Chapter 9. 1998

My concern regarding our policy toward Iraq began long before the current conflict. I spoke out against President Clinton’s actions, and note below that Iraq was also a client state of adversaries we had long subsidized.

January 27, 1998
BOMBING IRAQ WOULD BE THE RESULT OF FLAWED
FOREIGN POLICY
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, it appears the administration is about to bomb Iraq. The stated reason is to force UN inspections of every inch of Iraqi territory to rule out the existence of any weapons of mass destruction. The president’s personal problems may influence this decision, but a flawed foreign policy is behind this effort.

Why is Iraq a greater threat to U.S. security than China, North Korea, Russia or Iran? They all have weapons of mass destruction. This makes no sense.

There was a time in our history that bombing foreign countries was considered an act of war, done only with a declaration by this Congress. Today, tragically, it is done at the whim of presidents and at the urging of congressional leaders without a vote, except maybe by the UN Security Council.

But the president is getting little support and a lot of resistance from our allies for this aggressive action.

Sadly, our policy in the Middle East has served to strengthen the hand of Hussein, unify the Islamic fundamentalists and expose American citizens to terrorist attacks. Hussein is now anxious for the bombs to hit to further stir the hatred and blame toward America for all the atrocities he has inflicted on his people.

January 28, 1998
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, the morning papers today recorded that Russia was providing weapon technology to Iraq. We have known for years that China has done the same thing. Does this mean that we must attack them as well as Iraq?

Instead, though, we give foreign aid to both China and to Russia, so indirectly we are subsidizing the very weapons that we are trying to eliminate.

I would like to remind my colleagues that bombing a country, especially one halfway around the world that is not a direct threat to our security, is not a moral act. A moral war is one that is defensive and a legal war is one that is declared by Congress. We should only pursue an act of war when our national security is threatened.

Bombing will solve nothing. It will open up a can of worms. We should not condone it. We should not endorse it. We should not encourage it.

Please think carefully before we permit our president to pursue this war adventure.

In response to President Clinton’s State of the Union Address, I analyzed the status of our republic. Here excerpted are portions dealing with foreign affairs.

January 28, 1998
STATE OF THE REPUBLIC
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, the first session of the 105th Congress has been completed, and the third year of the conservative revolution has passed. Current congressional leadership has declared victory and is now debating how to spend the excess revenues about to flow into the Treasury.

As the legislative year came to a close, the only serious debate was over the extent of the spending increases negotiated into the budget. The more things changed, the more they stayed the same. Control over the Congress is not seriously threatened, and there has been no clear-cut rejection of the 20th Century welfare state. But that does not mean there is no effort to change the direction of the country. It is just that it is not yet in progress.

But many taxpayers throughout the country are demanding change. Today there are more people in Washington expressing a sincere desire to shrink the welfare state than there were when I left 13 years ago. The final word on this has not yet been heard.

In contemplating what needs to be done and why we have not done better, we should consider several philosophic infractions in which Members of Congress participate that encourage a loss of liberty and endanger our national security and the Republic while perpetuating the status quo.

Following are some of the flaws or errors in thinking about issues that I find pervasive throughout the Congress:

Although foreign affairs was not on the top of the agenda in the last session, misunderstanding in this area presents one the greatest threats to the future of America. There is near conformity and uniformity of opinion in the Congress for endorsing the careless use of U.S. force to police the world. Although foreign policy was infrequently debated in the past year and there are no major wars going on or likely to start soon, the danger inherent in foreign entanglements warrants close scrutiny.

The economy, crime, the environment, drugs, currency instability, and many other problems are important. But it is in the area of foreign policy and for interventionism that provokes the greatest threat to our liberties and sovereignty. Whenever there are foreign monsters to slay, regardless of their true threat to us, misplaced patriotic zeal is used to force us to look outward and away from domestic problems and the infractions placed on our personal liberties here at home.

Protecting personal liberties in any society is always more difficult during war. The uniformity of opinion in Congress is enshrined with the common clichés that no one thinks through, like foreign policy is bipartisan; only the president can formulate foreign policy; we must support the troops and, therefore, of course, the war, which is usually illegal and unwise but cannot be challenged; we are the only world superpower; we must protect our interests, like oil. However, it is never admitted, although most know, our policy is designed to promote the military-industrial complex and world government.

