He's eloquent--and right. Here is an excerpt (you can read the whole thing in "more"):
Al Qaeda - not Iraq - is the most imminent threat to our national security. Our citizens are asked to protect themselves from Osama bin Ladin at home with a roll of duct tape, while the Administration sends the most deadly and sophisticated army in the world to go to war with Saddam Hussein. Those are the wrong priorities.
On Monday, Tom Ridge, the Secretary of Homeland Security said that the heightened security warning that has millions of Americans stocking up on food, water, duct tape, and plastic sheeting is connected to Al Qaeda and not "the possibility of military involvement with Iraq."
On Tuesday, FBI Director Mueller told the Senate Intelligence Committee that "the Al Qaeda network will remain for the foreseeable future the most immediate and serious threat facing this country."
(end of excerpt)
Mr. President, tomorrow, the United Nations inspectors will report to the Security Council about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. In all likelihood we will continue to hear from Mr. Hans Blix that the inspections are proceeding, but that Iraqi authorities need to be much more cooperative. We know that the Administration is lobbying Mr. Blix to submit the strongest possible case that Iraq is not cooperating.
We all agree that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous and deceptive dictator. We live in a dangerous world and Saddam must be disarmed. The question is how to do it in a way that minimizes the risks to the American people at home, to our armed forces, and to our allies.
I'm still hopeful that we can avoid war. War should always be a last resort.
Earlier today, President Bush quoted President Kennedy and referred to the Cuban missile crisis. President Bush praised my brother for understanding that the dangers to freedom had to be confronted early and decisively.
President Kennedy did understand this. But he also genuinely believed that war must always be the last resort. When Soviet missiles were discovered in Cuba - missiles for more threatening to us than anything Saddam has today - some leaders in the highest councils of our government urged an immediate and unilateral strike. Instead, the United States took its case to the United Nations, won the endorsement of the Organization of American States, and persuaded even our most skeptical allies. We imposed a blockade, demanded inspection, and insisted on the removal of the missiles - all without resorting to full-scale war.
As he said then, "Action is required-and these actions [now] may only be the beginning. We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of, war-but neither will we shrink from that risk at any time it must be faced."
I continue to be concerned that the Bush Administration is persisting in its rush to war with Iraq, even as we face grave threats from Al Qaeda terrorism and North Korea's nuclear ambitions. The Administration has done far too little to tell Congress and the American people about what our country and our troops will face in going to war with Iraq, especially if we have little genuine support from our allies.
We're nearing decision time. I urge President Bush to come clean with the American people about this war. Before endangering the nation's sons and daughters in the Iraqi desert, our citizens deserve full answers to four questions.
First, the President must explain what he considers victory in Iraq. The American people deserve at least this much. Is it disarmament? Is it the overthrow of Saddam? Is it the establishment of a stable, democratic government? If we get rid of Saddam, but leave his bureaucracy in power, will that be a victory? Or, as General Zinni has said, will we be doing what we did in Afghanistan - drive the old Soviet Union out and let something arguably worse emerge?
This should be a basic consideration in committing American lives to this war. Our country should know what we are fighting for. But the Administration has failed to define even this most basic question for the American people.
Second, the President must explain whether we are doing all we can to see that America will be secure at home. A war in Iraq may well strengthen Al Qaeda terrorists, not weaken them, especially if the Muslim world opposes us. We have not broken Osama bin Ladin's will to kill Americans. Our nation has just gone on new and higher alert because of the increased overall threat from Al Qaeda. What if Al Qaeda decides to time its next attack for the day we go to war?
In fact, our nation's intelligence experts have maintained consistently since 9/11 that Al Qaeda terrorism is the greatest threat to our security here at home. They also fear that an American attack on Iraq will only make matters worse by inflaming anti-American sentiments across the Arab world.
Third, the President must fully explain how long, even after the war ends, we will have to commit our forces and economic resources to deal with the consequences of the war. This war will be different than the Gulf War. We will not stop short of Baghdad. If we want to change the regime, we may well have to fight in Baghdad and engage in hand-to-hand combat and urban guerrilla warfare. When the war is over, our troops will become an occupying force, possibly for many years. The tribal, ethnic, and religious fault lines that Saddam has held together through repression may fall apart - much as they did in the brutal civil wars in the former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda, and other countries.
Will the United States have to manage Iraq for years to come on our own? Are we prepared to commit billions of American dollars to Iraq for years to come? Will our troops be part of a United Nations force? Will they become sitting targets for terrorists?
Finally, the President must explain whether our nation is prepared to use this war as the new foreign and defense policy for the future. Are we prepared to invade any nation that poses a threat? Iran, Libya, Syria and other countries have weapons of mass destruction programs. Will we attack them too?
Are we really prepared, as the Administration is considering, to radically change our nuclear weapons policy and use nuclear weapons in Iraq and other conflicts? Even contemplating the first use of nuclear weapons in Iraq under current circumstances and against a non-nuclear nation dangerously undermines the crucial and historical distinction between conventional and nuclear arms. It undermines our international commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If we use the nation's nuclear arsenal in this unprecedented way in Iraq, it will be the most fateful decision since the nuclear attack on Hiroshima.
