|
Van Hollen's Statement on the Iraq Resolution
Congressman Van Hollen applauded the valiant and heroic efforts of our armed forces in Iraq. However, he opposed the partisan drafting of the Republican resolution, H.R. 557.
Washington , D.C. - This is a deceitful resolution not for what it says, but for what it does not say. It is unfortunate that our Republican colleagues would once again use an issue that unites all Americans -- support for our troops -- into a naked political stunt that attempts to rewrite history in a divisive manner. The American people should understand that the Republican leadership in this House has prevented any Member of Congress from offering any change to this resolution.
The main defect of this resolution is that it tells only a small part of the story about Iraq. In an obvious attempt to change the subject, the resolution contains absolutely no mention of the primary justification President Bush gave for going to war in Iraq -- the alleged existence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Instead, the resolution attempts to justify the decision for war on humanitarian grounds alone. It cites, among other things, Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons against Iraq’s Kurdish citizens in 1988.
No one needs to tell me about Saddam Hussein’s human rights abuses against the Kurds. In 1988, at the end of the Iran-Iraq war, I traveled to the Iraq-Turkish border as a staffer on the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee with my colleague Peter Galbraith. At that time, thousands of Kurds were fleeing across the border to seek refuge in Turkey. We interviewed hundreds of those refugees and documented Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Kurdish people. Our report formed the basis for legislation to impose economic sanctions against Iraq for its use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. The bill passed the United States Senate; but the Reagan Administration, which included many of the key officials now in the Bush administration, opposed and helped block that sanctions legislation from passing. I challenge anyone to explain to me how you can oppose economic sanctions in 1988 in response to Iraq's use of chemical weapons against civilians and then today turn around and say that those same actions are the reason the U.S. went to war in 2003.
Moreover, if Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons against his own people was the reason for military action, we should have finished the job during the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Iraq has not used chemical weapons since 1988, since the time my colleague Peter Galbraith and I went to the Iraq-Turkish border at the end of the Iran-Iraq war. But three years later in 1991, not only did we not remove Hussein in Baghdad, but at the end of the war the United States looked the other way for many days while Saddam Hussein turned his guns on the Shias in the south and the Kurds in the north. This history exposes the hypocrisy of this attempt to rewrite history in order to change the argument for going to war in Iraq in 2003.
The fact is that the Bush Administration told the American people that we had to go to war because Saddam Hussein currently possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to the United States. When the U.N. inspectors asked for additional time to determine whether Iraq possessed stockpiles of such weapons, the Administration rejected the request and went to war. We now know that -- based on the report of Chief U.S. weapons inspector, David Kay, that to date no stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons have been found in Iraq. This resolution says nothing about the serious blow to U.S. credibility and security around the world caused by the Administration’s misuse and abuse of intelligence information.
The Republican leadership would like to equate support for our troops in Iraq with support for the President’s decision to go to war in Iraq. But my constituents and the American people deserve better than the false choice presented by this resolution. I will not play the game of having to support the President’s views on Iraq in order to express support our troops. I continue to stand behind our troops and am grateful for their valiant service. I recently returned from a trip from Iraq where I had the honor of meeting with many of the men and women in our Armed Forces. I expressed to them the gratitude of the American people for their sacrifice and for their service to our country. It is a disservice to our troops that the Republican leadership here would exploit them to attempt to gain partisan political advantage.
I have crafted an alternative resolution that presents the part of the story that the Republican leadership would like the American people to forget. This substitute resolution does not change a single word of the underlying resolution. However, it presents a fuller picture of the real story behind the decision to go to war in Iraq. Every one of the “Whereas” clauses in this alternative resolution is factually accurate and incontrovertible. Why does the Republican want to hide from these facts? Why does it want to prevent the American people from knowing the full story? Why will it not allow this substitute to be voted on? Mr. Speaker, I submit this alternative resolution for the record.