Most recently, the Congress almost unanimously beat the drums for war, i.e., to kill Hussein. Any consideration of the facts involved elicited charges of anti-patriotism. Yet in the midst of the clamor to send our planes and bombs to Baghdad, cooler heads were found in, of all places, Kuwait.

A Kuwaiti professor, amazingly, was quoted in a proper pro-government Kuwaiti newspaper saying, “The U.S. frightens us with Saddam to make us buy weapons and sign contracts with American companies…” thus ensuring a market for American arms manufacturers and United States continued military presence in the Middle East.

A Kuwaiti legislator was quoted as saying, “The use of force has ended up strengthening the Iraqi regime rather than weakening it.”

Other Kuwaitis have suggested that the U.S. really wants Hussein in power to make sure his weak neighbors fear him and are forced to depend on the United States for survival.

In spite of the reservations and reasons to go slow, the only criticism coming from congressional leaders was that Clinton should do more, quicker, without any serious thought of the consequences, which would be many.

The fact that, of the original 35 allies in the Persian Gulf War, only one remains—Great Britain—should make us question our policy in this region. This attitude in Washington should concern all Americans. It makes it too easy for our presidents to start a senseless war without considering dollar costs or threats to liberty here and abroad. Even without a major war, this policy enhances the prestige and the influence of the United Nations.

These days, not even the United States moves without permission from the UN Security Council. In checking with the U.S. Air Force about the history of U-2 flights in Iraq, over Iraq, and in their current schedules, I was firmly told the Air Force was not in charge of these flights, the UN was. The Air Force suggested I call the Defense Department.

There is much to be concerned about with our current approach to foreign policy. It is dangerous because it can lead to a senseless war, like Vietnam, or small ones with bad results, like Somalia.

Individual freedom is always under attack. Once there is any serious confrontation with a foreign enemy, we are all required to rally around the president, no matter how flawed the policy. Too often, the consequences are unforeseen, like making Hussein stronger, not weaker after the Persian Gulf War.

The role of the military-industrial complex cannot be ignored; and since the marching orders come from the United Nations, the industrial complex is more international than ever.

But there is reason to believe the hidden agenda of our foreign policy is less hidden than it had been in the past. Referring to the United States in the international oil company success in the Caspian Sea, a Houston newspaper recently proclaimed, “U.S. views pipelines as a big foreign policy victory.”

This referred to the success of major deals made by giant oil companies to build pipelines to carry oil out of the Caspian Sea while also delivering a strong message that, for these projects to be successful and further enhance foreign policy, it will require government subsidies to help pay the bill. Market development of the pipelines would be cheaper, but would not satisfy our international government planners.

So we must be prepared to pay, as we already have started to, through our foreign aid appropriations. This promotes, on a grand scale, a government business partnership that is dangerous to those who love liberty and detest fascism. Yet most Members of Congress will say little, ask little, and understand little, while joining in the emotional outburst directed toward the local thugs running the Mideastern fiefdoms like Iraq and Libya.

This attitude, as pervasive as it is in Washington, is tempered by the people’s instincts for minding our own business, not wanting Americans to be the policemen of the world, and deep concern for American sovereignty. The result, not too unusual, is for the politicians to be doing one thing in Washington while saying something else at home.

At home, virtually all citizens condemn U.S. troops serving under UN command, yet the financing and support for expanding the United Nations’ and NATO’s roles continue as the hysteria mounts on marching on Baghdad or Bosnia or Haiti, or wherever our leaders decide the next monster is to be found.

The large majority of House Members claim they want our troops out of Bosnia. Yet the president gets all the funding he wants. The Members of Congress get credit at home for paying lip service to a U.S. policy of less intervention, while the majority continue to support the troops, the president, the military-industrial complex, and the special interests who drive our foreign policy, demanding more funding while risking the lives, property, peace, and liberty of American citizens.

Congress casually passes resolution after resolution, many times nearly unanimously, condemning some injustice in the world, and for the most part there is a true injustice. But along with the caveat that threatens some unconstitutional U.S. military interference, financial assistance—or withdrawal of assistance or sanctions—in order to force our will on someone else is all done in the name of promoting the United Nations and one-world government.

Many resolutions on principle are similar to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which became equivalent to a declaration of war and allowed for a massive loss of life in the Vietnam fiasco. Most Members of Congress fail to see the significance of threatening violence against countries like Libya, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, or Haiti. But our credibility suffers since our policies can never satisfy both sides of each regional conflict.

In the Middle East, even with all our announced intentions and military effort to protect Kuwait, our credibility is questioned as most Arabs still see us as pro-Israel, anti-Arab, and motivated by power, oil and money.

America’s effort to prevent a million casualties in Rwanda does not in any way compare to our perennial effort to get Hussein. It is hardly violations of borders or the possession of weapons of mass destruction that motivate us to get Hussein or drive our foreign policy.

We were allies of Iraq when it used poison gas against the Kurds and across the border into Iran. We support the Turks, even though they murdered Kurds, but we condemn the Iraqis when they do the same thing.

There are more than 25,000 Soviet nuclear warheads that cannot be accounted for, and all we hear about from the politicians is Iraq’s control of weapons of mass destruction.

Our policy in the Middle East is totally schizophrenic and driven by Arab oil, weapon sales, and Israel. This is especially dangerous, because the history of the West’s intrusion into the Middle East for a thousand years in establishing the artificial borders that exist today has created a mindset among Islamic fundamentalists guaranteeing friction will persist in this region, no matter how many Husseins or Ayatollahs we kill. That would only make things worse for us.

As much as I fear and detest one-world government, this chaos that we contribute to in the Middle East assures me that there is no smooth sailing for the new world order. Rough seas are ahead for all of us. If the UN’s plans for their type of order is successful, it will cost American citizens money and freedom. If significant violence breaks out, it will cost American citizens money, freedom and lives.

Yes, I fear a biological, even a nuclear accident. But I see our cities at a much greater risk because of our policy than if we were neutral and friends with all factions, instead of trying to be a financial and military ally of all factions depending on the circumstances.

The way we usually get dragged into a shooting war is by some unpredictable incident, where innocent Americans are killed after our government placed them in harm’s way and the enemy was provoked. Then the argument is made that once hostilities break out, debating the policy that created the mess is off limits. Everybody then must agree to support the troops.

But the best way to support our troops and our liberties is to have a policy that avoids unnecessary confrontation. A pro-American constitutional policy of nonintervention would go a long way toward guaranteeing maximum liberty and protection of life and property for all Americans.

American interests around the world could best be served by friendship and trade with all who would be friends, and subsidies to none.

The lead up to the current Iraq debacle was a long time coming, and even in the Clinton years, Congress was laying the ground work, which only a few of us in the body questioned.

February 5, 1998
CONGRESS SHOULD MOVE CAUTIOUSLY ON
RESOLUTION REGARDING IRAQ
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Madam Speaker, in 1964, a resolution passed this Congress urging the president to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

Today there is a resolution floating around this Congress that urges the president to take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq. We should remember history. We lost 50,000 men after we passed that last resolution. We do not have a sensible policy with Iraq. We should move cautiously.

Madam Speaker, I would also urge other Members to be cautious when they talk about a surgical strike and assassination. Assassination of foreign leaders is still illegal under our law.

I urge my fellow colleagues, please, be cautious, be careful, and be wise when it comes to giving this president the right to wage war. Ironically, this president did not respond in the same manner with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution as he expects the young people to respond today.

Sending and maintaining troops abroad is a major component of our current interventionist policies that not only violate our deeply held principles but also leads to practical problems

March 10, 1998
U.S. OBSESSION WITH WORLDWIDE MILITARY
OCCUPATION POLICY
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, last week it was Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis. This week’s Hitler is Slobodon Milosevic and the Serbs. Next week, who knows? Kim Jong il and the North Koreans? Next year, who will it be, the Ayatollah and the Iranians? Every week we must find a foreign infidel to slay, and, of course, keep the military-industrial complex humming.

Once our ally, Saddam Hussein, with encouragement from us, invaded Iran, was it not logical that he might believe that we condone border crossings and invasions, even into what Iraqis believe rightfully theirs—Kuwait—especially after getting tacit approval from U.S. Ambassador Glaspie?

