On the recordOctober 10, 2002
to the occasional charge of ``hand- wringing'' and ``weakness'' leveled at the many of us who are voting today against this resolution, perhaps the same could be said of this statement: ``Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq . . . would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. . . . Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.'' But this statement comes from American patriots, our first President Bush and his National Security Adviser General Scowcroft, in explaining why they rejected the approach some urge today. As most Democrats today vote against launching a ground invasion of Iraq, we must candidly recognize that some of the most insightful arguments supporting our position were advanced by Republicans and military leaders like Scowcroft, Schwarzkopf, and Zinni. Party affiliations will not be chiseled on the gravestones of young Americans who die to win this war, nor on those of the American families jeopardized by diverting precious resources from the real war on terrorism, nor those harmed by new terrorists provoked by what too many will view as a new crusade against Islam. Why in the face of overwhelming support do so many of us vote ``no'' today?…
Source
govinfo.gov




