ADDRESS BY U.S. SENATOR JOSEPH LIEBERMAN

"AFGHANISTAN AND THE NEXT STEPS IN THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM"

Georgetown University
Washington, D.C.

Federal News Service

14 January 2002

Excerpts

. . .

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Third, Iraq. All that I've talked about represents the important next steps to take in the war against terrorism, but it is also true, as I have said before and I will say again today, that this war against terrorism will not be over until Saddam Hussein is removed from power in Iraq.

Saddam is the sworn enemy of the United States and is still seeking revenge for the humiliating Gulf War defeat.

And remember, a decade ago, he tried to assassinate President Bush's father. Now, that's the worst kind of terrorism. His regime has the means, chemical and biological weapons, that he hasn't hesitated to use, killing at least 25,000 Iranians and Kurds in at least 10 different attacks. And by all accounts, Saddam has been actively working to develop nuclear weapons since the end of the Gulf War. Remember, he expelled United Nations inspectors more than three years ago. All that needs to present itself to him, I fear, is the opportunity. And I, for one, am not willing to wait passively for that day to arrive.

Since the Gulf War, the United States has carried out a policy of trying to contain and manage Saddam's tyranny. It is a policy that is neither costless nor riskless. In fact, it costs us well more than $1 billion a year to carry it out. Our pilots are flying 35 combat air sorties a day in the no-fly zones and are regularly subjected to Iraqi fire. Other of our military forces, enforcing sanctions against Iraq, have been attacked by terrorists, causing too many U.S. casualties.

So I think it' time to acknowledge that our strategy of trying to manage this menace has simply not succeeded. And our current policy options, sanctions or international pressure or even limited military strikes, have been exhausted without reducing the threat to us or helping the people of Iraq live better lives. In fact, the people of Iraq continue to be the major victims of Saddam's rule, suffering particularly because of the way in which he has reacted to the U.N. sanctions policy.

It seems to me that trying to manage the Iraqi threat under Saddam is like trying to cool a volcano with a thermostat. It doesn't work. We must therefore declare a new objective. Our clear, unequivocal goal should be liberating the Iraqi people and the world from Saddam's tyranny, as we should have done in 1991. We can begin by building up the opposition that exists in Iraq among the people of Iraq, building up their capabilities day by day. Despite the fact that Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, a law that I cosponsored with a broad bipartisan group of other senators, and that, among other things, directed our government to provide material and financial assistance to the Iraqi opposition, full implementation -- nothing near it has been carried out by either the Clinton or Bush administrations. We've got to stop paying lip service to this statutorily enacted policy and start paying for it.

Now, ridding the world of Saddam's tyranny may require not only stronger support of the opposition within Iraq to him, but the exercise of power from outside. And we've got to be prepared to do that if necessary. Of course, it's always better to build coalitions and act collaboratively when engaging in conflict for a cause, but in this case, the unique threat to American security by Saddam Hussein's regime is so real, so grave and so imminent that even if no other nation were to stand with us, I believe we must be prepared to act alone. And I assure you that we are fully capable of doing so. I also believe that if we make it clear that we are prepared to act decisively against Saddam, many, many others will join us.

Now, the decisions about how and when we move against Saddam are up to our commander in chief, but the question of whether we should do so cannot really be in doubt. I hope the White House, the Pentagon, the State Department and our intelligence services have begun to draw up plans and options for changing the regime in Baghdad. I'm confident that President Bush can and will give this critical cause the leadership and the advocacy it deserves.

. . .

QUESTION: As an Iraqi-American and born and raised in the United States and keenly interested in what happens in Iraq at all times, I first want to praise you for all that you've said today about Iraq and the necessary change in regime --

QUESTION: -- of the Iraqi Bath party.

My only problem with all the rhetoric is that it simply just adds rhetoric, for the most part. I mean, you've definitely stated that we have to make a change in the Iraqi regime, and I agree with that. My first example would be, actually, the 1991 call by President Bush for the Iraqi people to go and rise up against Saddam Hussein. While he did say that, and Americans supported that change in regime, there's documented evidence of American troops confiscating Shi'ite rebellion weapons and basically just leaving the Iraqi people to suffer in the hands of Saddam Hussein and his cruel and barbarous regime.

I mean, I -- I guess it's not much more of a question than it is a comment. It's just that we seem to say a lot, and like let's change the way it is there, but we don't seem to do much about it. I mean, I can speak for the Iraqi people, I think, and just say no Iraqi person ever wants to see Saddam Hussein in power there. I've been there several times, even this year, and the people there are suffering a calamitous disaster. They just want to be rid of this regime and they want to live a life of peace and prosperity.

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Well, I really thank you for what you've said. I appreciate it. I think I'm going to take you with me when I speak -- (laughter) -- well, because you understand; you're talking about, you know, the country you came from. And we just have to seize this moment, both for the Iraqi people and for us. And I hope we don't let it pass. Thanks for what you said.

QUESTION: Senator, my name is Brian Morganstern (sp). I'm a freshman in the college here. I'm sure you well know, the people we're working to fight against right now were once our allies. In fact, the terrorist camps that we've been bombing were designed by the CIA. The '93 bomber of the World Trade Center worked with the CIA to recruit Afghani fighters to fight in the jihad against the Soviets. The point is this: We helped them to fight against the Soviets because we had a common cause. However, they also disagreed with us, and so now they've turned our own training and weapons and resources against us.

If we engage in a similar operation in Iraq and we actually overthrow Saddam, who's to keep the Iraqi opposition, that you'd like to support, from then turning against us?

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Good and fair question. I mean, there was a moment of unusual irony when we visited the American military, in this case Army troops in Bagram Air Base outside of Kabul in Afghanistan, that they were in a former Russian base, which had been left there after the Russian-Afghani war.

Look, the answer here is to be true to our principles, that I tried to articulate in my remarks. And I guess I'd say about Iraq, as the previous speaker -- questioner had indicated, it's hard to imagine anything worse than what the Iraqi people are suffering now. But if we are part of changing the regime in Baghdad, then we have to stick with it, just as we're doing in Afghanistan now, to make sure that the new regime, in fact, governs in a way that will provide a better, freer life for the people of Iraq.

. . .