Replies

PERSIAN GULF POLITICS (Senate - March 13, 1991)

[Page: S3133]
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished President pro tempore.

Mr. President, the January 12 vote on the Persian Gulf has been very much at issue in recent days. Some have come to the floor and spoken out publicly; others have spoken out through various media outlets, publicly attacking those who continue or who voted to continue the sanctions.

What answer there has been to these charges thus far has come almost exclusively from either independent columnists or from Democrats who voted with the President. I did not vote with the President, but I want to answer for myself those charges as one who voted to continue sanctions.

However, before addressing that issue, I want to reiterate how proud I am over the exceptional performance of our Armed Forces in this conflict.

Mr. President, I am proud of the vote I cast. I am proud of the fact that that was my judgment at that point in time. I do not believe I was wrong in the judgment I made.

There are those trying to say somehow that Democrats should be admitting they were wrong. I believed at the time it was the right choice. I still believe, given the circumstances of the time, it was the right choice for that time.

But the fact is, Mr. President, we will never know if it was wrong. I saw today in the Washington Post, which is one of the reasons I was prompted to come to the floor, an article in which a Member of the House of Representatives somehow is suggesting the Democrats who voted to continue sanctions should come out and readily admit they were wrong.

There is not a right and a wrong here. There was a correctness in the President's judgment about timing. But that does not mean there was an incorrectness in the judgment other people made about timing.

As many said at that point in time, the regret is that we will never know the answer as to whether or not there might have been some other alternative to war for achieving the outcome upon which we all agreed. We will never have that answer, Mr. President.

I am as proud as any person in this country of what our troops accomplished in the Persian Gulf. As a veteran of Vietnam, I am delighted people are able to stand up and say that syndrome has been responded to; effectively it has been put to rest.

Nothing gives me more pride or more emotion than to watch these homecomings of victorious troops, homecomings which members of my generation who fought in Vietnam were never afforded and never had the pleasure of experiencing.

So there is a satisfaction and pride in seeing that today. There is a pleasure in having seen our military operate with such efficiency and such capable leadership. That is what we ought to be sharing in America today--not a rancorous, divisive debate that somehow pits people against each other.

So, Mr. President, maybe the situation is a little bit like what TRB--who opened his column in the New Republic--said this week when he referred to a situation where someone's mother comes to him, who lives exclusively on Social Security, and she says to you, `I am going to invest my entire Social Security check in the lottery.' You say, `No, I do not think that is a very good idea.' Most people would say it is not a very good idea. But she does it and she wins the lottery.

It would be a gargantuan task to persuade her after the fact that it was not a good idea. That is precisely where we are today with respect to the judgments about the gulf.

The tragedy is that an ugly, divisive tactic has emerged in recent days that casts a shadow on the victory we all ought to be celebrating. Some individuals who represent a strategy that has seldom taken the high road in American politics in recent years have been busy sewing the seeds of a decidedly--or what I think at any rate is a decidedly--unpatriotic and inappropriately partisan approach to postwar politics.

Sadly, some threaten to do in the aftermath of the war what Democrats pointedly refrained from doing during the conduct of the war, or prior to the conduct of the war.

We have heard a lot of talk of, `Well, we are going to get them,' or `They will pay for their votes,' as though they were somehow against the final outcome; somehow opposed to the goal of liberating Kuwait.

Already fundraising letters, to which colleagues of mine who have come to the floor previously have referred, are being circulated by the Senate Campaign Committee trying to divide Americans over the issue of who should claim credit for the victory.

There is not always respect for truth in politics, and so I suppose we should not feign surprise that this latest approach shows little regard for the truth.

But the simple fact is this strategy ignores the simple truth that from the moment Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait--from the moment the first shot was fired, and from the moment the bombs were dropped during the war itself--there was a remarkable unity in this country.

Mr. President, this is a debate in which I would much prefer we were not engaged, and it is not because I do not feel comfortable with the arguments; I do. It is because it is ugly. It is a debate which appeals to the most base of instincts and, in a sense, demeans the remarkable accomplishment of America--the accomplishment, I might add, of Democrat and Republican alike. This is not a time for partisanship. It is a time for unity and celebration. This is not a debate which is representative of where the energy of the Congress or of the country ought to be going.

