Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Secretary RUMSFELD. You're exactly right. On the other hand, my answer was correct to the Chairman that we are capable of performing the kinds of tasks we're discussing here.

Senator INHOFE. I agree with both your answers.

Senator Reed brought up this new document that I had not seen until the course of this particular committee hearing. But I think it's important that we go back a bit. As Senator Nelson said, that it was an excellent speech that the President made before the United Nations. In that speech, he talked about things that would have to happen to preclude his effort for a preemptive strike. He said such things as, “It will immediately and unconditionally foreswear disclosure and removal and destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material." He said, “It will immediately end all support of terrorism and act to suppress it." All these were conditions that the President outlined.

In this document that I just read, he talks about other things that have to take place. Somehow there seems to be some percentage of our population, maybe at this table and elsewhere, that if all of a sudden we decided that Saddam Hussein was going to allow inspectors to come in, it would be "unfettered," which he's already reneging on that. He has a long history of lying about this, and he's never allowed this to happen before. I see this as nothing more than a stall tactic, a delay. This could delay it for maybe a month or 2 months or 6 months. Time is not our friend in this case, so this has concerned me.

But even if he had some kind of a revelation and we believed that what he said was true, there are still other conditions that are listed here to which they would have to comply. So I assume it's not just the weapons inspectors that would keep us from wanting to do the preemptive strike. There are other conditions that must be met.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Senator, I'm really at a disadvantage. I have not had a chance to read the resolution. My understanding is that this resolution was being worked on at the White House with congressional leadership, number one. Number two, it's my understanding that the resolution was being fashioned in a way that it was as close as possible to a prior resolution that existed in Congress.

Senator INHOFE. Well, let's forget about the resolution and just say there are things that have to be done other than weapons inspectors in order to satisfy us, such as the President outlined in the report. This includes: "unconditional," "foreswear," "disclosures," and "remove all."

Secretary RUMSFELD. Clearly, the President's speech is the driving document.

Senator INHOFE. Okay.

Secretary RUMSFELD. You're exactly right.
Senator INHOFE. Very good. Very good.

I would ask both of you to at least express a concern and repeat something that you've stated before. I see us going into another round of hand-wringing. This has disturbed me all during the 1990s when things were happening with Osama bin Laden-we remember the 1992 threat to some hundred servicemen in Yemen, the 1993 Somalia incident that he took credit for, and their initial

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

sands and tovusands of Loris in the D vay 1.24, sung wid others. Or you ZONE EL TREN Zme. I we had had the un ze Pani that was talk HOT WE TA DA X SIĘ Ne Zama rying about Saddam Bos

Secretary EUWSE Aith the benefit of 24-20 Kinkak I'm sure we can look back over the years at any numer a incidences where if things had been done Larety, the autodes would have been better. Cenang dai was dat a harry studÒN Senator INHO Thank you. I appreciate your son did a you, to our commny

Secretary RUMSFELD. Thank you.

Generai MYERS. Thank you.

Chairman LaVIN. Thank you. Senator Inhafe.
Senator Carnahan

Secretary RUMSFELD. You're exactly right. On the other hand, my answer was correct to the Chairman that we are capable of performing the kinds of tasks we're discussing here.

Senator INHOFE. I agree with both your answers.

Senator Reed brought up this new document that I had not seen until the course of this particular committee hearing. But I think it's important that we go back a bit. As Senator Nelson said, that it was an excellent speech that the President made before the United Nations. In that speech, he talked about things that would have to happen to preclude his effort for a preemptive strike. He said such things as, "It will immediately and unconditionally foreswear disclosure and removal and destroy all weapons of mass destruction, long-range missiles and all related material." He said, "It will immediately end all support of terrorism and act to suppress it." All these were conditions that the President outlined.

In this document that I just read, he talks about other things that have to take place. Somehow there seems to be some percentage of our population, maybe at this table and elsewhere, that if all of a sudden we decided that Saddam Hussein was going to allow inspectors to come in, it would be "unfettered," which he's already reneging on that. He has a long history of lying about this, and he's never allowed this to happen before. I see this as nothing more than a stall tactic, a delay. This could delay it for maybe a month or 2 months or 6 months. Time is not our friend in this case, so this has concerned me.

But even if he had some kind of a revelation and we believed that what he said was true, there are still other conditions that are listed here to which they would have to comply. So I assume it's not just the weapons inspectors that would keep us from wanting to do the preemptive strike. There are other conditions that must be met.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Senator, I'm really at a disadvantage. I have not had a chance to read the resolution. My understanding is that this resolution was being worked on at the White House with congressional leadership, number one. Number two, it's my understanding that the resolution was being fashioned in a way that it was as close as possible to a prior resolution that existed in Congress.

Senator INHOFE. Well, let's forget about the resolution and just say there are things that have to be done other than weapons inspectors in order to satisfy us, such as the President outlined in the report. This includes: "unconditional," "foreswear," "disclosures," and "remove all."

Secretary RUMSFELD. Clearly, the President's speech is the driving document.

Senator INHOFE. Okay.

Secretary RUMSFELD. You're exactly right.
Senator INHOFE. Very good. Very good.