Last week, U.S. Special Envoy to the Balkans, Robert Gelbard, while visiting Belgrade, praised Milosevic for his cooperation in Bosnia and called the separatists in Kosovo “without question, a terrorist group.” So how should we expect a national government to treat its terrorists?

Likewise, our Secretary of State, in 1991, gave a signal to Milosevic by saying, “All Yugoslavia should remain a monolithic state.” What followed was to be expected: Serb oppression of the Croats and the Muslims.

All our wise counsel so freely given to so many in this region fails to recognize that the country of Yugoslavia was an artificial country created by the Soviet masters, just as the borders of most Middle Eastern countries were concocted by the British and UN resolutions.

The centuries-old ethnic rivalries, inherent in this region and aggravated by persistent Western influence as far back as the Crusades, will never be resolved by arbitrary threats and use of force from the United States or the United Nations. All that is being accomplished is to further alienate the factions, festering hate and pushing the region into a war of which we need no part.

Planning any military involvement in Kosovo is senseless. Our security is not threatened, and no one has the foggiest notion whether Kofi Annan or Bill Clinton is in charge of our foreign policy. The two certainly do not speak in unison on Iraq.

But we cannot maintain two loyalties, one to a world government under the United Nations and the other to U.S. sovereignty protected by an American Congress. If we try, only chaos can result, and we are moving rapidly in that direction.

Instead of bringing our troops home from Bosnia, as many Members of Congress have expressed an interest in doing, over the president’s objection, we are rapidly preparing for sending more troops into Kosovo. This obsession with worldwide military occupation by U.S. troops is occurring at the very time our troops lack adequate training and preparation.

This is not a result of too little money by a misdirected role for our military, a role that contradicts the policy of neutrality, friendship, trade and nonintervention in the affairs of other nations. The question we should ask is: are we entitled to, wealthy enough, or even wise enough to assume the role of world policemen and protector of the world’s natural resources?

Under the Constitution, there is no such authority. Under rules of morality, we have no authority to force others to behave as we believe they should, and force American citizens to pay for it, not only with dollars, but with life and limb as well. By the rules of common sense, the role of world policemen is a dangerous game and not worth playing.

Acting as an honest broker, the U.S. may help bring warring factions to the peace table, but never with threats of war or bribes paid for by the American taxpayers. We should stop sending money and weapons to all factions. Too often our support finds its way into the hands of both warring factions. We never know how long it will be for our friends and allies of today to become our enemy and targets of tomorrow.

Concern for American security is a proper and necessary function of the U.S. Congress. The current policy, and one pursued for decades, threatens our security, drains our wallets—and worst of all—threatens the lives of young Americans to stand tall for Americans defense, but not for Kofi Annan and the United Nations.

Tom Campbell of California introduced a resolution to remove our troops from Bosnia. We got nearly 200 votes, including a vast majority of Republicans. A year later we would be engaged in bombing in the region.

March 17, 1998
REMOVING U.S. ARMED FORCES FROM BOSNIA AND
HERZEGOVINA
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to two House Concurrent Resolutions that we will be voting on, one today and one tomorrow.

The one tomorrow is offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), which I think we should pay close attention to and, hopefully, support. This is H. Con. Res. 227. It is a concurrent resolution directing the president, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The troops should never have been sent there in the first place. There was a lot of controversy. It was far from unanimous consent from the Congress to send the troops there. They were sent there in 1995, and they were to be there for 18 months. Each time we came upon a date for removing the troops, they were extended.

Currently, it is the president’s position that the troops will stay indefinitely. He has not set a date, although the Congress has set a date of this June for all funding to be removed as of June and the troops should come home. This resolution more or less states that same position. I strongly favor this, and I believe that the Congress should send a strong message that we should not casually and carelessly send troops around the world to police the world. This is a good way for us to get into trouble.

Our national security is not threatened. There was no justification for our troops to be sent there. There are always good reasons given, though, because there are problems. Well there are problems every place in the world. If we try to solve all the problems of the world, we would not have troops in a hundred countries like we have now, we would have them in three or four hundred countries. But it is true that we send troops with the most amount of pressure put upon us to do it.

There are certain countries, like in Rwanda, Africa, we certainly did not apply the same rules to that country as we did to Bosnia and the Persian Gulf and Iraq. We did not do this when we saw the mass killings in the Far East under Pol Pot.

Under certain circumstances where there is political pressure made by certain allies or by interests of oil, we are likely to get involved. But the principle of a noninterventionist foreign policy should make certain that we, the Congress, never condone, never endorse, never promote the placement of troops around the world in harm’s way because it is a good way for men to get killed. For most purposes, the lives of our American soldiers are too valuable to be put into a situation where there is so much harm and danger.

Fortunately there have been no American deaths in this region, but there is a good reason for those troops to come out. The peace has not been settled there, and it is not going to be. And the 16,000 to 20,000 troops that we have had there will not be able to maintain the peace as long as these warring factions exist. They have existed, not for months, not for a few years, but literally for hundreds, if not thousands, of years that people in this region have been fighting among themselves.

It is not our responsibility. Yes, we can condemn the violence; and who would not? But does that justify the taxing of American citizens and imposing a threat to American lives by sending our troops to all these hot spots around the region?

I strongly urge my fellow colleagues to look carefully at this resolution tomorrow and assume congressional responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the president to wage war, to put troops around the world. That is a congressional responsibility.

Although there has been no declaration of war, we are sitting ducks for a war to be started. So let us stop the war before it gets started.

I think we should strongly endorse this resolution and make sure these troops come home. It is interesting that there is a fair amount of support for this, and we obviously won the vote on this last year to say the troops should come home in June of this year. I suspect and hope that this will be restated, and there will be no excuse to extend their stay in this region.

But at the same time we win those kind of votes, there is a strong sentiment here in the Congress when we are required to vote, and there is certainly a strong sentiment among the American people that we ought to be dealing with our problems here at home. We ought not to assume the role of world policemen. And we ought to mind our own business, and we ought to be concerned about the sovereignty of the United States, rather than sending our troops around the world under the auspices of the United Nations and NATO and literally giving up our sovereignty to international bodies. We were very confused as to who was really in charge of foreign policy in Iraq, whether it was Kofi Annan or whether it was our president.

The Iraq Liberation Act set the stage for war. Passed during Bill Clinton’s term, it was, like the later bill to give President Bush authority to invade, passed with strong bipartisan support

October 5, 1998
SETTING THE STAGE FOR WAR
HON. RON PAUL of TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. Speaker, understand this legislation came before the committee on Friday, one legislative day prior to today. There has been no committee report filed, and it was brought up under suspension. I believe this legislation is very serious legislation. It is not a casual piece of legislation condemning a leader in another country that is doing less than honorable things.

I see this piece of legislation as essentially being a declaration of virtual war. It is giving the president tremendous powers to pursue war efforts against a sovereign nation. It should not be done casually. I think it is another example of a flawed foreign policy we have followed for a good many decades.

For instance, at the beginning of this legislation is cited one of the reasons why we must do something. It says on September 22, 1980, Iraq invaded Iran starting an eight-year war in which Iraq employed chemical weapons against Iranian troops, very serious problems. We should condemn that. But the whole problem is we were Iraq’s ally at that time, giving him military assistance, giving him funds and giving him technology for chemical weapons.

So here we are now deciding that we have to virtually declare war against this individual. It is not like he is the only hoodlum out there. I could give my colleagues a list of 15 or 20. I do not like the leadership of China. Why do we not do something about China? I do not like the leadership of Sudan. But all of a sudden we have to decide what we are going to give this president to pursue getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Just a few months ago, or last November, we passed a resolution, and the resolution was HR137. It sounded very general and very benign, and it talked about the atrocities caused by Saddam Hussein, and we asked to condemn, and also to set up a UN commission to study this and give the UN authority to pursue arrests and convict and try Saddam Hussein. This is not something we are doing for the interests of the United States. We are doing this under the interests of the United Nations; we are the spokesperson for them.

Not too long ago, a few years back in the 1980s, in our effort to bring peace and democracy to the world, we assisted the freedom fighters of Afghanistan. In our infinite wisdom, we gave money, technology and training to Bin Laden, and now, this very year, we have declared that Bin Laden was responsible for the bombing in Africa. So what is our response, because we allow our president to pursue war too easily? What was the president’s response? Some even say that it might have been for other reasons than for national security reasons. So he goes off and bombs Afghanistan, and he goes off and bombs Sudan, and now the record shows that very likely the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was precisely that, a pharmaceutical plant.

I say we should stop and think for a minute before we pursue and give the president more authority to follow a policy that to me is quite dangerous. This to me is equivalent to declaring war and allowing the president to pursue this.

Another complaint listed on this legislation: in February 1988 Iraq forcibly relocated Kurdish civilians from their homes. Terrible thing to do, and they probably did; there is no doubt about it. But what did we do after the Persian Gulf War? We encouraged the Kurdish people to stand up and fight against Saddam Hussein, and they did, and we forgot about them. They were killed by the tens of thousands. There is no reason for them to trust us. There is no reason for the Sudanese people to believe and trust in us, in what we do when we rain bombs on their country and they have done nothing to the United States. The people of Iraq certainly have not done anything to the United States, and we certainly can find leaders around the world that have not done equally bad things. I think we should stop and think about this.

Just today it was announced that the Turks are lined up on the Syrian border. What for? To go in and kill the Kurds because they do not like the Kurds. I think that is terrible. But what are we doing about it? Who are the Turks? They are our allies, they are our friends. They get military assistance. The American people are paying the Turks to keep their military up. So we are responsible for that.

This policy makes no sense. Some day we have to think about the security of the United States. We spend this money. We spent nearly $ 100 million bombing nobody and everybody for who knows what reason last week. At the same time our military forces are under trained and lack equipment, we are wasting money all around the world trying to get more people, see how many people we can get to hate us. Some day we have to stop and ask why are we pursuing this. Why do we not have a policy that says that we should, as a Congress, defend the United States, protect us, have a strong military, but not to police the world in this endless adventure of trying to be everything to everyone? We have been on both sides of every conflict since World War II. Even not too long ago they were talking about bombing in Kosovo. As a matter of fact, that is still a serious discussion. But a few months ago they said, well, we are not quite sure who the good guys are, maybe we ought to bomb both sides. It makes no sense. Why do we not become friends to both sides?

There are people around the world that we deal with that are equally repulsive to Saddam Hussein. I believe very sincerely that the Founders of this country were on the right track when they said stay out of entangling alliances. We should trade with people; we would get along with them better. We have pursued this type of policy in Cuba for 40 years, and it has served Castro well. Why do we not go down and get rid of Castro? Where do we get this authority to kill a dictator? We do not have that authority, and to do it under one day of hearings, mark it up, bring it up the next day under suspension; I do not understand why anybody could vote for this just on the nature of it.

We should not be doing this. We should stop and think about it and try to figure out a much better way. I, for instance, am on a bill to trade with Cuba. Oh, how horrible, we should not trade with Cuba, they are a bunch of Commies down there. But we should be selling them rice, and we should be selling them our crops. We should not be bombing these people. As my colleagues know, at the end of this bill I think we get a hint about why we do not go to Rwanda for humanitarian reasons. Now there are some atrocities. Why do we not clean that mess up? Because I believe very sincerely that there is another element tied into this, and I think it has something to do with money. I think it has something to do with oil. The oil interests need the oil in Iraq, and he does not, Saddam Hussein does not, comply with the people of the West. So he has to go.

Also at the end of this legislation is something about what might be going on. They are asking to set up and check into the funds that Saddam Hussein owes to the West. Who is owed? They do not owe me any money. But I will bet my colleagues there are a lot of banks in New York who are owed a lot of money, and this is one of the goals, to set up and make sure Saddam Hussein pays his bills.

All I do is ask my colleagues to think about it, urge them to go slowly. Nothing is so pressing that we should give the president this much authority to go to war.

Under the appropriations it is endless, it is open, endless, and here we are concerned about saving Social Security. Any amount of money spent on this bill comes out of Social Security. Yes, there was yelling and screaming about a tax cut. Oh, it is coming out of Social Security? Well, this money is not appropriated, and it is such sums as necessary for military and economic benefits. After we get rid of one thug, we are going to have it in. I hope we make a better choice than we did with Bin Laden. I mean, he was our close ally.

Please think twice, slow up, vote against this bill. We do not need this.