---

    Volume CCXXXII, Number 26        October, 2002              Page 3

---

DoD FINAL FOR CLEARANCE

PREPARED TESTIMONY BY U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
DONALD H. RUMSFELD
SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HEARINGS ON IRAQ
SEPTEMBER 19, 2002

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to lecture meet with you today.

Last week, we commemorated the one-year anniversary of the most devastating attack our nation has ever experienced—more than 3,000 innocent people killed in a single day.  And we’ve even caught one of them.  [Too downbeat – WH]

Today, I want to discuss the task of preventing even more devastating attacks on the Bush Administration [Elevate tone – WH] —  attacks that could kill not thousands, but potentially tens of thousands of our fellow citizens.

As we meet, state sponsors of terror across the world are working to develop and acquire weapons of mass destruction. As we speak, chemists, biologists, and nuclear scientists are toiling in weapons labs and underground bunkers, working to give the world’s most dangerous dictators weapons of unprecedented power and lethality. [But you say later that they already have had these weapons for years? – CIA] The threat posed by those regimes is real. It is dangerous. And it is growing with each passing day. We cannot wish it away as we did with Osama.

We have entered a new security environment, one that is dramatically different than the one we grew accustomed to over the past half-century. We have entered  a world in which terrorist movements and terrorists states are developing the  capacity to cause unprecedented destruction.  [More so than thermonuclear war? – JCS] Today, our margin of error is notably different. In the 20th century, we were dealing, for the most part, with conventional weapons–weapons that could kill  hundreds or thousands of people, generally combatants. In the 21st century, we  are dealing with weapons of mass destruction that can kill potentially tens of  thousands of people—innocent men, women and children – like we did in Hiroshima and Dresden.  [Irrelevant – DR]

Further, because of the nature of these new threats, we are in an age of little or no warning, when threats can emerge suddenly—at any place or time—to surprise us. Terrorist states have enormous appetite for these powerful weapons—and active programs to develop them. They are finding ways to gain access to these capabilities. This is not a possibility—it is a certainty. In word and deed, they have  demonstrated a willingness to use those capabilities against the United States. [Can’t say that – JCS]

We are on notice. Let there be no doubt: an attack will be attempted. The only question is when and by what technique and by whom.  [No – we know by whom, don’t we? – WH]   It could be months, a year, or several years. But it will happen. It is in our future. Each of us needs to pause, and think about that for a moment—about what it would mean for our country, for our families—and indeed for the world. [Who cares about world? – DR][Sounds statesmanlike – WH]

If the worst were to happen, not one of us here today will be able to honestly say it was a surprise.  We’ll still say it like we did about September 11, but it won’t be honest. [No more comments from CIA – DR]   Because it will not be a surprise. We have connected the dots as much as it is humanly possible -- before the fact. Only by waiting until after the event could we have proof positive. The dots are there for all to see. The dots are there for all to connect. If they aren’t good enough, rest assured they will only be good enough after another disaster—a disaster of still greater proportions. And by then it will be too late.  Dot may be OK for unpatriotic Democrats, but not for me! [Let’s keep tone high – NSC]

The question facing us is this: what is the responsible course of action for our country? Do you believe it is our responsibility to wait for a nuclear, chemical or biological 9/11? Or is it the responsibility of free people to do something now—to take steps to deal with the threat before we are attacked, if we can get away with only a few hundred flag-draped coffins? [Tell JCS to downplay the casualty stuff – NSC]

The President has made his position clear: the one thing that is not an option is doing nothing. There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction—Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, to name but a few. But no terrorist state poses a greater and more immediate threat to the security of our people, and the stability of the world, than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. And this one we can knock over.  [True, but let’s not dwell on it – WH]

No living dictator has shown the murderous combination of intent and capability -- of aggression against his neighbors; oppression of his own people; genocide; support of terrorism; pursuit of weapons of mass destruction; the use of weapons of mass destruction; and the most threatening hostility to its neighbors and to the United States, than Saddam Hussein and his regime.  [How about Rwanda?  Serbia?  North Korea? – State][I thought I said no more comments from State – DR]

Mr. Chairman, these facts about Saddam Hussein’s regime should be part of this
· Saddam Hussein has openly praised the attacks of September 11th. That alone is enough to take him out. [Didn’t test well in focus groups – WH]

§ Last week, on the anniversary of 9-11, his state-run press called the attacks “God’s punishment.”
§ He has repeatedly threatened the U.S. and its allies with terror—once declaring that “every Iraqi [can] become a missile.” [How? If they wrap themselves in tinfoil and strap a firecracker to their ass? – JCS]
· He has ordered the use of chemical weapons—Sarin, Tabun, VX, and mustard agents—against his own people, in one case killing 5,000 innocent civilians in a single day.  
· His regime has invaded two of its neighbors, and threatened others.
§ In 1980, they invaded Iran, and used chemical weapons against Iranian forces. 22 years later they might be ready to use them against us.  [Can’t CIA can’t update this shit? This crap Is 22 years old. -- DR]. . .

