The Clinton Administration's Public Case Against Saddam Hussein

In June of 1997, Iraq officials had ratcheted up their obstruction of UNSCOM inspection efforts. They interfered with UNSCOM air operations and denied and delayed access of inspectors to sites. In September, they burned documents at sites while inspectors watched outside the front entrance. By mid-November, Saddam Hussein had demanded an end to U-2 surveillance flights over Iraq and called on American inspectors to leave Iraq.1 Iraqis also began moving equipment that could produce weapons of mass destruction out of the range of video cameras inspectors had installed inside key industrial facilities.2

At first, the Clinton administration adopted a generally reserved tone toward Saddam's provocations. "We believe that he needs to fulfill all the Security Council obligations and that that is an appropriate way to deal with him," commented Secretary Albright at a November 5 press conference with the German foreign minister.3

The next day Secretary Cohen held a ceremony unrelated to Iraq, but, citing "an unusual array" of journalists present, he also spoke on Iraq. "[I]t's imperative that Iraq comply with U.N. mandates," said Cohen, but "the task right now, however, is to persuade them to cease and desist from their obstruction." And when asked what would be the consequences should Saddam not comply, Cohen said simply, "it's important that we not speculate what those reactions might be."4

Striking a similar tone on November 10 at the Pentagon, Vice President Gore stated that "Saddam has taken steps that interfere with the ability of the inspection team to carry out its mission." He added, "The procedure chosen to deal with this situation is to engage him in discussions in which he can be made aware that this is not a smart thing for him to do, and he ought to change his mind."5

But Saddam remained defiant. So on Friday, November 14, President Clinton and his top advisors met at the White House and decided to launch a public campaign to build support for a possible war against Iraq.

The New York Times reported that at the November 14 meeting the "White House decided to prepare the country for war." According to the Times, "[t]he decision was made to begin a public campaign through interviews on the Sunday morning television news programs to inform the American people of the dangers of biological warfare."6 During this time, the Washington Post reported that President Clinton specifically directed Cohen "to raise the profile of the biological and chemical threat."7

On November 16, Cohen made a widely reported appearance on ABC's This Week in which he placed a five-pound bag of sugar on the table and stated that that amount of anthrax "would destroy at least half the population" of Washington, D.C. Cohen explained how fast a person could die once exposed to anthrax. "One of the things we found with anthrax is that one breath and you are likely to face death within five days. One small particle of anthrax would produce death within five days." And he noted that Iraq "has had enormous amounts" of anthrax. Cohen also spoke on the extreme lethality of VX nerve agent: "One drop [of VX] from this particular thimble as such -- one single drop will kill you within a few minutes." And he reminded the world that Saddam may have enough VX to kill "millions, millions, if it were properly dispersed and through aerosol mechanisms."8

"The War of Words Grows; U.S.: Poisons Are World Threat" headlined the New York Daily News Monday morning.9 CBS News said the White House had begun "a new tack, warning in the darkest possible terms of the damage which Saddam Hussein could inflict with his chemical and biological weapons."10 And in "America the Vulnerable; A disaster is just waiting to happen if Iraq unleashes its poison and germs," Time wrote that "officials in Washington are deeply worried about what some of them call 'strategic crime.' By that they mean the merging of the output from a government's arsenals, like Saddam's biological weapons, with a group of semi-independent terrorists, like radical Islamist groups, who might slip such bioweapons into the U.S. and use them."11

This message was echoed in a series of remarks President Clinton delivered the same week.

In Sacramento, November 15, Clinton painted a bleak future if nations did not cooperate against "organized forces of destruction," telling the audience that only a small amount of "nuclear cake put in a bomb would do ten times as much damage as the Oklahoma City bomb did." Effectively dealing with proliferation and not letting weapons "fall into the wrong hands" is "fundamentally what is stake in the stand off we're having in Iraq today."