But others began this debate, and too much has been written and said, without response. Thus far, it has been a debate really almost without engagement, at least by those who voted to continue sanctions. The result is that there is a certain historical revisionism that is going on. I think that kind of revisionism is dangerous, unfair, and it think it is very important that history not be rewritten in this situation.

Again and again and again in the debate, it was made clear that the vote of the U.S. Senate and the House on the authorization of immediate use of force on January 12 was not a vote as to whether or not force should be used. It was not a vote which represented a division in the Congress over any goal whatsoever in the gulf. In fact, there were very few differences in Congress over the goals.

It was not a vote about whether or not we should go to war at all. After all, Mr. President, as many people have pointed out, we were already at war, because we had imposed the most severe economic sanctions against any country in history, and we have voted to enforce those sanctions with the use of force, if necessary.

That vote on January 12 was about one thing only, one thing only. It was about when--when--you take the final option available to administer the coup de grace. I emphasize coup de grace, because no one in the U.S. Senate doubted the outcome. There was no policy division whatsoever in the United States about whether or not we would win. There was only one issue: Whether or not we have arrived at that special moment where the action requested by the President was absolutely the only option left for achieving our common goals.

There was a legitimate and conscience-driven difference of opinion as to whether or not tactics--not goals, but tactics--were being appropriately decided upon.

Mr. President, the revisionism should not ignore the fact that there were many on the other side of the aisle who were distinctly uncomfortable with the box in which they had been put, who truly questioned whether or not that moment had not arrived. As a result, they decided they could not support their President. It was not a vote where they said: We do not think any of these terrible things will happen; we do not think the war is going to be serious; we think it is going to end in 3 days. No; they based their decision on the belief that it was critical to back the President, because he had a policy, and this was the moment.

Part of the tactical difference--and I emphasize tactical--involved weighing risks. We have heard some Senators quoted for their predictions on the floor of some of the things that can happen in war, and they have been quoted derisively by colleagues, because these things did not happen, Mr. President.

Well, I think it was fair and intelligent to weigh those risks. I think the American voters sent us here to weigh those risks. A review of the statements of support for the President's position shows no one suggesting that those things might not happen, or predicting they would not happen, or basing their vote on the fact that they thought they would not happen. It

simply shows that some were more willing, at that particular moment in time, to accept some of those risks than others.

It is interesting to note, regarding the risks, that General Schwarzkopf stated after the war, `It was miraculous that there weren't more casualties.' Well, I think it is fair to differ over whether policy should depend on the expectancy of miracles for its success.

Mr. President, regrettably, some are trying to rewrite history when they suggest that somehow the vote on early use of force meant our country was not united about Iraqi aggression, and more particularly, that it meant somehow Democrats have a different view in this country about defense, or about the interests of our Nation.

The fact is that within 24 hours of the original aggression by Iraq against Kuwait, both Houses voted unanimously to condemn it. It is worth recalling the reality of that condemnation. On August 2, 1990, the U.S. Senate voted on Resolution 318, which was introduced by Senator Pell, Senator Helms, and others--nine Democrats and six Republicans--that presented the President with united support for the concept that he take all necessary steps to stop Saddam Hussein and force Iraq out of Kuwait. I repeat, `force Iraq out of Kuwait.' The Senate resolution passed unanimously, and it passed before the President of the United States had even spelled out his full policy on this issue.

Mr. President, that resolution, which I will not repeat in full right now, encompassed the freezing of Iraqi assets and the boldest set of sanctions that we have seen. But, most important, it also embraced charter article 42 of the Charter of the United Nations, and in section E stating:

[Page: S3134]
If such measures prove inadequate to secure Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait, additional multilateral actions under article 42 of the United Nations charter involving air, sea, and land forces, as may be needed to maintain or restore international peace and security in the region.

That is what the Congress ought to authorize. I voted for that resolution, Mr. President. You voted for that resolution. Every Member of the U.S. Senate voted for that resolution. It passed unanimously, and it explicitly urged the President to take military action, if necessary.

We voted to support the President, as did Members of the House, because we all understood what was at stake. When we returned from a recess, Mr. President, we continued that support. And our fall session closed on October 2 with another bipartisan resolution on the gulf crisis introduced by Senator Mitchell and Senator Dole. And that resolution commended the President for all of his accomplishments to date, and specifically expressed our approval of the administration's efforts to achieve international solidarity under the umbrella of the United Nations.