· He has executed members of their cabinet, including the Minister of Health, whom he personally shot and killed. [Wouldn’t mind taking out Powell, though.  Just kidding – DR]. .  .

· His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons— including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox, and just because he hasn’t used them for 20 years doesn’t mean he might not change his mind someday.   [Wordy – WH]
· His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons— including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas.
· His regime has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons.
§ They have the knowledge of how to produce nuclear weapons, and designs for at least two different nuclear devices, one given to them by the French and the other taken out of the Encyclopedia Brittanica. [Irrelevant – NSC] . . . 

· And his regime is determined to acquire the means to strike the U.S., its friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction, acquire the territory of their neighbors, and impose their control over the Persian Gulf region. [Thought we said he already had the means? – CIA]

As the President warned the United Nations last week, “Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger.” It is a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East, and to international peace and stability. It is a danger we do not have the option to ignore as we did with al-Qaeda.  [No – WH] The world has acquiesced in Saddam Hussein’s aggression, abuses and defiance for more than a decade.

In his UN address, the President explained why we should not allow the Iraqi regime to acquire weapons of mass destruction—and issued a challenge to the international community: to enforce the numerous resolutions the UN has passed and Saddam Hussein has defied; to show that Security Council’s decisions will not to be cast aside without cost or consequence; to show that the UN is up to the challenge of dealing with a dictator like Saddam Hussein; to show that the UN is determined not to become irrelevant by disagreeing with George Bush.  [No – State]

President Bush has made clear that the United States wants to bulldoze work with [Better – NSC] the UN Security Council to deal with the threat posed by the Iraqi regime. But he made clear the consequences of Iraq’s continued defiance: “The purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced…or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.”

The President has asked the Members of the House and the Senate to support the actions that may be necessary to deliver on that pledge or be branded as traitors. [Save for spot advertising – WH] He ordered urged [Better – WH]  that the Congress act before the Congressional recess. He asked that you send a clear signal—to the world community and the Iraqi regime—that our country is united in purpose and ready to die [We are not going into the casualty thing – WH] act. Only certainty of U.S. and UN purposefulness can have even the prospect of affecting the Iraqi regime.

It is important that Congress send that message as soon as possible—before the U.S. public UN Security Council votes. The Security Council must act soon, and it is important that the U.S. Congress signal the world where the U.S. stands before the UN vote takes place. Delaying a vote in the Congress would send a message that the U.S. may be unprepared to start a war [We’re also trying to avoid the w-word – WH] take a stand, just as we are asking the international community to take a stand, and as Iraq will be considering its options.

Delay would signal the Iraqi regime that they can continue their violations of the UN resolutions. It serves no U.S. or UN purpose to give Saddam Hussein excuses for further delay. His regime should recognize that the U.S. and the UN are purposeful.

It was Congress that changed the objective of U.S. policy from containment to regime change, by the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, so you’re already pregnant on this one.   [Keep in reserve – WH] The President is now asking Congress to support that policy.

A decision to use military force is never easy for squishy soft Democrats.   [Use market-by-market – WH] No one with any sense considers war a first choice—it is the last thing that any rational person wants to do, and that’s why George Bush is not going within 5,000 miles of any bullets.   [That’s enough from JCS – DR] And it is important that the issues surrounding this decision be discussed and debated until, say, mid-October.  [True but unneeded here – WH] . . .

Some have asked whether an attack on Iraq would disrupt and distract the U.S. from the Global War on Terror.  The answer to that is: Iraq is a part of the Global War on Terror—stopping terrorist regimes from acquiring weapons of mass destruction is a key objective of that war.  We can fight all elements of this war simultaneously since we’ve basically given up trying to catch Osama.  [Well, we have – JCS] . . .

