Unilateral, Preemptive Action is Wrong on Principle

Statement presented Floor of the U.S. House of Representatives during its consideration of the Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq

(House of Representatives - October 8, 2002)

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to speak and your leadership in promoting a full and thoughtful debate on a critical issue for our country. It has truly been a very positive experience in our committee and I am looking forward to bringing it forward here to the floor of the House.

As I listened to President Bush make his case for war last night, what I heard was him debating --- beyond the official briefings --- with thousands of Americans who have voiced their concerns in emails, letters and conversations. These are our constituents: ordinary citizens, raising straightforward, commonsense arguments against unilateral, pre-emptive military action. Those voices were unanswered last night.

Unanswered was the learned warning of a respected Portland Rabbi, recently returned from another month-long stay in Israel, who assures me that Israel will assuredly respond with nuclear weapons if Saddam Hussein unleashes SCUDS armed with chemical or biological agents against it.

Unanswered was the common knowledge that some allies have already used the rhetoric of this administration to pursue policies against their "own" terrorists, complicating the lives of our officials who must deal with the results

Unanswered were the countless questioners in our meetings at home who ask why some of the same people who are promoting this action against Iraq are the same who aided Saddam Hussein in getting chemical and biological agents in the 1980's and who didn't speak out when he used them against his own people.

As the President confidently predicts our precise military strikes, I hear the viewers and readers of Black Hawk Down reminding us how things can go horribly wrong, all lessons learned by Presidents Reagan, Bush and Clinton.

Unanswered are those critics, including colleagues amongst us, who fear not that the United States would ultimately be defeated by Saddam Hussein, but that young American soldiers lack sufficient preparation for chemical and biological warfare, and could suffer horrible losses

I was intrigued with the insight of my son, about to return to Southeast Asia, calling this a policy of national insecurity, putting him at greater risk traveling in the Muslim populations in Asia, while increasing the likelihood of terrorist violence here at home

Our constituents, Mr. Speaker, describe a much more complicated world: one where the United States has yet to develop a coherent strategy for democracy in the Middle East, a world where other elements are at least as great a threat. Persuasive cases have been made against Iran and North Korea --- members of the Axis of Evil.

We're not finished yet in Afghanistan. President Karzai is barely the Mayor of Kabul. It is uncertain whether we, or the countries who supported us, there are ready to finish that job.

And, it's important to remember this is not Munich. No one talks of appeasement. If Sadam Hussein takes one step outside his borders, his forces will be annihilated. There is no question about it.

It's interesting how recently the polls are starting to more accurately reflect the mood of the American public that has been expressed to us for months. But regardless of what the polls say, some things are just wrong. Unilateral preemptive action as an operating principle is wrong.

Delegating the unfettered authority to this President or any President to wage war is wrong. Missing the chance to build a more secure future with a coherent foreign policy is wrong

This debate does not yet capture the nature of the many challenges we face of the legitimate concerns and observations of the American public. It doesn't prepare America for the struggle ahead. I will vote no and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.