Neil Abercrombie: “I rise to speak against this resolution. We all recognize that Suddam Hussein is a tyrant and that he is a dangerous…”

“I rise to speak against this resolution. We all recognize that Suddam Hussein is a tyrant and that he is a dangerous enemy. The question is whether this resolution is the right way to address the threats presented by his regime. The Administration says that Iraq presents an imminent threat to the United States, that unless we give the President carte blanche to launch a unilateral, preemptive attack, we will be subject to attack by weapons of mass destruction. No one needs to convince us of the horror of weapons of mass destruction or the evil intentions of Saddam Hussein. But does that justify the blank check this resolution gives the President? We have listened to the testimony, read the briefs, and weighed the arguments presented by the Administration. In my view, they have yet to prove their case. They have presented no credible evidence that the United States faces imminent attack. They have presented no credible evidence that Iraq was involved in the September 11th terrorist attacks or that it is giving material aid to those involved in those attacks. Are we setting the bar too high? I don't think so. The evidence of imminent threat should be credible, conclusive and irrefutable if we are talking about the United States unleashing the dogs of war. Striking the first blow is unprecedented in American history. It has always been a point of honor that the United States does not start wars.”