He asked Americans to not to view the current crisis as a "replay" of the Gulf War in 1991. Instead, "think about it in terms of the innocent Japanese people that died in the subway when the sarin gas was released [by the religious cult Aum Shinrikyo in 1995]; and how important it is for every responsible government in the world to do everything that can possibly be done not to let big stores of chemical or biological weapons fall into the wrong hands, not to let irresponsible people develop the capacity to put them in warheads on missiles or put them in briefcases that could be exploded in small rooms. And I say this not to frighten you."12

Again in Wichita, November 17, Clinton said that what happens in Iraq "matters to you, to your children and to the future, because this is a challenge we must face not just in Iraq but throughout the world. We must not allow the 21st century to go forward under a cloud of fear that terrorists, organized criminals, drug traffickers will terrorize people with chemical and biological weapons the way the nuclear threat hung over the heads of the whole world through the last half of this century. That is what is at issue."13

On November 19, at a White House signing ceremony for an adoption bill, Clinton warned that Iraq must "let the weapons inspectors resume their work to prevent Iraq from developing an arsenal of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons." To achieve this, "we are prepared to pursue whatever options are necessary" because, Clinton added, "I do not want these children we are trying to put in stable homes to grow up into a world where they are threatened by terrorists with biological and chemical weapons."14

In Washington, D.C., November 21, Clinton applauded the return of UNSCOM inspectors that day (after a three week absence) "to proceed with their work without interference, to find, to destroy, to prevent Iraq from rebuilding nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to carry them." He added: "We must not let our children be exposed to the indiscriminate availability and potential abuse and actual use of the biological and chemical and smaller-scale nuclear weapons which could terrorize the 21st century," said Clinton.15

But with the return of the UNSCOM, Iraqi officials began delaying entry of inspectors to "sensitive sites."16

"Clear and Present Danger"

On November 25, the Pentagon released "Proliferation: Threat and Response." A few things stand out in the report. In the section on Iraq, the word "terrorism" (in any form) is not mentioned. It is, though, cited in the sections on Libya and Iran. The report stated that Iraq "probably has hidden" chemical munitions, "may retain … some missile warheads" from its old biological program, and could jump-start production of chemical and biological weapons "should UN sanctions and monitoring end or be substantially reduced."17

Cohen began his press briefing on the Pentagon report by showing a picture of a Kurdish mother and her child who had been gassed by Saddam's army. A bit later, standing besides the gruesome image, he described death on a mass scale. "One drop [of VX nerve agent] on your finger will produce death in a matter of just a few moments. Now the UN believes that Saddam may have produced as much as 200 tons of VX, and this would, of course, be theoretically enough to kill every man, woman and child on the face of the earth." He then sketched an image of a massive chemical attack on an American city. Recalling Saddam's use of poison gas and the sarin attack in Tokyo, Cohen warned that "we face a clear and present danger today" and reminded people that the "terrorist who bombed the World Trade Center in New York had in mind the destruction and deaths of some 250,000 people that they were determined to kill."

Asked whether Iraq had moved "any of his programs underground into these hardened facilities," Cohen responded that he didn't know whether Saddam had "moved these chemicals or biological agents and materials --- not only the agents themselves, but documentation .... So we don't know whether they've moved them into hardened shelters or underground bunkers." He spoke of Iraqi weapons as fact, not a probability or likelihood.18

By mid-December, the Pentagon had announced that all members of the military would be vaccinated against anthrax with the first vaccinations going to those "assigned or deployed to the high threat areas of Southwest Asia and Northeast Asia."19 At the same, time, Iraqi officials announced a ban on inspections of "presidential sites" and restricted access to other "sensitive sites." With the start of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan approaching on December 31, the administration decided that any military strike had to wait. "Dragging things out to get past Ramadan" is how a senior Clinton official characterized administration policy during this period to the Washington Post.20

With the end of Ramadan on January 29 and Saddam still failing to comply with his commitment to the U.N. to disarm, Clinton officials resumed public efforts to make the case on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

Secretary Albright flew to the Middle East to drum up support for possible war.21 "Saddam Hussein, armed with chemical and biological weapons, is a threat to the international community," she told journalists in Bahrain.22

