03 October 2002
Hyde Tells Lawmakers Saddam Hussein a Threat to U.S.
(Oct. 2 opening statement at House International Relations Committee) (2100) Representative Henry Hyde (Republican of Illinois) said the United States once more faces the threat of Saddam Hussein, in an October 2 opening statement to the House International Relations Committee. Hyde is the chairman of that committee, which began the process of marking up House Joint Resolution 114 (H. J. Res. 114), the resolution to authorize the President to use force against Iraq. H. J. Res. 114 was introduced into the House of Representatives October 2 by Speaker of the House Representative Dennis Hastert (Republican of Illinois) and House Minority Leader Representative Richard Gephardt (Democrat of Missouri). A similar resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 46 (S. J. Res. 46), was introduced in the Senate the same day. "This is a sobering prospect, but we should not focus our attention solely on his instruments of destruction," Hyde said. "Instead, we must recognize that the threat lies in Saddam himself." Hyde, who voted for the use of force against Saddam Hussein in January 1991, said given the record of the Iraqi dictator, "once armed with weapons of even greater destructive power, he will have little reluctance to use them." The Illinois Republican, taking note of critics of U.S. policy, said it appeared that "much of the world does not understand that we have entered a wholly new and increasingly perilous era, one with new and harsher rules." Hyde said that critics who suggest the United States act only in concert with a coalition or allies miss the point - the final responsibility for protecting the United States rests with the United States. "Are decisions regarding our fate to be made in common with others?" he asked, "I believe the answer is unavoidable." America, he said, has no choice, "but to act as a sovereign country" prepared to defend itself, "with our friends and allies if possible, but alone if necessary." "We do not have the luxury of pretending not to see the danger confronting us," Hyde said, "All of our choices are difficult ones, but our only real option is to act." Following is the text of the opening statement to the House International Relations Committee of Representative Henry Hyde (Republican of Illinois) October 2: (begin text) Opening Statement by Chairman Henry J. Hyde Markup of H. J. Res. 114, Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq October 2, 2002 The United States is once again confronted with the specter of Saddam Hussein armed with an arsenal of chemical, biological, and possibly even nuclear weapons. This is a sobering prospect, but we should not focus our attention solely on his instruments of destruction. Instead, we must recognize that the threat lies in Saddam himself. We need not make a case against Saddam Hussein. He has condemned himself with a clarity far more stark than his most bitter opponent could pronounce. In 1980, he attacked Iran and initiated a decade of warfare that killed and wounded over one million people, a conflict that included his use of chemical weapons on Iranian troops. In 1990, he invaded Kuwait and imposed a brutal occupation on that country, laying waste to everything within reach when his forces were finally driven out. He has indiscriminately used chemical weapons on unarmed civilians in his own country, and he has slaughtered any who have opposed him. Given this record, there can be no doubt that, once armed with weapons of even greater destructive power, he will have little reluctance to use them. The threat to U.S. interests is obvious, but we are not the only target. The entire world should understand the danger that Saddam poses to everyone and should welcome any opportunity to end it before he is ready to strike. Despite the extensive criticism that has been directed at the Administration, I believe that the President and his advisers have gone to extraordinary lengths to enlist the cooperation of the world community, including that of our allies and the United Nations. The response, however, has been a disappointing one. Many of our critics apparently refuse to recognize the danger for what it is. We can see this attitude in the eager reaction to Saddam's latest promise of cooperation which has, at least initially, accomplished its purpose of undermining the fragile beginnings of a consensus that at long last something must be done. But we would be fools indeed if we believed that Saddam can be trusted. He has cynically broken all of his previous promises of cooperation, and there is no reason to believe that his latest statement is anything more than an attempt to delay and divide us. He will only use the time the world grants him to further his plans and preparations. This is hardly an unprecedented situation. Is it really necessary to remind ourselves that the world watched as Hitler boldly proclaimed his objectives and openly armed his forces? Willfully blinded and seduced by hope, his intended targets only guaranteed the catastrophe they so greatly feared would descend upon them. This is an undeniable reality, but we are confronted with an even greater danger than that posed by Saddam. Despite clear and repeated warnings, it appears that much of the world does not understand that we have entered a wholly new and increasingly perilous era, one with new and harsher rules. Through repeated usage, the term, "Weapons of Mass Destruction," has become almost banal, but the unimaginable destructive power these represent requires our constant focus and a determination to do what we must to defend ourselves. The problem is not merely that a murderous tyrant such as Saddam may be in possession of these weapons. In the aftermath of September 11th, we must accept that he has been joined by many others of an even more fanatical purpose. Terrorists willing to commit suicide in order to kill large numbers of innocents cannot be stopped by the familiar conventions of deterrence. Their possession of weapons of mass destruction must be equated with a certainty that these will be used against us. To assume that these terrorists and others will remain unarmed by Saddam is an assumption with a deadly potential. A first strike could well be the last strike. We cannot shield ourselves with hope. We must not guess the world into annihilation. What then must we do? The President has demonstrated his determination to act to remove this threat and has asked the Congress for an authorizing resolution. But we have yet to reach unanimity on that resolution. It is reasonable to ask for proof that Saddam is planning to attack us. The temptation to deny the boundless dimensions of the menace he poses to us is a strong one, but this must be abandoned in the recognition that he himself has broadcast his intentions. It is a matter of record that his relentless pursuit of weapons of terror and of mass slaughter is decades-old. But it was only in the aftermath of the Gulf War in 1991 that we were able to directly measure the intensity of that determination. The revelation that he was within six months of possessing an operational nuclear device, a fact that our best intelligence had been unable to uncover, was riveting in its implications. He is restrained in his efforts to do us harm only by the limits of his ability to do so, and he is racing to free himself from those limits. With every day, the onslaught that he is preparing for us approaches ever closer. For those convinced of Saddam's murderous intentions, the debate has centered on whether or not we should focus our efforts on assembling a coalition of friends and allies and seek the enhanced legitimacy that approval by the United Nations might render to our actions. But I believe that is the wrong debate. We all agree that these are desirable things and that we should do all in our power to secure them. I believe the President and his Administration have done and are doing just that. But the real question, the one which should occupy us, is one of far greater consequence: On whom does the final responsibility for protecting ourselves rest? Is it ours or do we share it with others? Are decisions regarding our fate to be made in common with others? I believe the answer is unavoidable. We have no choice but to act as a sovereign country prepared to defend ourselves, with our friends and allies if possible, but alone if necessary. There can be no safety if we tie our fate to the cooperation of others, only a hope that all will be well, a hope that eventually must fail. For more than half a century, whatever safety and security has existed in this world has been there largely because America has been unafraid to act against threats, and to act alone if necessary. The perception that we are resolved to do so has prevented many assaults on that security and continues to do so today. On many occasions we have been joined in our efforts by our friends and allies and, more rarely, have enjoyed the world's approval. But often we have not, and still we acted. If we are to have a chance of averting conflict in Iraq, a simple resolve on our part will not be sufficient to the task. For the great danger we face with Saddam is ambiguity. Saddam has often miscalculated in the past. His flawed judgments have resulted in wars that have killed hundreds of thousands of people. For that reason, any ambiguity regarding our course of action and our determination to act alone if need be risks yet another miscalculation on his part and a false grant of safety to call our bluff. Vigorous debate in our deliberations is not only permissible - it is essential. The question before us and our country is too great to demand acquiescence. But the result of that debate cannot be to condition our actions on the approval of others, for we might wait for an approval that may never come. Far more important is that we cannot even appear to be waiting for others. For to do so would be to fatally convince Saddam that we might wait forever. The sight of dissension, of irresolution, in the Congress cannot but contribute to the potential for miscalculation. However desirable the cooperation of our friends and allies may be, the merest hint of any doubt that we will act alone if necessary cannot but reinforce Saddam's calculation that we will not act at all. To risk giving him even the faintest hope that we can be restrained or delayed by others in our search for consensus, may well be a deadly one, for his gamble might bring ruin upon us all. I speak of the sight of dissension, for we must remember that our debate is not for ourselves alone, and that our audience is not confined to this room. The world is watching us. Our allies are watching us. Our enemies are watching us. Saddam is watching us. They are looking for signs of indecision in our resolve, searching for the fatal sign of weakness that will come from binding ourselves to act only in concert with others. The voice of indecision would cut through any wording in which we might attempt to secret it, however artfully phrased and cleverly contrived we might render it. We do not have the luxury of pretending not to see the danger confronting us. All of our choices are difficult ones, but our only real option is to act. Over a century ago, in another conflict, Lincoln said that "we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation." Those same words apply to us here today. A century ago, Britain stood majestically at the height of her power. Within 40 years, the knife was at her throat, and she survived only because we were there to rescue her. But there is no one to rescue us. We cannot entrust our fate to others, for others may never come. If we are not prepared to defend ourselves, and to defend ourselves alone if need be, if we cannot convince the world that we are unshakably resolved to do so, then there can be no security for us, no safety to be purchased, no refuge to be found. In the name of those brave souls, both living and departed, who purchased our freedom, let us now act. (end text) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