I would ask both of you to at least express a concern and repeat something that you've stated before. I see us going into another round of hand-wringing. This has disturbed me all during the 1990s when things were happening with Osama bin Laden-we remember the 1992 threat to some hundred servicemen in Yemen, the 1993 Somalia incident that he took credit for, and their initial

attack on the World Trade Centers in 1993-we sat around wringing our hands. Then Khobar Towers happened, then Kenya and Tanzania, then the U.S.S. Cole, and we kept on wringing our hands.

I want to read to you something that was stated by President Clinton-in this case, I agreed with him-and that is the risk and consequences of inaction. This was President Clinton on August 20, 1998. He said, "Countries that persistently host terrorists have no right to be safeguards. It will require strength, courage, and endurance. We will not yield to this threat. We will meet it, no matter how long it will take. This will be a long ongoing struggle between freedom and fanaticism, between the rule of law and terrorism. We must be prepared to do all we can do, as long as it takes."

Later, he says, "The risk from inaction to America and the world would be far greater than action, for that would embolden the enemies, leaving their ability and their willingness to strike us intact." Do you think that applies today?

Secretary RUMSFELD. I think it's very well stated. I had not heard the quotation, but he raises the very important point that it is understandable that we talk about the risks of action, because they're very real. But it is critically important that we look at the risks of inaction.

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. If my time is not expired, I do have a couple of further questions. Chairman LEVIN. Well, it is now. [Laughter.]

You were very gracious before, so I can't deny you one more question.

Senator INHOFE. Okay.

Chairman LEVIN. I'd like to, but I can't.

Senator INHOFE. I'm sorry?

Chairman LEVIN. I'd like to, but I can't. I don't have the heart to do it. [Laughter.]

Senator INHOFE. Senator Kennedy talked about how the people of Iraq have been unsuccessful in overturning Saddam Hussein. In 1996, there was a real effort by all the opposition groups -not just the Kurds of the north, as some have said—and it was their understanding at that time that the United States would be joining them. So that was a mission that never did take place.

As a result of our turning our backs and walking away, thousands and thousands of Kurds in the north were killed, along with others. Do you think, at that time, if we had had the united front that was talked about, that we might not be sitting here today worrying about Saddam Hussein?

Secretary RUMSFELD. Well, with the benefit of 20–20 hindsight, I'm sure we can look back over the years at any number of incidences where, if things had been done differently, the outcomes would have been better. Certainly that was not a happy situation. Senator INHOFE. Thank you. I appreciate your service, both of you, to our country.

Secretary RUMSFELD. Thank you.

General MYERS. Thank you.

Chairman LEVIN. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Carnahan.

Senator CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, too, Mr. Secretary and General Myers, for your service and for your patience today.

Last week at the United Nations, President Bush laid out a scathing indictment of Saddam Hussein. He reminded us that Saddam has ignored the world's command to disclose and destroy all weapons of mass destruction, and he challenged the United Nations to assert its authority and enforce its will.

Well, I agree with the President that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to ignore these requirements and continue to develop weapons of mass destruction. Some of our allies, however, around the world say that the threat is not imminent or that Saddam will not likely share his weapons with other terrorist groups. Well, I think that is an unrealistic and risky assumption.

After the attacks on our country last year and knowing that al Qaeda is very actively seeking biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, we, in the United States, simply do not have the luxury of waiting or hoping or leaving the future to chance. We have a duty, not only to America, but to mankind to make an affirmative response.

Earlier this year, 60 scholars, including former Senator Moynihan, wrote a statement in response to the September 11 attacks, and he entitled it, "What We're Fighting For, A Letter From America," and this is part of what he had in there: "Reason and careful moral reflection teach us that there are times when the first and most important reply to evil is to stop it, and that is precisely what we must do."

I ask that the full statement that I've made be made part of the record, and I have a few questions.

Chairman LEVIN. It will be made part of the record.

[The prepared statement of Senator Carnahan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT BY SENATOR JEAN CARNAHAN

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thank you Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers for your continued service and commitment when our country needs you most.

Last week at the United Nations, President Bush laid out a scathing indictment against Saddam Hussein. He reminded us that Saddam has ignored the world's command to disclose and destroy all of his weapons of mass destruction. He challenged the United Nations to assert its authority and enforce its will. I agree with the President that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to ignore requirements and continue to develop weapons of mass destruction.

For me, the primary question that we all have to answer is: "How great a risk would it be to our national security if Saddam Hussein acquired a nuclear weapon?" When you consider, in totality.

⚫ the intelligence that has been gathered,

• Saddam's actions prior to and during the Gulf War,

• Saddam's ouster of weapons inspectors in 1998,

• the accessibility of terrorist groups in the Arab world that could ally with Saddam, and

⚫ the horror and evil that terrorists are both willing and eager to inflict on our people.

I come to the conclusion that the United States cannot accept the risk of Iraq obtaining a nuclear weapon.

We have tried to disarm Saddam through weapon inspections. But when he threw out the weapons inspectors, the world was unwilling to stand up to him. We have tried to contain Saddam with sanctions. But the world has been unwilling to enforce them. When presented with the threat that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction what do some friends and allies say?

"He is not an imminent threat."

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »