Floor Statement on the Resolution to Authorize the use of Force in US Policy Towards Iraq
Thank you Mr. Speaker.
I rise in opposition to H. J. Resolution 114.
Fellow members and the American people, today we have an opportunity to debate an issue that is of great importance. An issue that involves both the known and unknown consequences that only a war can produce, for America, the Middle East, and indeed the entire world.
It comes at a time when many Americans, particularly many New Yorkers from the 6th District, which I am proud and honored to represent, are still in pain from the trauma of the attack on 9/11.
While I have no love for Sadam's brutal regime, I would support any action that the international community, the United Nations, and our friends in the Islamic world, agreed was in the best security interests of the world community.
However, I do have questions about why this Administration would choose now to bring this issue to a vote. In some ways I am not surprised.
More importantly I have deep concerns, many echoed by allies and Iraq's neighbors, about the unforseen consequences and instability which could be caused by a U.S. military attack on Iraq.
At a time when the economy is faltering and so many other domestic issues are being left un-attended, this Congress is being forced to consider the authorization of the use of force, perhaps unilaterally, against a regime we have known about for over 20 years.
A regime which has always been undemocratic and brutal against its own people. Yet our government once ignored those facts, because it once felt it was in our best interests to support that regime with the very same capabilities we now say threaten America.
At a time when we are in the middle of a war against terrorism with the help of a number of majority Muslim nations who are protecting American lives against known threats, this authorization of the use of force against potential threats, could result in a reduction of help from new friends and allies; and thus put the lives of Americans at risk. Is that what we want to do?
It is not surprising that during a time of mourning, healing, and most of all fear, this Administration would speak of the evils of Sadam as a threat to America and a threat to the world, but yet not provide this Congress with the evidence to support such claims.
Certainly when it comes to our security, there is no debating that I stand with all Americans when it comes to protecting Americans. It is why I fully supported any and all actions to bring those who committed the attacks of 9/11 to justice.
Yet, as of last night no evidence has been offered linking Sadam's regime to those who attacked us on 9/11.
More importantly, let's not tell the American people and the world that we would use force against Iraq in the name of the world's freedom and security. Let's not say we are authorizing the President to use force against Iraq to protect the credibility of the United Nations by enforcing all UN Security Council resolutions pertaining to Iraq.
I have yet to see the world, nor Iraq's neighbors, ask America to protect it from Iraq. In fact, many friends, allies and our own intelligence agencies say a number of other nations pose far greater threats to security.
Newsday recently cited eleven nations currently in violation of UN Security Council resolutions. What will we say if other nations claim that force should be used against these nations - a number of whom are our allies- for being in violation of Security Council resolutions?
Others, both inside and outside of this administration, speak about "sending a message", and that the "credibility" of our nation in the world is at risk, if we do not stand ready to act with force.
I want every member to say they are ready to comfort a loved one of an American soldier, who might give their life for their country, not to confront a threat, but because it was important to send a message. Since when do we authorize the use of force, not to address a threat, but because not to use force would hurt our credibility?
It is not surprising that during a time of mourning, healing, and most of all fear, this Administration would speak of all these potential threats from Iraq, and mix them with the war against terror, as a pretext for bringing back an old approach to national security and call it a new policy.
The ideas of using pre-emptive military strikes against known threats, unknown threats, and even the ability to potentially threaten, as stated in the Administration's new national security strategy on September 20, 2002 are not new.
The very same ideas can also be found in the 1992 Draft Defense Planning Guidance document and the 1993 Defense Strategy for the 1990s document. Both of those documents were written under the direction of the current Vice President, the Deputy Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, when they all served in various Defense Department related positions in the last Bush Administration.
If we truly live in a new world, why is this Bush Administration presenting us with what it calls a "new approach" to national security for Americans in a new world, using the same old ideas that were once rejected by the American people? Ideas which even Nelson Mandela said could be a threat to world security.
I have come to a conclusion that this debate about Iraq raises two fundamental questions for our nation and for our generation. Questions which depending upon how they are answered, will affect the lives of generations to come.
What kind of world do Americans want our children to live in? and;
2. In the 21st century, do Americans think the best way to achieve security, is by US global military dominance or US global cooperation?
I believe that after 9/11, it is now more important for the American people to have a greater say on whether they believe they will be safer in America and in this increasingly smaller world, if their government adopts a posture of global military dominance or a posture of global cooperation.
Many Americans feel that increased public diplomacy must be a part of the war against terrorism, because one of the reasons why a murderer like Bin Laden was able to recruit individuals to attack Americans is because some in the world are isolated and don't know the truth about America.
We should be working with the world, and building on our cooperation with our allies in the war against terrorism.
Terrorism is a global problem, not just an American problem.
Fighting terrorism requires global solutions, which can only be obtained through cooperation, not by threatening the world that we will go it alone whenever the world does not see things our way.
The use of the world's greatest military power in a pre-emptive strike against others is not a foreign policy of strength. It is a foreign policy of fear.
I will always stand for protecting America and given the fact that we will soon begin spending more money on defense than the combined spending of the next 19 nations in the world, I am confident that our military power assures that any nation that attacked us would be defeated in battle.
We were not attacked by any nation on 9/11. When it comes to protecting America from terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, recent history shows that we can beat them as well, when we have the help and cooperation of others.
A pre-emptive strike against Iraq will squander the opportunity to build on the existing cooperation we now enjoy and to create even greater levels of global cooperation on other issues of concern to the world - including issues which are the root causes of terrorism.
We can take action and we should. We can work with others in the same way we are working with the world to combat Al Qaeda. We can demonstrate true leadership by exhausting all diplomatic means rather than by simply falling back on the use of force.
I'm sure that this Administration and this Congress will always reserve the right to pursue a course of action to protect America's national security. However, we must realize that no matter how powerful our military is, our security is linked to the world's security. If this crisis is truly an issue of global peace, I urge America to work with the world to secure the peace for all. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution.