[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 18, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H1927-H1929]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ERRONEOUS JUSTIFICATIONS FOR WAR IN IRAQ
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the President's speech last
night. I have no doubt that the President loves this country as much as
I do, and he wants to do what is right. My problem with what he said is
this: Many of the facts he cites and the things he believes about Iraq
and about international law, and I hate to say this, are just plain
wrong.
There is a very good article in today's Washington Post buried on
page 13 which is entitled ``Bush Clings to Dubious Allegations About
Iraq,'' which I will submit for the Record. It reminds us of some
things we have forgotten.
For instance, does Iraq have nuclear weapons? Is it trying to make
them? The President has said that Iraq tried to buy high-strength
aluminum tubes to use in machinery to enrich uranium. The International
Atomic Energy Commission determined the tubes were for conventional
weapons.
The administration has pointed to 30 pounds of fissile material that
was being smuggled into Iraq in a taxi from Turkey. It turned out to be
less than 3 ounces of nonradioactive metal.
In his State of the Union Address, the President relied on a report
that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Niger, in Africa. That turned out to
be a forgery, and it was a forgery that the CIA had warned the
administration about.
Last week the Vice President said Iraq has ``reconstituted nuclear
weapons.'' Later in the same interview, he said that Iraq would get
nuclear weapons, and it was only a matter of time. But the
International Atomic Energy Commission, which has people on the ground
in Iraq, or did until we told them to get out, says that there is no
indication of resumed nuclear activities.
Does Iraq have ballistic missiles that can strike Saudi Arabia,
Israel, and Turkey, as the President said? U.N. arms inspectors found
the missiles, determined they could not fly as far as those three
countries, but they ordered them destroyed anyway. The Iraqis destroyed
them, but the President said Hussein has ordered continued production,
apparently based on nothing more than an electronic intercept where
someone said they could build missiles in the future.
Does Iraq have an extensive ongoing weapons program? Well, a graduate
student 12 years ago wrote a paper that
[[Page H1928]]
says so. It was plagiarized by the Blair government and passed on to
Secretary Powell and cited in the United Nations as a news-breaking
British intelligence document. When I weigh a plagiarized graduate
school paper against the U.N. inspector's report, my inclination is to
go with the United Nations report.
{time} 1900
But this administration sticks with the plagiarized paper. The
President also threw in some misconceptions about international law. He
believes that various U.N. resolutions add up to enough authority to go
to war. That is not true. When the President takes his oath, he agrees
to follow the treaties in article 6, clause II: ``This Constitution and
all treaties made shall be made under the authority of the United
States and shall be the supreme law of the land.''
When we go to war in Iraq, we are breaking that law. Now I hope the
President, who still has 2 days to do some thinking, will consider
drawing back from the brink.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the President's speech last night. I have
no doubt that the President loves this country as much as I do, and
wants to do what is right.
My problem with what he said is simply this: many of the facts he
cites and the things he believes about Iraq and about international law
are--and I hate to say this--just wrong.
There is a good article in the Washington Post today called ``Bush
Clings to Dubious Allegations About Iraq,'' which I will submit for the
Record. It reminds us of some things we have forgotten.
Does Iraq have nuclear weapons? Is it trying to make them?
The President has said that Iraq tried to buy high-strength aluminum
tubes to use in machinery to enrich uranium. The International Atomic
Energy Commission determined that the tubes were for conventional
weapons.
The Administration has pointed to 30 pounds of ``fissile material''
that was being smuggled into Iraq in a taxi from Turkey. It turned out
to be less than 3 ounces of nonradioactive metal. In his State of the
Union Address, the President relied on a report that Iraq tried to buy
uranium in Niger that turned out to be a forgery, and a forgery that
the CIA had warned the Administration about.
Last weekend, on Meet the Press, Vice President Cheney said Iraq has
``reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' Later in the same interview, he said
Iraq would get nuclear weapons and it was ``only a matter of time.''
But the International Atomic Energy Commission which has people on
the ground in Iraq--or did until we told them they should get out--says
``there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities.''
Does Iraq have ballistic missiles that can strike Saudi Arabia,
Israel, and Turkey, as the President said? U.N. arms inspectors found
the missiles, determined that they couldn't fly as far as those three
countries, but ordered them destroyed.
The Iraqis destroyed them, but the President says Hussein has ordered
their continued production--apparently based on nothing more than an
electronic intercept where someone says they could build missiles again
in the future.
Does Iraq have an extensive, on-going weapons program? Well, a
graduate student wrote a paper that says so and it was plagiarized by
the Blair government, and passed on to Secretary Powell and cited as a
newsbreaking British intelligence document.
When I weigh a plagiarized grad school paper against the U.N.
inspector's report, my inclination is to go with the U.N. inspector's
report--but this administration sticks with the plagiarized paper.
The President also threw in some misconceptions about international
law in his speech last night. He believes that various U.N. Resolutions
add up to enough authority for the U.S. to launch an air and ground
invasion of Iraq.
This is not true. When we joined the U.N., we signed a treaty. The
treaty says a member state can attack another country under two
conditions--when attacked or in imminent danger of attack or when an
attack is authorized by the Security Council.
