Burgess Owens: “You offer very strong and glaring examples. If we outlasted the Soviet Union and we outlasted China, all of these evil…”

“You offer very strong and glaring examples. If we outlasted the Soviet Union and we outlasted China, all of these evil empires that it appeared we were going to inevitably have military conflict with are now, if not our allies, then certainly civil partners or neighbors. If we outlasted the threats that they posed, then surely we can outlast the threat that Iraq poses also. Yes, we are going to have to learn in this world to live with a new kind of threat, a new kind of risk. And getting rid of Saddam Hussein and Iraq will not free us from having to live with that risk, because there are nations like Pakistan, a friendly nation at this point, possessing nuclear weapons, and on very shaky grounds in terms of the turmoil in that nation could lead to an overthrow of the government. It could be in unfriendly hands tomorrow, so you could have the possibility of nuclear weapons being stolen from there or transmitted from there. Even if a nation does not have nuclear weapons, the possibility of a rogue nation selling it to them that we do not even know about, or the possibility of being stolen. The Soviet Union has lost a lot of nuclear materials through theft, or Russia, since the Soviet Union was dismantled. All these things exist. We have some threats and some risks that we are going to have to live with. So why do we suddenly consider Saddam Hussein an imminent threat that must be taken care of in an unlawful use of force?”