The fact of the matter is, nothing has changed from the inspections that occurred prior to the debate here in the Senate back in September. So I really question what the motivation is of having this debate again when, on a substantive basis, nothing has changed, other than continued and maybe even more explicit deception on the part of Saddam Hussein in hiding these weapons of mass destruction. What has changed, I would argue, is the United States and our coalition partners have moved forward in a plan of deployment to convince Saddam we are serious, that if he does not comply, and comply quickly and completely, there will be action taken. As we had this debate on the floor--and one of the reasons many Members here supported this resolution--it was to make sure Saddam knew we were serious, we were going to follow through with what we said we would do, and the President had the support of the American public, thereby making it a credible threat, giving--I heard this over and over--giving peace the best chance by letting Saddam know the certainty of his noncompliance.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the rationale for military action against Saddam Hussein regarding weapons of mass destruction.
Share
More from Rick Santorum
I always say the campaigns are about to the future, not about the past. I mean, obviously the president is going to tout his record on the economy, but I think he needs to -- they need to focus more on what they're going to do in the…
You know, rhetorically I think Joe Biden has hit the notes very, very well. Substantively, as you can imagine, I'm not particularly excited about many of the things he is talking about doing. But I think his tone has been very, very good.
I think this puts Republican, particularly two senators in Georgia in a very tough bind to have a president, you know, having voted for the National Defense Authorization Act now, having to decide whether they're going to buck the…