I ask people to stop and think for a minute. If the Congress has unanimously embraced a policy that advocates the use of force, if it is the only option left, and the goal adopted by the Congress is the liberation of Kuwait, as it was, no one in their right mind is going to stop short of accomplishing that goal, because no one wants a repeat of Vietnam.

There was implicit in the position of the U.S. Congress an understanding that we might come to the point of using force. And there was equally explicit the adoption of a policy by the Congress that was not going to fail. That meant whether it was January 12, or whether at some point in the future, that ultimate day of reckoning was on the table for every Member who had supported that original policy.

The critical fact is that we supported the U.N. resolutions on the use of force, and the fact is that we laid out and supported a policy that Kuwait would be liberated.

I understand the reality of how defensive to some it may seem to raise these issues in the aftermath of this remarkable success, and I accept that in coming to the floor. I do so because what is important, Mr. President, is that history not be rewritten and that the record be clear, no matter how hard it is to be heard; no matter how much the rush of victory somehow erases reality here.

I think it is important that we state it. From the moment Congress decided the issue--and this is perhaps the most important part of what I would like to say--from the moment the vote in the U.S. Congress took place on the issue of timing, there was almost unanimous agreement in this country expressed by the U.S. Congress. There was almost complete unanimity that we had to stay united, support the troops, and that the debate had ended. We witnessed a democratic process in voting our consciences before we went to war. Once that issue was settled we rallied around the President, around his policy. We did so, because we were determined that there should not be another Vietnam. Again and again during debate, Senators, voting to continue sanctions, warned Saddam Hussein that he should take no comfort from those who voted to delay or to have the sanctions continue. Again and again people said one way or another, Saddam Hussein will leave Kuwait. Iraq, we said, must understand that we will give the President the full support that he requires to wage war if it is authorized.

I am proud to say, Mr. President, that, after the vote, Democrats and Republicans, even those who voted to press on with the sanctions, immediately rallied around country and troops and gave full support to our military effort. No one was going to make the mistake of having sent troops to a distant part of the world and of having had hostilities commence, of now deserting those troops.

But more than that, more than that, when early suggestions were raised as to engaging in a lull in bombing only days after the war began, of a ceasefire, Democrats almost unanimously said no. We argued that would endanger the troops, and it will only give Saddam Hussein time. He knows how and where to surrender. When peaceful demonstrations across the country sought supportive statements for their efforts, the vast majority of Democrats stood with the troops and behind our policy and refused to give those statements. When the Soviet Union made its peace proposal, when Saddam Hussein pretended to accept their terms, and when the ground war began, the vast majority of Democrats agreed with each of the President's decisions and his reactions to each of those events and backed our policy to the fullest.

To the chagrin and even the damnation of some antiwar activists, Democrats maintained unity and steadfastly backed our effort. I even became the target of antiwar protesters in my Boston office, which was taken over by them because I was standing with the President. Picket lines were set up against Democrats and Republicans who were supporting the war. I believe, Mr. President, that it is appropriate to remind everyone that Democrats helped present the Nation a unified front at war.

The Republicans are fond of quoting General Schwarzkopf these days. He is a new and very well-warranted American hero. They would do well to remember what General Schwarzkopf said about when to use force in this situation. The general stated, after we had put the sanctions in place and before the vote to authorize force took place: `If the alternative to dying is sitting out in the desert Sun for another summer, then that is not a bad alternative.' Or later when General Schwarzkopf said, `I really don't think there is ever going to come a time when time is on the side of Iraq, as long as the sanctions are in effect, so long as the U.N. coalition is in effect.' Finally, his comment when pressed about pursuing the military option: `Right now we have enough people saying `OK, enough of this business, let's get on with it.' Golly, sanctions have only been in effect a couple months * * * and we are now starting to see evidence that the sanctions are pinching. So why should we say `OK, we gave them 2 months and they didn't work. Let's get on with it and kill a whole bunch of people.' That's crazy, that's crazy.'

Those were the words of Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, who, together with our allies, led us to this extraordinary victory.