The President said last week that we were going to the Security
Council for authority and we'd have a vote ``no matter what the Whip
count is.'' Well, we didn't. We didn't because we were going to lose.
Mr. Bush came up here to the Capitol steps on January 20, 2001 and
said, ``I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office
of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States.'' That's the Oath of Office, friends.
The Constitution he pledged to uphold says, Article 6, Clause 2:
``This Constitution . . . and all Treaties made, or which shall be made
under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of
the Land.''
Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land, on a par with the
Constitution. The Constitution says so. We aren't supposed to pick and
choose.
We've never before in the history of the United States invaded
another country without some kind of immediate provocation. But from
now on, under the Bush Doctrine, we're going to invade when we think
it's a good idea whether the Security Council agrees or not.
This is a dangerous course--and it's especially dangerous when the
information used to decide whom to invade is so very, very bad.
Mr. Speaker, there is still time for the President to pull back from
this course of action, to re-examine the so-called ``facts'' he's
relying on and to find another path. Let us pray that he does.
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 18, 2003]
Bush Clings to Dubious Allegations About Iraq
(By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank)
As the Bush administration prepares to attack Iraq this
week, it is doing so on the basis of a number of allegations
against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein that have been
challenged--and in some cases disproved--by the United
Nations, European governments and even U.S. intelligence
reports.
For months, President Bush and his top lieutenants have
produced a long list of Iraqi offenses, culminating Sunday
with Vice President Cheney's assertion that Iraq has
``reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' Previously, administration
officials have tied Hussein to al Qaeda, to the Sept. 11,
2001, terrorist attacks, and to an aggressive production of
biological and chemical weapons. Bush reiterated many of
these charges in his address to the nation last night.
But these assertions are hotly disputed. Some of the
administration's evidence--such as Bush's assertion that Iraq
sought to purchase uranium--has been refuted by subsequent
discoveries. Other claims have been questioned, though their
validity can be known only after U.S. forces occupy Iraq.
In outlining his case for war on Sunday, Cheney focused on
how much more damage al Qaeda could have done on Sept. 11
``if they'd had a nuclear weapon and detonated it in the
middle of one of our cities, or if they had unleashed . . .
biological weapons of some kind, smallpox or anthrax.'' He
then tied that to evidence found in Afghanistan of how al
Qaeda leaders ``have done everything they could to acquire
those capabilities over the years.''
But in October CIA Director George J. Tenet told Congress
that Hussein would not give such weapons to terrorists unless
he decided helping ``terrorists in conducting a WMD [weapons
of mass destruction] attack against the United States would
be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large
number of victims with him.''
In his appearance Sunday, on NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' the
vice president argued that ``we believe [Hussein] has, in
fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' But Cheney
contradicted that assertion moments later, saying it was
``only a matter of time before he acquires nuclear weapons.''
Both assertions were contradicted earlier by Mohamed
ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic
Energy Agency, who reported that ``there is no indication of
resumed nuclear activities.''
ElBaradei also contradicted Bush and other officials who
argued that Iraq had tried to purchase high-strength aluminum
tubes to use in centrifuges for uranium enrichment. The IAEA
determined that Iraq did not plan to use imported aluminum
tubes for enriching uranium and generating nuclear weapons.
ElBaradei argued that the tubes were for conventional weapons
and ``it was highly unlikely'' that the tubes could have been
used to produce nuclear material.
Cheney on Sunday said ElBaradei was ``wrong'' about Iraq's
nuclear program and questioned the IAEA's credibility.
Earlier this month, ElBaradei said information about Iraq
efforts to buy uranium were based on fabricated documents.
Further investigation has found that top CIA officials had
significant doubts about the veracity of the evidence,
linking Iraq to efforts to purchase uranium for nuclear
weapons from Niger, but the information ended up as fact in
Bush's State of the Union address.
In another embarrassing episode for the administration,
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cited evidence about
Iraq's weapons efforts that originally appeared in a British
intelligence document. But it later emerged that the British
report's evidence was based in part on academic papers and
trade publications.
Sometimes information offered by Bush and his top officials
is questioned by administration aides. In his March 6 news
conference, Bush dismissed Iraq's destruction of its Al
Samoud-2 missiles, saying they were being dismantled ``even
as [Hussein] has ordered the continued production of the very
same type of missiles.'' But the only intelligence was
electronic intercepts that had individuals talking about
being able to build missiles in the future, according to a
senior intelligence analyst.
Last month, Bush spoke about a liberated Iraq showing ``the
power of freedom to transform that vital region'' and said
``a new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and
inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the
region.'' But a classified State Department report put
together by the department's intelligence and research staff
[[Page H1929]]
and delivered to Powell the same day as Bush's speech
questioned that theory, arguing that history runs counter to
it.
In his first major speech solely on the Iraqi threat, has
October, Bush said, ``Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with
a likely range of hundreds of miles--far enough to strike
Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations--in a region
where more than 135,000 American civilians and service
members live and work.''
Inspectors have found that the Al Samoud-2 missiles can
travel less than 200 miles--not far enough to hit the targets
Bush named. Iraq has not accounted for 14 medium-range Scud
missiles from the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but the
administration has not presented any evidence that they still
exist.
____________________