On each of these questions, the President must reassure the American people. They deserve to know that we are not stepping into quicksand and that this military operation is well thought out. He must convince the nation that we are putting as much effort into thinking about how we get out of Iraq as we are about getting into Iraq.
We must take both the short-term and the long-term view of this enormous problem. Whether war with Iraq will be a sprint or a marathon, we must always remember the finish line.
There is no more important decision by Congress or the President under the Constitution than the decision to send our men and women in uniform to war. The Administration must make a compelling case that war with Iraq is now the only alternative and explain it to the American people.
The Administration says we can fight a war in Iraq without undermining our most pressing national security priority - the ongoing war against the international Al Qaeda terrorist network.
Al Qaeda - not Iraq - is the most imminent threat to our national security. Our citizens are asked to protect themselves from Osama bin Ladin at home with a roll of duct tape, while the Administration sends the most deadly and sophisticated army in the world to go to war with Saddam Hussein. Those are the wrong priorities.
On Monday, Tom Ridge, the Secretary of Homeland Security said that the heightened security warning that has millions of Americans stocking up on food, water, duct tape, and plastic sheeting is connected to Al Qaeda and not "the possibility of military involvement with Iraq."
On Tuesday, FBI Director Mueller told the Senate Intelligence Committee that "the Al Qaeda network will remain for the foreseeable future the most immediate and serious threat facing this country."
On Wednesday, CIA Director Tenet told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the heightened alert issued this week is because of the threat from Al Qaeda - not Iraq.
In addition to threatening American lives, Saudi Arabia has indicated that it will ask American troops to leave its soil. NATO's division over war has threatened the alliance. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, has said that uncertainty over Iraq is slowing our nation's economic growth. Osama Bin Ladin's successes remind us of our own shortfalls in the war against terrorism.
Even before war has begun, we hear of possible threats from a wave of suicide bombers. War with Iraq could swell the ranks of terrorists and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts. As General Wesley Clark told the Senate Armed Services Committee last September 23, war with Iraq could "super-charge recruiting for Al Qaeda."
These are real dangers - dangers that the Administration has minimized in its determination to attack Iraq.
The Administration maintains that there are convincing links between Al Qaeda and Iraq that justify war. But Al Qaeda activists are present in more than 60 countries, including Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and also in the United States. Even in the Administration, there are skeptics about the links with Iraq. Intelligence analysts are concerned that intelligence is being politicized to justify war.
Although the U.N. inspectors have found no evidence so far of a revived nuclear weapons program in Iraq, there is ample evidence in North Korea. North Korea possesses 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods capable of being re-processed, by May, into enough plutonium to make up to six nuclear bombs. With inspectors gone and North Korea gone from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, we face an urgent crisis, with nothing to prevent that nation from quickly producing a significant amount of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons for its own use, or for terrorists hostile to America and our allies. North Korea has already provided missiles to deliver chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons to terrorist states, including Iran, Syria, and Libya. Desperate and strapped for cash, North Korea can easily provide nuclear weapons or weapons grade plutonium to terrorist groups, which could be used against us in the future.
Despite these alarm bells, the Administration refuses to call the situation on the Korean peninsula what it is - a genuine crisis. If this is not a crisis, I don't know what is.
The Administration refuses to directly engage the North Koreans in talks to persuade North Korea to end its nuclear program. By ignoring the North Korean crisis in order to keep the focus on Iraq, the Administration has kept its eye on the wrong place.
It is far from clear that we will be safer by attacking Iraq. In an October 7, 2002 letter to the Senate Committee on Intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet said the probability of Saddam Hussein initiating an attack on the United States was low. But his letter said, "should Saddam Hussein conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions."
Yesterday, Admiral Jacoby, the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Saddam Hussein would use weapons of mass destruction "when he makes the decision that the regime is in jeopardy." CIA Director Tenet agreed with this assessment.
This assessment begs the question: if Saddam will not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States until his regime is about to fall, why is it in our national security interest to provoke him into using them?
The Administration must be more forthcoming about the potential human costs of war with Iraq, especially if it pushes Saddam into unleashing whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses. The Administration has released no casualty estimates, and they could be extremely high. Many military experts have predicted urban guerrilla warfare - a scenario which retired General Joseph Hoar, who had responsibility for Iraq before the Gulf War, says could look "like the last 15 minutes of 'Saving Private Ryan.' "
Nor has the Administration fully explained the ramifications of large-scale mobilization of the National Guard and Reserve - especially its effect on police, firefighters and others who will be on duty for Iraq, but who are needed on the front lines if there is a terrorist attack on the homeland. In Massachusetts, 2000 citizens have been called to active duty in the armed forces.
Nor has the Administration been candid about the humanitarian crisis that could result from war. Refugee organizations are desperately trying to prepare for a flood of as many as 900,000 refugees. Billions of dollars and years of commitment may well be needed to achieve a peaceful post-war Iraq, but the American people still do not know how that process will unfold and who will pay for it.
No war can be successfully waged if it lacks the strong support of the American people. Before pulling the trigger on war, the Administration must tell the American people the full story about Iraq. So far, it has not.
Posted by Lee at February 14, 2003 11:46 PM | TrackBack