Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. The Senator is right on point. This doctrine is exceedingly dangerous. It not only will set a precedent, it has set a precedent, as we have seen it begun to be put into play in Iraq. It will be a precedent. There will be a blotch on the escutcheon of the United States from now and until kingdom come. It is a dangerous precedent. Can't the Senator see that already it is beginning to have an impact on other nations, as we watch North Korea, as we watch Iran--why, those countries and others are going to say, well, if this bully on the block is going to do this, we had better get ready and get our things in order. Maybe we had better get ready to hit him or others within our reach. This is a genie that we will regret ever having let out of the bottle.

Mr. BYRD. Undoubtedly.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished leader. Mr. President, I see two other Senators here who have been waiting. I have the floor, do I not?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I hope I can yield to the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer--for how long?

Mr. BYRD. Ten minutes, without losing my right to the floor, and then I may yield to the distinguished Senator from Ohio, my next-door neighbor, for 15 minutes, without losing my right to the floor, and that I will then be recognized as I am now recognized.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I thank all Senators.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the United Nations is in diplomatic disarray today as the foreign ministers from the world's most powerful nations scramble to find some scrap of common ground on the question of war with Iraq. What a difference a few months makes. Last November, under the leadership of the United States, the 15-member U.N. Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 1441, strengthening the weapons inspection regime and giving Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations. The rapidity with which that unity has unraveled is astounding. What began as a constructive process to gain international support for war against Iraq has disintegrated into insults, accusations, and finger- pointing among the key members of the Security Council. Instead of forging an international coalition to deal with Iraq, as it set out to do, the Administration has managed to turn much world opinion against United States. With his insistence that the United Nations declare the inspection regime a failure and immediately authorize war against Iraq, the President has opened a chasm between the U.S. and Great Britain on one side and the remaining permanent members of the Security Council on the other. Today, the White House is declaring the United Nations irrelevant-- one of the most over used words in the English language as of today, I would say, and as of the last several days. Today, the White House is declaring the United Nations irrelevant if it does not authorize immediate war against Iraq, and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is countering that a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq without the sanction of the United Nations will violate the U.N. charter. The knock-down, drag-out in the Security Council has tarnished the images of both the United Nations and the United States, and it has imperiled the political career of at least one world leader, one foremost leader, President Bush's staunchest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair. What a high price to pay for the President's insistence on blindly following a war-first, war-now policy on Iraq. What a high price to pay. Despite feverish activity this week on the part of the U.S. and Great Britain to persuade a majority of members of the Security Council to support a second resolution authorizing war with Iraq, the President and his chief advisers have made it clear that the activity is merely window dressing and that the United States is prepared to act with or without U.N. support. For the Bush Administration, war with Iraq seems to be no longer a question of if, but when and the window on ``when'' is rapidly closing. Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the President's National Security Advisor, declared over the weekend, ``There is plenty of authority to act. We are trying very hard to have the Security Council one more time affirm that authority. But it's important to know that we believe the authority is there.'' In other words, the die has been cast. As Caesar said when he crossed the Rubicon, ``the die is cast.'' The rhetoric has hardened. U.S. forces are in place and poised to attack. The U.N. Security Council has been relegated to a classic Greek chorus of tragic protest while the United States takes center stage. The President has stopped listening. The administration's strategy for war with Iraq is so far advanced that not only does the President have war plans on his desk, he also has a blueprint for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq. On Monday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Agency for International Development is soliciting bids from a handful of U.S. firms for a contract worth as much as $900 million to begin the reconstruction of Iraq. According to the Journal, the contract would be the largest reconstruction effort undertaken by the United States since the reconstruction of Germany and Japan after World War II. With post-war contracts already in hand, can the onset of war be far behind? My views, by now, are well known. I believe this coming war is not a necessity. I believe it is a grave mistake, not because Saddam Hussein does not deserve to be disarmed or driven from power, not because some of our allies object to war, but because Iraq does not pose an imminent direct threat to the security of the United States. There is no question that the United States has the military might to defeat Saddam Hussein. There is no question about that. But we are on much shakier ground when it comes to the question of why this Nation, the United States, under the current circumstances, is rushing to unleash the horrors of war on the people of Iraq. In many corners of the world, the United States is seen as manufacturing a crisis in Iraq, not responding to one. Key members of the U.N. Security Council, including France and Russia, have vowed to veto any move to secure the imprimatur of the U.N. on war with Iraq. The U.N. weapons inspectors have pleaded for more time to do their work. Citizens by the thousands--nay, by the hundreds of thousands-- have taken to the streets in countries around the globe, including the United States, Europe, and the Middle East, to protest the war. The day after the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the French newspaper Le Monde proclaimed, ``We are all Americans!'' Eighteen months later, the United States and France are hurling insults at each other, and the French are leading the opposition to the war against Iraq. In country after country, the United States has seen the outpouring of compassion and support that followed September 11 dissolve into anger and resentment at this Administration's heavy- handed attempts to railroad the world into supporting a questionable war with Iraq. The latest report of the U.N. weapons inspectors only heightened the tensions in the Security Council and helped to precipitate the current scramble for a new resolution. On Friday--March 7--chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix reported progress in the disarmament of Iraq and predicted that the inspection process could be completed in months-- ``not years, nor weeks, but months.'' At the same meeting, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, threw cold water on a key assertion of the Bush administration, that Iraq is actively pursuing a nuclear capability on two fronts--by importing high-strength aluminum tubes which could be used as part of a centrifuge to produce enriched uranium and by attempting to buy uranium from Niger. Dr. ElBaradei said the inspectors have found no evidence--none--that Iraq is attempting to revive its nuclear weapons program, concluding that the aluminum tubes were for a rocket engine program, as Iraq claimed, and that the documents used to establish the Niger connection were faked. Not even reports of a chilling discovery by U.N. weapons inspectors of a new type of rocket in Iraq that appears to be designed to carry chemical or biological agents has swayed the hardening opposition in the United Nations to authorizing an immediate war against Iraq. The world is awash in anti-Americanism. The doctrine of preemption enshrined in the Bush administration's national security strategy the policy on which the war with Iraq is predicated has turned the global image of the United States from that of a world class peacemaker into what many believe is dangerous warmonger. The President is on the wrong track in insisting on rushing into war without the support of the international community, and specifically the United Nations. Not only is America's reputation on the line, but so is our war on terror. The recent arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and two of his cohorts in Pakistan is evidence that the United States is making slow but steady progress in dismantling the al-Qaida organization, and that we are reaping huge dividends from the anti-terrorism efforts we have undertaken in cooperation with other nations in the Middle East. Pakistan's cooperation is particularly important in the war on terror, and yet the majority of the Pakistani people are opposed to war with Iraq. How or whether Pakistani opposition to the war against Iraq will affect the war against terror is one of many unknowns. The United States cannot bring down al-Qaida alone. We need support and cooperation from friendly nations in the region. We risk losing their friendship, and possibly causing major upheavals in the Middle East, if the President defies world opinion and launches a U.S. led invasion of Iraq.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I am happy to yield, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. It has vast implications. I will say to the Senator that some of us have trouble going to sleep at night as we ponder this question. I thank the Senator for his observations today and for the service he has rendered not only to the State of Maryland but to this country. I think the Framers of the Constitution would be proud of Paul Sarbanes. I think Paul Sarbanes could very well have been one of the 39 signers of the Constitution.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield without losing my right to the floor. I am about finished.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished leader.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. No question. But even without the U.N. Charter, we have the inherent right. It is under the Constitution. I will be the last person to give up on that right.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished leader yield?

