U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein
The Right Course on Iraq
- Prepared Floor Statement -
October 10, 2002

"I have come to the floor to state that, after much deliberation, I have decided to vote for the Resolution introduced by Senators Lieberman, Warner, Bayh and McCain.

In two prior floor statements, I have expressed my views. Rather than repeat them here, I ask unanimous consent to include them in the Record right after these remarks.

I serve as the Senior Senator from California, representing 35 million people. That is a formidable task. People have weighed in by the tens of thousands. If I were just to cast a representative vote based on those who have voiced their opinions with my office - and with no other factors - I would have to vote against this resolution.

But as a member of the Intelligence Committee, as someone who has read and discussed and studied the history of Iraq, the record of obfuscation and the terror Saddam Hussein has sown, one comes to the conclusion that he remains a consequential threat.

Although the ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda are tenuous, there should be no question that his entire government is forged and held together by terror:

While the distance between the United States and Iraq is great, Saddam Hussein's ability to use his chemical and biological weapons against us is not constrained by geography - it can be accomplished in a number of different ways - which is what makes this threat so real and persuasive.

I supported the Levin Amendment, which authorized use of force pursuant to U.N. Security Council action, because it was the strongest resolution supporting a multilateral effort.

And, I believe a multilateral effort, through the United Nations, provides a strong moral imprimatur and as such is preferable to America's taking pre-emptive action that could have consequences tomorrow and years after that - consequences we cannot imagine or even begin to understand today.

The original resolution sent to Congress by the President would have authorized a broad and sweeping use of force whenever or wherever he deemed necessary - literally any place on earth.

It would have authorized the newly promulgated national security strategy of unilateral pre-emptive use of force in the defense of the nation in the war on terror.

The resolution before us does not grant such a sweeping use of force. Rather, the use of force is confined to Iraq and targeted toward forcing Iraq to comply with 16 Security Council resolutions passed in the wake of the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Most importantly, I believe the Lieberman resolution becomes a catalyst to encourage prompt, forceful and effective action by the United Nations to compel this long sought-after and much-evaded disarmament of weapons of mass destruction.

Disarming Iraq under Saddam Hussein is necessary and vital to the safety and security of America, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East - let there be no doubt about this.

But the decision to cast this vote does not come lightly. I continue to have serious concerns that there are those in the Administration who would seek to use this authorization for a unilateral, pre-emptive attack against Iraq.

I believe this would be a terrible mistake.

But I am reassured by statements made by the President in his address to the United Nations on September 12, which conveyed a major shift in the Administration's approach - turning away from a pre-emptive strategy and, instead, engaging and challenging the U.N. Security Council to compel Iraq's disarmament and back this with force.

I deeply believe that it is vital for the U.N. Security Council to approve a new, robust resolution requiring full and unconditional access to search for and destroy all weapons of mass destruction.

Unfortunately, the Security Council has not yet taken this action. Nor do we, at this time, know if they will.

If one believes Iraq is a real threat, and I do, and if the United Nations fails to act, then the only alternative is military action led by the United States.

Ironically, this authorization of use of force may well prompt the Security Council to act. Because if they do not, the United Nations becomes a paper tiger unable to enforce its mandates and unwilling to meet the challenge of this new day of danger.

For the past 11 years, Saddam Hussein has prevaricated, manipulated, deceived and violated every agreement he has made to disarm.

If the past is prologue, this record means that arms inspections, alone, will not force disarmament.

The great danger is a nuclear one. If Saddam Hussein achieves nuclear capability, the risk increases exponentially and the balance of power shifts radically in a deeply menacing way.

As I said on this floor in earlier remarks, I believe that Saddam Hussein rules by terror and has squirreled away stores of biological and chemical weapons. He has used them on Kurdish villages and in his invasion of Iran.

Evidence indicates that he is engaged in developing nuclear weapons. However, today the best authorities I could find indicate he does not yet have nuclear capability. But this is only a question of time.

And we cannot let Saddam Hussein become a nuclear power.

And, so, it is my intention to vote yes on the resolution before us.

I do so with the hope that the United Nations will rise to the challenge and with the trust that the Administration forge a coalition rather than go it alone.

And I do so with the fervent prayer that it will not be necessary to place America's fighting forces or innocent civilians anywhere in harm's way."

###