October 9, 2002

Rep. Lloyd Doggett:

Today, we must speak not with one voice, but as one democracy -- giving voice to the millions of Americans increasingly concerned with an Administration's deliberate choice to make the terrible weapon of war a predominant instrument in its foreign policy.

Among the more than three thousand communications I have received from my neighbors in Central Texas concerned with this rush to inflame a region as volatile as the oil it holds, is that of Bill Hilgers, a World War II veteran, with 30 bombing missions over Germany and a Purple Heart. He writes:

No one can foresee the potential damage [to] our troops or citizens. . . . We stake our future on an unprecedented breach of our moral principles . . . and our past commitment to peace. [W]e should . . . use every diplomatic strategy . . . to see that Iraq's weapons are destroyed before [using] military force.

A more recent veteran, General Norman Schwarzkopf, writing of the Gulf War, was more direct:

I am certain that had we taken all of Iraq, we would have been like the dinosaur in the tar pit.

[It Doesn't Take a Hero, Bantam Books, 1992, page 498]

The house-to-house urban warfare that would likely result from a land invasion would endanger our soldiers, detract from our ongoing war on terrorism, and expose our families to terrorism for years to come, in what too many in that part of the world would perceive as a war on Islam.

Many Americans are asking, "how best do we protect our families?" And, "do they know something in Washington that we do not know?"

From our briefings in Congress, we do know something about which the public is uncertain and fearful. We have been shown no evidence that Iraq is connected to 9/11; we have been shown no evidence that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the security of American families today. From Central Intelligence Agency reports, secret until very recently and finally released, we know that terrorism, not Iraq, is the real threat. The CIA has concluded that an American invasion of Iraq is more likely to drive our enemies together against us and certainly more likely to make Saddam Hussein use any weapons of mass destruction that he may possess.

How do we make our families safe at this time? Certainly, through a military second to none, yes; through effective law enforcement here at home, yes. But arms alone are insufficient protection -- as the tragedy of September 11 demonstrated all too well.

True security means working together with nations, large and small. It means that we must be wise enough to rely on America's other strengths to rid the world of Iraq's danger rather than unilaterally imposing our will by force that will only unite our enemies while dividing our natural allies.

Over-reliance on packing the biggest gun and having the fastest draw will not make us safer. Rather, it is a formula for international anarchy. A quick draw may eliminate the occasional villain, but only at the cost of destabilizing the world, disrupting the hope for international law and order and, ultimately, endangering each of our families.

President Bush has correctly said, "I would not trust Saddam Hussein with one American life." What fool would trust him? But that is not our choice today. Nor is it a choice between "war" and "doing nothing" or between "war" and "appeasement."

The better choice today is for effective, comprehensive, international inspections and the disarmament of Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction that we believe it possesses. The better choice is to follow the prudent, indeed, the conservative approach -- a firm policy of containment that kept the threat to American families at bay.

Abandoning that successful policy, a policy which Ronald Reagan used effectively against another "evil empire," abandoning that policy which avoided nuclear armageddon, abandoning that policy which we used successfully against Muammar Qaddafi -- that abandonment would place America on a truly perilous path.

Containment and disarmament may not end all wars, but they are clearly superior to the new "first-strike formula" that risks wars without end.

America has the might and the right to defend itself against imminent threats to its security, even unilaterally. If in fact the quality of the President's evidence matched the quality of his oratory, I would be "ready to roll." The President does not need our consent to saber rattle, but let him return to Congress if he has any clear evidence, not yet provided, to show us it is time to let the saber strike.

With this daily talk of war overshadowing all of our hopes and dreams for this country and world, I would address my final remarks to those who are struggling with how to respond. Continue to thoughtfully, respectfully, but forcefully voice your opposition. Do not lose hope. Petition for peace. Pray for peace. Do not give up on peace. Let us work together for an America that remains, indeed, a beacon for the world, that joins with its allies in ensuring the collective security of families here and around the globe.

To the occasional charge of "hand-wringing" and "weakness" leveled at the many of us who are voting today against this resolution, perhaps the same could be said of this statement:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, . . . would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. . . . Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome.

But this statement comes from an American patriot, our first President Bush and his National Security Advisor General Scowcroft explaining why they rejected the approach some urge today.

As most Democrats today vote against launching a ground invasion of Iraq, we must candidly recognize that some of the most insightful arguments supporting our position were advanced by Republicans and military leaders like Scowcroft, Schwartzkopf, and Zinni.

Party affiliations will not be chiseled on the gravestones of young Americans who died winning this war, nor on those of the American families jeopardized by diverting precious resources from the real war on terrorism, nor those harmed by new terrorists provoked by what too many will view as a new crusade against Islam.

Why in the face of overwhelming support do so many of us vote "no" today?

We respond not just to those we represent, but, most of all, because, individually, we must answer to the face we see each day in the mirror; we must answer to history; we must answer to our children and grandchildren.

When more than one of every four House Members cast our vote against this ill-considered resolution, we vote not against President Bush, who deserves our support and respect, but aware of the conflicting advice he is still receiving, we say: Listen to the voices of your better nature.

The prudent choice remains -- first, attempt holding Iraq accountable through effective, comprehensive, international inspections.