I might say to my friend from Connecticut, it is rare we disagree. I am sorry this is one of those cases. But I would pose a question, if he wants to answer it--without yielding the floor.

Do you believe that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is an imminent threat to the United States today?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend. I agree it is rare we disagree, so I do so with respect.

That is my point. I believe the threat is real. The weapons of mass destruction threat is real. Whether it is imminent or not, I do not know.

As I said, the analogy that comes to mind is of a bomb on a timer. I don't know whether the timer is set to go off in a day or a year. But because the danger is so real, I don't want to establish the standard of imminence before the United Nations or the President of the United States can act to eliminate the danger.

Mr. DURBIN . I thank my colleague from Connecticut, and I think it is an honest answer. But let me tell you, I serve on the Intelligence Committee and I would not disclose anything I learned there because it is classified and top secret, but some things I can say because they are public knowledge.

If you want to talk about threats to the United States, let me quickly add to that list North Korea. Currently, North Korea has nuclear weapons. North Korea has missiles that can deliver that nuclear weapon to many countries that we consider our friends and allies in their region.

Iran may not have a nuclear weapon today but could be further along than Iraq is at this moment. There is scant if little evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapon.

We do not trust Syria because it is a harbor for some 12 or 15 different terrorist organizations in Damascus, and we certainly do not trust Libya because of our fear of weapons of mass destruction.

So now of all the countries I have listed, Iraq is one of them for sure. But I have given you five or six countries which, under this resolution's logic and under this President's new foreign policy, we should be considering invading. Which one and when?

Historically, we have said it is not enough to say you have a weapon that can hurt us. Think of 50 years of cold war when the Soviet Union had weapons poised and pointed at us. It is not enough that you just have weapons. We will watch to see if you make any effort toward hurting anyone in the United States, any of our citizens or our territory.

It was a bright-line difference in our foreign policy which we drew and an important difference in our foreign policy. It distinguished us from aggressor nations. It said that we are a defensive nation. We do not strike out at you simply because you have a weapon if you are not menacing or threatening to us. Has September 11, 2001, changed that so dramatically?

The words ``imminent threat'' have been used throughout the history of the United States. One of the first people to articulate that was a man who served on the floor of this Chamber, Daniel Webster, who talked about anticipatory self-defense, recognized way back in time, in the 19th century. What we are saying today is those rules don't work anymore; we are going to change them.

I might also add, even though the Senator from Connecticut didn't address it directly, as to whether Iraq is an imminent threat, the minority leader, Republican minority leader,

Senator Lott, today on the floor came forward and said, and I quote:

He is prepared to try to find a peaceful solution here. But unless we make it clear he is committed, we are committed, the U.N. is committed, this problem will not go way. It is serious and it is imminent.

The words of Senator Lott on the floor today, recognizing the point I am trying to make here. If the President believes it is an imminent threat from weapons of mass destruction, he should have the authority to go forward.

But this is not just a matter of striking a strong position and showing that we have resolve. It is a matter of the people of the United States, through the Senate and the House, giving authority to the President of the United States to commit the lives of our men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces.

I, for one, have thought long and hard about voting for war. As I said on September 14, 2001, I did. I would do it again on the war on terrorism. I believe every Senator--every Senator--Republican and Democrat alike, takes this responsibility particularly seriously.

I had a personal experience in my district as a Congressman in the Persian Gulf war. One of my friends had a son who was in the Marines. She called me and said: He has just been sent over there, and I am worried to death about him.

I said: Let's wait and see how this goes.

So what? Bush didn't say that Iraq had a nuclear weapon.

I am still very proud of my Senator.

Those other bull shit threads claiming Senator Durbin did nothing are still on top and recomended. It's not fair.