Text of Hillary's speech in the 2002 AUMF debate

October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed
Forces Against Iraq

*As Delivered  (note not as written.)*

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States
authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle
Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful
democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great
issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about
this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am
grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate
they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore,
on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to
our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has
proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not
in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own
people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He
used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20
thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such
horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government,
because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini
in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of
the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition,
including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of
bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition
then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against
Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number
of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass
destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to
do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to
ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed
the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of
mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including
thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological
stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce
anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions
by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to
resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on
inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called
presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to
hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by
UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the
inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and
others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on
known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military
targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq
from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect
such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the
country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,
though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible
events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue
to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will
keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor,
he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East,
which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about
it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can
muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not
produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a
positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a
secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move
the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because
it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in
1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using
chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the
Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not
depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a
million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his
aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we
created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his
being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a
precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has
talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has
mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if
China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot
be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only
resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it.
This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our
support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for
it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and
when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of
long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global
cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an
organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion
to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto,
on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In
Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of
political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States
therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the
action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a
million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because
there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from
their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined
the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security
Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he
has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the
real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region,
including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time,
work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United
Nations?

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people
of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed
conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong
resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for
complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from
Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit
authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now,
perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered
inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is
inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized
when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies,
disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change
will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all
reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him
with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls
for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even
that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more
support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes
authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations
superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They
will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the
United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are
fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the
military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there
is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons.
Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did
either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is
joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to
use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists
who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed
by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to
recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing
the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable
and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of
rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have
come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks
ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate
is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and
placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited
inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to
pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United
Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good
faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies
and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious
consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of
our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few
Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will
go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted
inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have
ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast
it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the
other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal
with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future
President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in
the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein
makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the
President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of
mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces
to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country
will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for
uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose — all of
which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law
and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid
himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the
world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these
conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we
would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to
global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions
protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a
clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

*And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the
perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the
consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the
risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through
the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that
I am.*

*So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the
best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it
is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and
we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a
vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm
or be disarmed.*

Thank you, Mr. President.

clinton.senate.gov <http://clinton.senate.gov /speeches/iraq_101002.html>