ollowing are excerpts from the House debate yesterday on the use of force against Iraq, as recorded by The New York Times. Speakers included the minority leader, Richard A. Gephardt, Democrat of Missouri; the majority leader, Dick Armey, Republican of Texas; the Republican whip, Tom DeLay of Texas; and Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California.
Advertisement
| |
|
Representative Gephardt
Let me say to my colleagues and my constituents in Missouri why I've decided to vote for this resolution.
First, Sept. 11 has made all the difference. The events of that tragic day jolted us to the enduring reality that terrorists not only seek to attack our interests abroad but also to strike us here at home.
We have clear evidence now that they even desire to use weapons of mass destruction against us. Before 9/11 we experienced the terrorist attacks on Khobar Towers, the U.S.S. Cole, on two embassies in Africa. But we didn't believe it would happen here.
On 9/11 it did happen here. And it can happen again. Sept. 11 was the ultimate wake-up call. We must now do everything in our power to prevent further terrorist attacks and ensure that an attack with a weapon of mass destruction cannot happen. The consequences of such an attack are unimaginable.
We spent 50 years in a cold war and trillions of dollars deterring a weapon of mass destruction attack on the United States by another country. Now we must prevent such an attack by terrorists who, unlike our previous adversaries, are willing to die. In these new circumstances deterrence well may not work. With these new dangers prevention must work.
If you're worried about terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction or their components from countries, the first candidate you worry about is Iraq. The 12-year history of the U.N. effort to disarm Iraq convinces me that Iraq is a problem that must be dealt with, diplomatically if we can, militarily if we must.
I did not come to this view overnight. It has instead evolved over time as we have learned the facts about the Iraqi regime with clarity. As you know, I opposed the use of force against Iraq in 1991 in favor of giving sanctions more time to work. Others supported force but thought that by dislodging Iraq from Kuwait we would neutralize the threat. In hindsight both of these assessments were wrong.
In 1991, no one knew the extent to which Saddam Hussein would sacrifice the needs of his people in order to sustain his hold on power, deceive the international community in order to preserve his weapons of mass destructions programs or take hostile actions against U.S. interests in the region.
Saddam Hussein's track record is too compelling to ignore. And we know that he continues to develop weapons of mass destruction including nuclear devices. And he may soon have the ability to have a nuclear weapon against other nations.
I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent.
As I stated in a speech in June, I believe we must confront the threat posed by the current Iraqi regime directly. But given the stakes involved and the potential risks to our security and the region, we must proceed carefully and deliberately.
That's why I felt it was essential to engage in negotiations in order to craft an effective and responsible authorization for the force, if necessary, so we can defend our nation and enforce U.N. resolutions pertaining to Iraq.
At the insistence of many of us, the resolution includes a provision urging President Bush to continue his efforts to get the U.N. to effectively enforce its own resolutions against Iraq. I have told the president directly on numerous occasions that in my view and in the view of a lot of us he must do everything he possibly can to achieve our objectives with the support of the United Nations. His speech to the U.N. on Sept. 12 was an excellent beginning to this effort.