Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan.
Ranking member, Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
From a speech to the Senate, Oct. 9, 2002

The United Nations has completely and unequivocally failed to disarm Iraq consistent with its own resolutions. . . . Saddam Hussein has demonstrated ad nauseam over the last 10 years that he will never permit the removal or destruction of his weapons of mass destruction, [which] are the very source of his authority. . . . He has [been] willing to use [such] weapons against his own countrymen and against other nations. And he rules by fear. So, . . . he [will never] disarm — ever.

Any notion that the United States itself is off-limits to a massive attack by groups cooperating with or supported by Baghdad should now be gone. It is [a] sanctuary for further terrorist attacks against our homeland. . . .

While “hard evidence” of an Iraqi role in the attacks of 9/11 may be hard to prove . . . I do not think we can afford to be naive. Particularly in the Middle East, terror groups and states work together when and where their interests are common. And their intent is the destruction of the United States, the murder of our citizens and the elimination of our influence, real and perceived. . . . If Iraq and other regimes are left unchallenged, it is only a matter of time before they transfer the capability for weapons of mass destruction to a terrorist cell that will use that capability against the United States.

The criminal-justice model of gathering evidence and presenting a case does not apply here. By the time you have evidence, it is too late. We will not lose buildings and thousands of people when that happens. We will lose whole cities and hundreds of thousands of people.

In light of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, this body has more reason to support action against Iraq than it had in the winter of 1991. . . . because preventing weapons of mass destruction from being acquired by terrorist cells should be the No. 1 policy priority of this government. This means neutralizing regimes that possess or seek such weapons and are predisposed to harboring, assisting [and] sympathizing with the bin Ladens of the world.

American survival must be assured. It is a first priority. It is our highest agenda. . . . We must be pre-emptive. . . . Yes, pre-emptive, that new doctrine that is causing a rethink of our foreign policy, our military strategy, our politics, our foreign relations. It is a brand new world. It is an asymmetrical world. This has nothing to do with partisan rivalry. This is about our future, both immediate and long term. This is the state of affairs we leave our children and our grandchildren.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va.
Member, Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
From a speech to the Senate, Oct. 3, 2002

We are rushing into war without fully discussing why, without thoroughly considering the consequences or without making any attempt to explore what steps we might take to avert conflict.

The newly bellicose mood that permeates this White House . . . is clearly motivated by campaign politics. Republicans are already running attack ads against Democrats on Iraq. . . . Before risking the lives of American troops, all members of Congress — Democrats and Republicans alike — must overcome the siren song of political polls and focus strictly on the merits, not the politics, of this most serious issue.

The resolution is . . . a product of presidential hubris. . . . [It] reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the executive branch. It would give the president blanket authority to launch a unilateral, pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the president's authority under the Constitution, [which] stands the charter of the United Nations on its head.

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war and to call forth the militia “to . . . repel Invasions.” Nowhere is it written that the president has the authority to call forth the militia to pre-empt a perceived threat. . . .

Think for a moment of the precedent this resolution will set, not just for this president, but for future presidents. . . . Other nations will be able to hold up the United States as the model to justify their military adventures. Do you not think that India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, Russia and Georgia are closely watching the outcome of this debate?

A war against Iraq will affect thousands, if not tens of thousands of lives, and perhaps alter the course of history [and] affect the balance of power in the Middle East. It is not a decision to be taken in haste, under the glare of election-year politics and the pressure of artificial deadlines. And yet any observer can see that that is exactly what the Senate is proposing to do.

Let us be convinced that a reinvigorated inspection regime cannot work before we move to any next step, and let us, if we must employ force, employ the most precise and limited use of force necessary to get the job done. Let us guard against the perils of haste, lest the Senate fall prey to the dangers of taking action that is both blind and improvident.