SUBSTITUTE RESOLUTION
PROPOSED BY REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS VAN HOLLEN
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
Relating to the liberation of the Iraqi people, and the valiant service of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition Forces, and the failure to find any weapons of mass destruction.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 11, 2004
RESOLUTION
Relating to the liberation of the Iraqi people, and the valiant service of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces and the failure to find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
Whereas Saddam Hussein and his regime committed crimes against humanity, systematically violating the human rights of Iraqis and citizens of other countries;
Whereas Saddam Hussein's terror regime subjected the Iraqi people to murder, torture, rape, and amputation;
Whereas on March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein's regime had and unleashed weapons of mass destruction against Kurdish citizens, killing nearly 5,000 of them;
Whereas in September 1988, the United States Senate unanimously passed legislation (S. 2763) to impose economic sanctions against the regime of Saddam Hussein for the use of chemical weapons against its Kurdish citizens, but the bill failed after the Reagan Administration opposed the legislation and threatened a veto;
Whereas as many as 270 mass grave sites, containing the remains of as many as 400,000 victims of Saddam Hussein's regime, have been found in Iraq;
Whereas rape was used to intimidate the Iraqi population, with victims often raped in front of their families;
Whereas the regime punished the Marsh Arabs by draining the marshlands, which created hundreds of thousands of refugees and caused an ecological catastrophe;
Whereas in 1991, explaining the Bush Administration decision not to advance on Baghdad, then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney stated, “"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?";
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338), passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 360 to 38, made it United States policy to support efforts to remove from power the regime headed by Saddam Hussein;
Whereas on September 8, 2002, Secretary of State Powell said, “There is no doubt that he [Hussein] has chemical weapons stocks.”;
Whereas on September 8, 2002, Vice President Cheney said, “We do know, with absolute certainty, that he [Hussein] is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.”;
Where as on September 8, 2002, Secretary Powell said, “With respect to biological weapons, we are confident that he has some stocks of those weapons, and he is probably continuing to try to develop more.”;
Whereas on October 2, 2002, President Bush said, “The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.”;
Whereas on October 10, 2002, the House of Representatives passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243) and on March 19, 2003, the United State initiated military operations in Iraq;
Whereas with the Iraqi regime failing to comply with 16 previously adopted United Nations Security Council resolutions, the Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, declaring that Iraq ‘has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors;
Whereas on January 28, 2003, President Bush said, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”;
Whereas on February 5, 2003, Secretary Powell said, “Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets. Even the low end of 100 tons of agent would enable Saddam Hussein to cause mass casualties across more than 100 square miles of territory, an area nearly 5 times the size of Manhattan….”;
Whereas on March 7, 2003, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported to the United Nations Security Council that: There is “no indication of nuclear activities…nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites…There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.”;
Whereas on March 7, 2003, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei concluded that the documents purporting to show a uranium purchase in Niger provided to the IAEA by the United States were unsubstantiated and likely forged. He told the United Nations Security Council that “Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents, which formed the basis for reports of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.”;
Whereas according to UNMOVIC’S 13th Quarterly Report, between November 27, 2002 and March 18, 2003, the 731 inspections conducted by UNMOVIC did not reveal any “evidence of continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items.”;
Whereas in March 2003, United Nations weapons inspectors requested additional time to determine whether Iraq possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction;
Whereas the Bush Administration rejected the United Nations request for additional time to complete the mission;
Whereas on March 16, 2003, Vice President Cheney said, “…we know he [Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”;
Whereas on March 16, 2003, President Bush said, “The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations.”;
Whereas on March 25, 2003, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, “The threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction will be removed.”;
Whereas on October 2, 2003, Chief Weapons Inspector David Kay said, “Information found to date suggests that Iraq’s large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced—if not entirely destroyed—during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections…Our efforts to collect and exploit intelligence on Iraq’s chemical weapons program have thus far yielded little reliable information on post-1991 CW stocks and CW agent production….”;
Whereas on October 2, 2003, David Kay said, “…to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.”;
Whereas to date, despite an extensive search by the United Nations and the United States no chemical, biological, nuclear or any other weapons of mass destruction have been found;: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq; however, the main question for the American people is not whether the United States is better off without Saddam Hussein, but whether the United States is better off for having gone to war in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein;
(2) finds that, despite the removal Saddam Hussein from power, it is premature to conclude that going to war in Iraq has made the United States safer; indeed, the weight of the evidence to date suggests that President Bush’s approach to Iraq has not made the United States safer;
(3) affirms the findings of former Chief U.S. Weapons Inspector David Kay, that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq;
(4) affirms that no evidence has been found to support the statements made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice between September 8, 2002 and the present that are cited in the “Whereas” clause above;
(5) commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein's regime;
(6) commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq's interim constitution; and
(7) commends the members of the United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service;
(8) extends condolences to the families of the American forces who have been killed in Iraq.
|