A few days later, on February 7, Clinton, joined by Prime Minister Blair, devoted his Saturday radio address to Iraq. Noting the two were speaking from the same room where FDR and Churchill "charted our path victory in World War II," Clinton told Americans that we now face "a new nexus of threats, none more dangerous than chemical and biological weapons, and the terrorists, criminals and outlaw states that seek to acquire them." He warned that "Iraq continues to conceal chemical and biological weapon[s]," "has the "missiles that can deliver them" and "has the capacity to quickly restart production of these weapons."23

How fast Saddam could "restart production" was discussed in a 10-page U.S. Government white paper on "Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction" released on February 13.24 "In the absence of UNSCOM inspectors," the report stated, "Iraq could restart limited mustard agent production with[in] a few weeks, full-production of sarin within a few months, and pre-Gulf war production levels - including VX - within two or three years." It had a chart listing how many were killed by Saddam's chemical weapons in the 1980s. It noted that although inspections severely curtailed Iraq's wmd programs, Saddam "is actively trying to retain what remains of his wmd programs while wearing down the will of the Security Council to maintain sanctions." But, "even a small residual force of operational missiles armed with biological or chemical warheads would pose a serious threat to neighboring countries and US military forces in the region."25

It detailed the biological and chemical agents and munitions for which Iraq had not accounted. It stated that Iraq "provided no hard evidence to support claims that it destroyed all of its BW agents and munitions in 1991" and "has not supplied adequate evidence to support its claim that it destroyed all of its CW agents and munitions."26

Under the White Paper's "nuclear weapons" section, it observed: "Baghdad's interest in acquiring nuclear or developing nuclear weapons has not diminished"; "we have concerns that scientists may be pursuing theoretical nuclear research that would reduce the time required to produce a weapon should Iraq acquire sufficient fissile material"; "Iraq continues to withhold significant information about enrichment techniques, foreign procurement, weapons design, and the role of Iraq's security and intelligence services in obtaining external assistance and coordinating postwar concealment."27

On February 17, President Clinton spoke on the steps of the Pentagon. The president declared that the great danger confronting the U.S. and its allies was the "threat Iraq poses now-a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed." Before the Gulf War of 1991, he noted, "Saddam had built up a terrible arsenal, and he had used it. Not once, but many times in a decade-long war with Iran, he used chemical weapons against combatants, against civilians, against a foreign adversary and even against his own people."28

"Madonna and Child Saddam Hussein-style"

On February 18, Secretaries Cohen and Albright and National Security Advisor Berger held a global town hall meeting on the campus of Ohio State University. They noted that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and had used them.

"Saddam Hussein," Cohen said "has developed an arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons. He has used these weapons repeatedly against his own people as well as Iran. I have a picture which I believe CNN can show on its cameras, but here's a picture taken of an Iraqi mother and child killed by Iraqi nerve gas. This is what I would call Madonna and child Saddam Hussein-style."

Berger declared that "in the 21st century, the community of nations may see more and more of this very kind of threat that Iraq poses now, a rogue state with biological and chemical weapons."

The "record will show that Saddam Hussein has produced weapons of mass destruction," Albright stated, "which he's clearly not collecting for his own personal pleasure, but in order to use." She continued: "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."30

"If the world had been firmer with Hitler"

At Tennessee State on February 19, Albright told the crowd that the world has not "seen, except maybe since Hitler, somebody who is quite as evil as Saddam Hussein." In answering a question, she sketched some of the "worse" case scenarios should Saddam "break out of the box that we kept him in."

One "scenario is that he could in fact somehow use his weapons of mass destruction."

"Another scenario is that he could kind of become the salesman for weapons of mass destruction -- that he could be the place that people come and get more weapons."

One of the lessons of history, Albright continued, is that "if you don't stop a horrific dictator before he gets started too far -- that he can do untold damage." "If the world had been firmer with Hitler earlier," said Albright, "then chances are that we might not have needed to send Americans to Europe during the Second World War."31

Four days later, February 23, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan reached a deal with Saddam for inspections of presidential sites. The Security Council endorsed the agreement on March 2 with UNSC Resolution 1154, which warned of the "severest consequences" should Iraq break the agreement. But within a few months, Saddam was again obstructing U.N. inspectors.

On May 22, 1998, President Clinton delivered a speech reminiscent of the comments he made on February 17 at the Pentagon.

The president warned Annapolis graduates that our enemies "may deploy compact and relatively cheap weapons of mass destruction - not just nuclear, but also chemical or biological, to use disease as a weapon of war. Sometimes the terrorists and criminals act alone. But increasingly, they are interconnected, and sometimes supported by hostile countries." The U.S. will work to "prevent the spread and use of biological weapons and to protect our people in the event these terrible weapons are ever unleashed by a rogue state or terrorist group or an international criminal organization." This protection will include "creating stockpiles of medicines and vaccines to protect our civilian population against the kind of biological agents our adversaries are most likely to obtain or develop."32

On August 5, 1998, Iraq halted no-notice inspections by UNSCOM but allowed UNSCOM's monitoring activities to continue.33

On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed public law 105-235, "Iraqi Breach of International Obligations," which had passed the Senate unanimously and by a vote of 407-6 in the House.34 Among the law's findings: "Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threaten vital United States interests and international peace and security." It concluded:

Six days later, August 20, the U.S. launched missiles strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. According to the September 1, 1998 Washington Post, a U.S. intelligence operation "to investigate Sudan's nascent chemical weapons program ultimately linked Al Shifa [a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory] to Iraq's chemical weapons programs...."36

On October 31, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM.37 The same day President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, which declared that "[i]t should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."38 In signing the Act, the President stated that the U.S. "looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life."39

Two week later, November 14, Iraq resumed cooperation with UNSCOM, averting U.S and British air strikes.40

On December 8, National Security Advisor Berger delivered an address at Stanford University on U.S. policy on Iraq. He stated:

On December 9, Iraq again resumed obstructing inspection activities and shortly thereafter UNSCOM withdrew inspectors from Iraq.42

On December 16, 1998, President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox, a four-day missile and bombing attack on Iraq. "I acted quickly because, as my military advisors stressed, the longer we waited, the more time Saddam would have to disburse his forces and protect his arsenal," Clinton explained in his December 19 radio address to the nation. "Our mission is clear: to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction."43 (It should be noted that on July 27, 2003 President Clinton assessed the effectiveness of Desert Fox. He stated: "When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know." )44

Secretary Albright held a briefing on Desert Fox and was asked how she would respond to those who say that unlike the 1991 Gulf War this campaign "looks like mostly an Anglo-American mission." She answered:

Secretary Cohen replied much the same way to comments made in March of 1998 by Senator Campbell of Colorado, who chided the administration for not keeping the "coalition together" during an Appropriations Committee hearing. Cohen responded:

On December 19, Saddam Hussein declared that inspectors would never be allowed back in Iraq.47 Inspectors wouldn't return to Iraq for five years.

Hey, everyone, this post and thread from 2004 is worth recalling now (and circulating to everyone you know) as the Demagogues continue to try to rewrite history on Iraq just before national elections (today the NY Times wants us to believe that Iraq's planning documents for nuclear weapons could only be of use to Iran, not to Iraq itself):

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

Senate Unanimously Passes Iraq Liberation Act, Oct 7
Iraq News, October 9, 1998
By Laurie Mylroie
The central focus of Iraq News is the tension between the considerable, proscribed WMD capabilities that Iraq is holding on to and its increasing stridency that it has complied with UNSCR 687 and it is time to lift sanctions. If you wish to receive Iraq News by email, a service which includes full-text of news reports not archived here, send your request to Laurie Mylroie .

NB: On Oct 5, the House passed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" by an
overwhelming majority [see "Iraq News" Oct 6] and the Senate passed it
unanimously Oct 7.