George Bush and the Nation would be far better served and we would all be far better off in victory if the GOP hatchet men do not assume a partisanship which was markedly and happily absent during the conduct of the war itself. If we want to rewrite history and pretend that Democrats somehow did not support the goals or were not in favor of liberating Kuwait, then there is a lot of real history that could be revisited, like who lost Kuwait in the first place or how we got to be in the predicament we were in. That is precisely what Richard Cohen, in the article in the Washington Post, raised today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, the Senator is recognized for 5 additional minutes.

[Page: S3135]
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I do not think we need all that finger-pointing. There is obviously a lot more of it that could be engaged in whether it is in the examination of the statements of a U.S. ambassador who helped to mislead Saddam Hussein , or visits of various Members of Congress that may have misled him or any other aspects of our policy in recent years, including the effort in the Senate impose sanctions, against Iraq--that effort, stemming from Saddam's use of gas against the Kurds, was opposed vigorously by the administration and some in this holy questions which can lead to legitimate. There are a host, it seems to me, of finger-pointing.

If the National Republican Senate Campaign Committee chooses to target Democrats as `appeasers,' the Democratic Party could in turn note that Republican policies not only helped arm Iraq but also licensed dual-use technologies and promoting sales of American high-technology goods to Baghdad that never should have been sent to Saddam .

If the political strategists over on the other side want to try to use the gulf as a wedge issue to challenge the patriotism of those who wanted to give sanctions more time to degrade Iraq's economic and military strength before going to war, the consultants on our side of the aisle can start sending out messages to remind the American public that two Republican Presidents prevented the Congress from imposing economic sanctions against Iraq as a result of its use of chemical weapons against the Kurds.

If the House minority whip wants to try to force Democrats out of office by saying they were helping Saddam , the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee can take out advertising in his district to remind voters that American soldiers died this year to force Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait as a result of mistakes.

Personally, I hope we will not be driven to having that kind of further ugly and rancorous debate here.

This is a moment not to ask `who lost Kuwait?' or `who freed Kuwait?' and to answer the question with some partisan creed. It is a moment when we would be better in saying, `we all helped free Kuwait, we stood united against Saddam Hussein , and as a nation we were victorious. We had disagreements over tactics, but never goals. From the beginning, we undertook policies that insured that Iraq would eventually be forced out of Kuwait.'

The President decided to move quickly, and while war is usually a situation for which the phrase, `situation normal, all fudged up,' was invented, in this war, our generals, our technology, and our soldiers all performed amazingly, wonderfully, well.

The point is this country has a different agenda in victory. Almost every American understands that agenda. It is an agenda to try to win the peace, which in many ways will be far more difficult than winning the war. That is going to require bipartisanship. That is going to require cooperative efforts in the U.S. Senate and the House, in order to forge a consensus and pick our way through a minefield of policy issues far worse then the mine fields that were in the sands of Saudi Arabia and in Kuwait.

It seems to me, Mr. President, that we ought to recognize also the other critical elements of the American agenda. Our soldiers are going to return to a country with a rising rate of unemployment. They are going to return to cities--Chicago, Boston, New York, Washington, and others--where parts of those cities look like Kuwait, where parts of those cities see people living in tin shacks or sleeping on grates. There is enough of

an agenda to rebuild an education system or transportation system, for a lot of other issues in this country that we do not need to engage in divisive tactics over the one thing that we were perhaps most united on in recent memory. It seems to me that we would do well to remember that none of those soldiers lost their life for a Republican or lost their life for a Democrat, or lost their life for any partisan purpose at all. They lost their life for common goals to which every single one of us are committed, and there is not a soldier who I think would be happy with the notion that their leaders are engaged in a partisan bickering that detracts from the glory of victory and the accomplishment which they have achieved on behalf of all of us.

So, Mr. President, having won the war, we now have to act to insure that we win the peace, both in the Middle East and at home. Can anyone doubt that our country faces deep problems that we are making far too little progress in solving? Do we know of nothing better to do here than make political attacks on one another, rather than to try to work together to find solutions to our very real problems?

I know this Nation needs more.

I know this Nation deserves better.

If we lose this peace, after such a victory, we will lose an opportunity as a nation to rebuild its economy and provide for the future that may not come again.

I yield.