Kerrey: Clarke wrong about Iraq

didn't know Mubarek was such a big counter-terrorist name, but to your point about christian armies in muslim nations, it's time we got over this particular sensitivity. when muslim nations decide to join the civilized world, perhaps we can reconsider.

as to the swatting of flies, kerrey seemed to be speaking about th cole in particular, and rice, correctly, in my view, made the point that pre-9/11 one couldn't do much more than swat (use stand-off options) at al queda because the taliban protected al queda, and pakistan protected the taliban. the admin wanted to address the issue in a strategic sense, and that was what the plan presented to the president just before 9/11 advocated. after 9/11 it was much easier to get pakistan's cooperation.

 

he said he still supports in in today's journal, but, given his comments in the testimony today, i wonder how he thinks we should be fighting that war?

 

certain aspects of civilization are not subjective, and the actions of the fallujahns show the fallacy in suggesting otherwise.

 

does the west bank count? i spent 5 weeks in israel several years ago, and the time i spent in jericho was actually the most peaceful and relaxed of the whole trip. great food too. that said, a bomb went off on a bus in tel aviv my third day there, and one in jerusalem the day i left. it hardly seemed civilized.

 

no, only that all moral equivalencies are not created equal.

 

is this the speech condi referred to when she said Kerrey had made a brilliant speech about iRaq? from March 2001, before the senate foreign relations committee:

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/HearingsPreparedstatements/sfrc3-1-01.htm

--
STATEMENT OF


BOB KERREY,
PRESIDENT, NEW SCHOOL UNIVERSITY,
and
FORMER UNITED STATES SENATOR

MR. BOB KERREY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Wellstone, Senator Thomas, it's nice to see both of you again.

Danny Pleka (ph) is very persuasive, and it's nice to have a chance to come back, especially to talk on this particular subject. Mr. Chairman, I have a longer statement that's a bit mangled, but I'd like to ask that it be put in the record.

SEN. WELLSTONE: It will be, without objection.

MR. KERREY: And I'll try not to drag this out too long. First, let me observe that on Monday we had the opportunity to watch a very moving ceremony in Kuwait, with General Schwarzkopf, Secretary Powell and former President Bush, celebrating the 10 year anniversary of the liberation of Kuwait. That liberation occurred on 26th February 1991. Two days later, on the 28th -- yesterday -- we celebrated the cease fire of that rather remarkable 208 day occupation of Kuwait by Iraq. And the driving of the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait was celebrated, quite correctly, as a remarkable demonstration of power used for good in a multilateral, multinational way.

My guess is, start that thing from scratch today and people would say it can't be done, shouldn't be done, et cetera. But, it was a rather remarkable accomplishment. Well, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, a lot's happened in the decade since, and I do think it's important to look at the history. I'm not going to go through all the details, but I'd like to describe five important things that have happened in the last 10 years that I think are enormously relevant to the discussion, and help frame the debate for what we're going to do going forward.

First, after that cease fire was declared, Iraq agreed to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to verify that Iraq had destroyed its capacity to manufacture chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Until verification was complete, the United Nations voted to enforce -- the Security Council voted to enforce external sanctions that would permit Iraq to sell oil and food -- or excuse me -- oil for food and medicine that they needed for domestic consumption. The time that was estimated to get this done was in months if Saddam Hussein cooperated. And what's come to be quite common practice, he confounded expectations by interfering, by harassing, and in the end, banning the weapons inspectors from the territory.

With reliable intelligence, I think this committee has confirmed the reason for Iraq's behavior. It's quite simply they want to maintain a robust program to develop weapons of mass destruction. Second thing that needs to be considered over the last 10 years is that Iraq has maintained a policy so hostile to human rights, especially for Kurdish minority in the north and the Shi'ites in the south -- and I would say, Senator Wellstone, I think if we stop those No Fly operations, we would have Kurds dying in the North and Shi'ites dying in the South. And they are alive today as a consequence of those No Fly Zones being maintained. No dissent is possible inside of Iraq. Thousands have been imprisoned, tortured and executed for opposing the current regime.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, with or without sanctions, the 20 million people of Iraq deserve to have the United States of America on the side of their freedom. Third, we have sustained a military effort to contain Iraq, and that military effort has cost us lives. U.S. and British pilots fly almost daily, as Senator Wellstone observed, to enforce the No Fly Zones in the North and in the South.

But, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we also maintain a presence at the Dhahran military installation in Saudi Arabia. And the significance of that is that this installation, part of our containment policy, was the target of a truck bomb attack on 25 June 1996 that killed 19 U.S. airmen. It was cited by Osama bin Laden as a reason for attacking U.S. embassies in West Africa on August 7, 1998, that killed 11 Americans and over 200 others. Our military presence was cited again when the USS Cole was attacked on October 12, 2000 in the Port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 American sailors.