Mr. BYRD. Thank Providence again.

Mr. BYRD. Indubitably, that is the way I see it. That is my opinion. I believe there is ample evidence of that fact. The world itself at large wishes to see that, wants to see that and hopes for that.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. It is a dramatic example and a most somber and chilling one. I thank the distinguished Senator for his observation. The President may be lucky. We may be lucky. If we launch this war on Iraq, we may be lucky. I hope we will be. But we may not be. The cost of war and the potential casualties--not only to American military personnel but also to innocent civilians in and around Iraq-- are unknowns. The impact of war on the fragile fabric of the Middle East is also unknown. The administration seems to think that war with Iraq will pave the way to peace and democracy in the Middle East, but I believe that is merely wishful thinking. Saddam Hussein is not the cause of the strife between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and Saddam Hussein's downfall will not erase the deeply rooted conflict between the two sides. War against Iraq may prove to be a fatal distraction from the war on terror. It could be. The danger to Americans today is from al-Qaida. Intelligence officials predict that war with Iraq will precipitate a new wave of terrorism against the United States and its allies and will serve as a powerful recruiting tool for anti-American extremists. We need to keep the pressure on al-Qaida. We need to strengthen our defenses against a terrorist attack here at home. We need to focus the resources of our Nation on the war on terror and dismantle the al-Qaida network before it can mount another catastrophic attack on the United States. The hour is late; the clock is ticking. But if the President would only listen to voices outside his war cabinet of superhawks, he might discover that it is not too late to stop the rush to war. There is still a chance that Saddam Hussein can be disarmed and neutralized short of war. As long as that possibility exists, the United States should drop its resistance to any slowdown in the march to war and should begin to talk with, and listen to, the other members of the Security Council. The prospect of regaining unanimity within the United Nations on the question of Iraq is dim at best, but as long as there remains even a glimmer of hope, it is in the best interests of both the United States and the other members of the Security Council to regroup and strive to achieve that goal. The world community deserves nothing less.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator is preeminently correct. Let me add, as ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will never yield to anyone when it comes to supporting America's fighting men and women who have been sent abroad, and those at home, once the war begins. I do not believe this war is necessary. But I will support to the last degree the men and women who have to go. They didn't ask to go, but they have to go; they are answering the call. I will support them on the Appropriations Committee to the furthermost of my ability.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield? I thank the distinguished Senator. When he speaks of respect for the Senator from Maryland and for this Senator, may I say it is mutual. I have great respect for the Senator from Utah. There have been few occasions--not many--when we have differed on the floor. I have tremendous respect for him, for his leadership, for his dedication to his country, and for his State.

Mr. BYRD. Precisely so and importantly, emphatically on the second observation the Senator has made. In other words, the morning after, what happens in Iraq? What does that cost? If we destroy much of Iraq, we have a responsibility to help to rebuild it. That is going to be a tremendous cost. I am afraid this administration has not thought that element through. Moreover, the administration has not told the Congress very much about that, what the cost of that may be, what the administration's plans are in that case. I think that is a very soft underbelly of this whole matter.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct, yes.