October 7, 1998
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM SUPPORT A
TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ
Mr. McCAIN: I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the
consideration of H.R. 4655, which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: The clerk will report. The assistant legislative
clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4665) to establish a program to support a transition to
democracy in Iraq.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there objection to the immediate
consideration of the bill, There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. LOTT: Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is about to act on H.R.
4655, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. I introduced companion
legislation, S. 2525, last week with 7 co-sponsors. Last Friday, the
House International Relations Committee marked up the legislation and
made only minor, technical changes. On October 5, the House passed H.R.
4655 by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 360 to 38. That vote, and
our vote in several moments, is a strong demonstration of Congressional
support for a new policy toward Iraq--a policy that overtly seeks the
replacement of Saddam Hussein's regime through military and political
support for the Iraq opposition.
The United States has many means at its disposal to support the
liberation of Iraq. At the height of the Cold War, we supported freedom
fighters In Asia, Africa and Latin America willing to fight and die for
a democratic future. We can and should do the same now in Iraq.
The Clinton Administration regularly calls for bipartisanship in
foreign policy. I support them when I can. Today, we see a clear example
of a policy that has the broadest possible bi-partisan support. I know
the Administration understands the depth of our feeling on this issue. I
think they are beginning to understand the strategic argument in favor
of moving beyond containment to a policy of "rollback." Containment is
not sustainable. Pressure to lift sanctions on Iraq is increasing--
despite Iraq's seven years of refusal to comply with the terms of the
Gulf War cease-fire. Our interests in the Middle East cannot be
protected with Saddam Husslen in power. Our legislation provides a
roadmap to achieve our objective.
This year, Congress has already provided $5 million to support the
Iraqi political opposition. We provided $5 million to establish Radio
Free Iraq. We will provide additional resources for political support in
the FY 1999 foreign Operations Appropriations Act, including $3 million
for the Iraqi National Congress.
Enactment of this bill will go farther. It requires the President to
designate at least one Iraqi opposition group to receive U.S. military
assist-ance. It defines eligibility criteria such a group or groups must
meet. Many of us have ideas on how the designation process should work.
I have repeatedly stated that the Iraqi National Congress has been
effective in the past and can be effective in the future. They
represent the broadest possible base of the opposition. There are other
groups that are currently active inside Iraq: the Patriotic Union of
Kurdistan, the Kurdish Democratic Party and the Supreme Council for the
Islamic Revolution in Iraq. The State Department seems to believe there
are more than 70 opposition groups, many of which do not meet the
criteria in H.R. 4655. Many barely even exist or have no political
base. They should not be considered for support. We should also be
very careful about considering designation of groups which do not share
our values or which are simply creations of external forces or exile
politics, such as the Iraqi Communist Party or the Iraqi National
Accord.
I appreciate the work we have been able to do with the Administration
on this legislation. But we should be very clear about the designation
process. We intend to exercise our oversight responsibility and
authority as provided in section 4(d) and section 5(d). 1 do not think
the Members of Congress, notified pursuant to law, will agree to any
designation that we believe does not meet the criteria in section 5 of
the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
This is an important step. Observers should not misunderstand the
Senate's action. Even though this legislation will pass without
controversy on an unanimous voice vote, it is a major step forward in
the final conclusion of the Persian Gulf war. In 1991, we and our allies
shed blood to liberate Kuwait. Today, we are empowering Iraqis to
liberate their own country.