I point this out, Mr. Chairman, because when the debate occurs as to whether or not military force is needed, do not forget that we already have a very expensive military operation in place today. The question is not should we have a military operation. The question is how should that military operation be deployed. Fourth, when he signed the Iraq Liberation into law on October 31, 1998, President Clinton began the process of shifting away from the failed policy of using military force to contain Iraq, to supporting military force to replace the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein with a democratically elected government. And although our support for opposition forces has been uneven at best, this new policy is still current law.

Fifth, Mr. Chairman, opponents of establishing our policy objection of liberation of the people of Iraq use a number of effective arguments, and I'd like to cite them because I'd like to also refute them. They say we would never get the support for a military operation. They say that democracy won't work in Iraq -- that Arabs aren't capable of governing themselves. They say finally that the opposition forces lack the legitimacy and capability of the most -- in particular, the most visible organization, the Iraq National Congress lacks the coherency and ability to be able to get the job done.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm very much aware that these arguments gather force when they're not answered, so I'd like to answer all three. The first -- and these arguments are little more than excuses, in my view, designed to keep us from doing what we know we should do, and we know what we can do if our will is strong. The argument against military force encourages us to ignore the hundreds of millions that we spend every single year to contain Iraq and the 47 American lives that have already been lost to enforce this containment policy.

The argument that Arabs cannot government themselves is racist, and encourages us to ignore a million Arab-Americans who exercise their rights when those rights are protected by a constitution and law. And the argument against the INC is little more than a parroting of Saddam Hussein's propaganda.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I'm very much aware that domestic and international support has been steadily eroding for continuing sanctions against Iraq, let alone a new military strategy to end the nightmare of this dictatorship. I have watched with growing sadness as Iraq has exploited the public's lack of memory, the Clinton administration's silence, and the world's appetite for its production of four million barrels of oil a day. I have read the reports of Secretary Colin Powell's return to Kuwait this week, and the difficulties he is having convincing our allies that we must stay the course in opposing the Iraqi regime.

I have read proposals by informed commentators to try to get the best deal we can at this point, including one by Mr. Tom Freedman (sp) that would offer an end to sanctions and U.S. recognition in exchange for allowing U.S. inspectors to verify that weapons of mass instruction are not being building in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, I urge you not to go along with the flow. This flow of public opinion, in my opinion, will lead us in the wrong direction. The United States should push back hard in the opposite direction. And the reason, Mr. Chairman, is simple. Saddam Hussein's Iraq represents a triple treat to us, to our allies in the region, and to the 20 million people who have the misfortune to live in a country where torture and killing of political opposition has become so routine, it is rarely reported. Iraq is a threat to us because they have the wealth and the will to build weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear.

Since the end of the Gulf War in '91, Saddam Hussein has lied and cheated his way out of the inspection regime, and has succeeded in convincing too many world leaders to overlook the danger he poses to them. Iraq is a threat to allies in the region because they have displayed -- Iraq has displayed no remorse and no regret for their invasion of Kuwait. Instead, they continue to justify their illegal act and condemn the U.S. led effort, which forced them to surrender the territory of their neighbor after inflicting inestimable damage to Kuwait. The Iraqi government is a threat to their own people, especially the Kurds in the northern provinces and the Shi'ites in the South.

Mr. Chairman, without our willingness to maintain No Fly Zones in the North and South, thousands more innocents would have died from Iraqi military assaults. It is by no means clear cut that Iraqi civilians are suffering as a consequence of our sanctions. What is clear cut is that the Iraqi people are suffering as a consequence of Saddam Hussein's policy of diverting United Nation's money away from needed food and medicine, to rebuilding his palaces and his military.

So, Mr. Chairman, I come here today to urge you to stay the course. Join with President Bush and tell him to imagine returning to Baghdad himself 10 years from now to celebrate the liberation of Iraq. In my view, it is possible. In the view of the Iraqi people, the people living in the region, and the people of the United States of America, it is also desirable. So, what specifically can we do? Well, let me just offer modestly, in the spirit of bipartisan foreign policy, in the words of a group of now senior Bush Administration officials who wrote a letter to President Clinton in 1998, there are three things that would be the beginning of the end of Saddam Hussein's reign of terror.

First, we should recognize a provisional government of Iraq based on the principles and leaders of the Iraq National Congress, that is representative of all the peoples of Iraq. Second, Mr. Chairman, we should restore and we should enhance a safe haven in northern Iraq that would allow a provisional government to extend its authority there, and establish a zone in southern Iraq from which Saddam's ground forces would also be excluded. And third, we should lift the sanctions in the liberated areas.

Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, these three moves, in my view, would signal that the United States of America will not yield ground to the world's worse and most dangerous dictator. And we would send a signal to the people of Iraq that we will not be satisfied until they are free to determine their own fate.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to thank you again for the invitation to hear my views.