Mr. HELMS: Mr. President, I am an original co-sponsor of HR 4655, the
Iraq Liberation Act, for one simple reason; Saddam Hussein is a threat
to the United States and a threat to our friends in the Middle East.
This lunatic is bent on building an arsenal of weapons of mass
destruction with a demonstrable willingness to use them. For nearly
eight years the United States has stood by and allowed the U.N. weapons
inspections process to proceed in defanging Saddam. That process is now
in the final stages of collapse, warning that the U.S. cannot stand idly
by hoping against hope that everything will work itself cut.
We have been told by Scott Ritter and others that Saddam can
reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction within months. The
Washington Post reported only last week that Iraq still has three
nuclear "implosion devices' --in other words, nuclear bombs minus the
necessary plutonium or uranium to set them off. The time has come to
recognize that Saddam Hussein the man is inextricable from Iraq's drive
for weapons of mass destruction. For as long as he and his regime are
in power, Iraq will remain a mortal threat.
This bill will begin the long-overdue process of ousting Saddam. It
will not send in U.S. troops or commit American forces in any way.
Rather, it harkens back to the successes of the Reagan doctrine,
enlisting the very people who are suffering most under Saddam's yoke to
fight the battle against him.
The bill requires the President to designate an Iraqi opposition group
or groups to receive military drawdown assistance. The President need
not look far; the Iraqi National Congress once flourished as an umbrella
organization for Kurds, Shi'ites and Sunni Muslims. It should flourish
again, but it needs our help.
Mr. President: the people of Iraq, through representative
organizations such as the INC, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the
Kurdish Democratic Party and the Shi'ite SCIRI, have begged for our
help. The day may yet come when we are dragged back to Baghdad; I
believe that day can be put off, perhaps even averted, by helping the
people of Iraq help themselves.
Opponents of this initiative--I shouldn't call them friends of
Saddam--have said that the Iraqi opposition exists in name only, that
they are too parochial to come together. They are not entirely
wrong--which is why Senator Lott and Chairman GILMAN (the lead House
sponsor) have carefully crafted the designation requirement in H.R. 4655
to insist that only broad-based, pro-democracy groups be selected by the
President to receive drawdown assistance. I would go further and suggest
to the President that he designate just one group, the Iraqi National
Congress, in which the Kurds, the Shi'ites and the Sunnis of Iraq hold
membership. The opposition must be unified, but it may just take the
leadership of the United States to bring them together.
Finally, this bill gives the Congress oversight over the designation
and drawdown authority. As Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee,
I intend to exercise vigorously that authority. The White Rouse and the
State Department have indicated that they support this bill. We have a
unique opportunity, and I intend to do everything in my power to ensure
that opportunity is not frittered away. The price of failure is far too
high.

Mr. KERREY: Mr. President, I rise to urge the passage of HR. 4655, the
Iraq Liberation Act. Thanks to strong leadership in both Houses of
Congress and thanks to the commitment of the Administration toward the
goals we all share--for Iraq and the region, this legislation is moving
quickly. This is the point to state what this legislation is not, and
what it is, from my understanding, and why I support it so strongly,
First, this bill is not, in my view, an instrument to direct U.S.
funds and supplies to any particular Iraqi revolutionary movement. There
are Iraqi movements now in existence which could qualify for designation
in accordance with this bill. Other Iraqis not now associated with each
other could also band together and qualify for designation. It is for
Iraqis, not Americans to organize themselves to put Saddam Hussein out
of power, just as it will be for Iraqis to choose their leaders in a
democratic Iraq. This bill will help the Administration encourage and
support Iraqis to make their revolution.
Second, this bill is not a device to involve the U.S. military in
operations in or near Iraq. The Iraqi revolution is for Iraqis, not
Americans, to make. The bill provides the Administration a portent new
tool to help Iraqis toward this goal, and at the same time advance
America's interest in a peaceful and secure Middle East.
This bill, when passed and signed into law, is a clear commitment to a
U.S. policy replacing the Saddam Hussein regime and replacing it with a
transition to democracy. This bill is a statement that America refuses
to coexist with a regime which has used chemical weapons on its own
citizens and on neighboring countries, which has invaded its neighbors
twice without provocation, which has still not accounted for its
atrocities committed in Kuwait, which has fired ballistic missiles into
the cities of three of its neighbors, which is attempting to develop
nuclear and biological weapons, and which has brutalized and terrorized
its own citizens for thirty years. I don't see how any democratic
country could accept the existence of such a regime, but this bill says
America will not. I will be an even prouder American when the refusal,
and commitment to materially help the Iraqi resistance, are U.S. policy.

Mr. McCAIN: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be
considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill appear at
this point in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 4655) was considered read the third time, and passed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.