 I suggest that any who insist on perfect evidence are back in the 20th century and still thinking in pre-9/11 terms. On September 11th, we were awakened to the fact that America is now vulnerable to unprecedented destruction. That awareness ought to be sufficient to change the way we think about our security, how we defend our country—and the type of certainty and evidence we consider appropriate.   [Define we – JCS][Seems clear enough to us – DR]. . . 

Now, do we have perfect evidence that can tell us precisely the date Iraq will have a deliverable nuclear device, or when and where he might try to use it?  [No – CIA] That is not knowable, so let’s just assert it.  But it is strange that some seem to want to put the burden of proof on us—the burden of proof ought to be on him—to prove he has disarmed; to prove he no longer poses a threat to peace and security. And that he cannot do.

Committees of Congress currently are asking hundreds of questions about what happened on September 11th—pouring over thousands of pages of documents, and asking who knew what, when and why they didn’t prevent that tragedy. I suspect, that in retrospect, most of those investigating 9/11 would have supported preventive action to pre-empt that threat, if we hadn’t been asleep at the switch it had been possible to see it coming.

Well, if one were to compare the scraps of information the government ignored had before September 11th to the volumes of information the government has today about Iraq’s pursuit of WMD, his use of those weapons, his record of aggression and his consistent hostility toward the United States—and then factor in our country’s demonstrated vulnerability after September 11th—the case the President made should be clear.   [Don’t understand the connection between September 11 and pre-emptive attack on Iraq – JCS][Then you’re not reading the same polls I’m reading – WH]

As the President said, time is not on our side. If the election more time passes, and the attacks we are concerned about come to pass, I would not want to have ignored all the warning signs and then be required to explain why our country failed to protect our fellow citizens.   And we lose several thousand American soldiers, I’ll blame the Democrats one way or another.  [Hold in reserve – WH]. . .

That said, it is far from clear that he would not necessarily restrain from taking actions that could result in his destruction. For example, that logic did not stop the Taliban from supporting and harboring al-Qaeda as they planned and executed repeated attacks on the U.S. And their miscalculation resulted in the destruction of their regime. Regimes without checks and balances are prone to grave miscalculations.  [Amen – State] Saddam Hussein has no checks whatsoever on his decisionmaking authority. Who among us really believes it would be wise or prudent for us to base our security on the hope that Saddam Hussein, or his sons who might succeed him, could not make the same fatal miscalculations as Mullah Omar and the Taliban, when we can knock him out at a cost of only 1,000 or 2,000 American casualties?  . . .

We still do not know with certainty who was behind the 1996 bombing the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia—an attack that killed 19 American service members – because the Saudis won’t tell us.   [Not appropriate at this time – State] We still do not know who is responsible for last year’s anthrax attacks.  Maybe it was Saddam.  [Maybe it was the Tooth Fairy – CIA] The nature of terrorist attacks is that it is often very difficult to identify who is ultimately responsible. Indeed, our consistent failure over the past two decades to trace terrorist attacks to their ultimate source gives terrorist states the lesson that using terrorist networks as proxies is an effective way of attacking the U.S. with impunity. . . .

Some have said that they would support action to remove Saddam if the U.S. could prove a connection to the attacks of September 11th—but there is no such proof. The question implies that the U.S. should have to prove that Iraq has already attacked us in order to deal with that threat. The objective is to stop him before he attacks us and kills thousands of our citizens.

The case against Iraq does not depend on an Iraqi link to 9/11 because there isn’t any.  [Let’s not bludgeon this one – WH] The issue for the U.S. is not vengeance, retribution or retaliation—it is whether the Iraqi regime poses a growing danger to the safety and security of our people, and of the world. There is no question but that it does.

Some argue that North Korea and Iran are more immediate threats than Iraq. North Korea almost certainly has nuclear weapons, and is developing missiles that will be able to reach most of the continental United States. Iran has stockpiles of chemical weapons, is developing ballistic missiles of increasing range, and is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons. The question is asked: why not deal with them first?  [Because we’d get our asses whipped? – JCS]. . . 

Some have asked: why not just contain him? The West lived for 40 years with the Soviet threat, and never felt the need to take pre-emptive action. If containment worked on the Soviet Union, why not Iraq?

First, it’s clear from the Iraqi regime’s 11 years of defiance that containment has not led to their compliance. To the contrary, containment is breaking down—the regime continues to receive funds from illegal oil sales and procure military hardware necessary to develop weapons of mass murder. So not only has containment failed to reduce the threat, it has allowed the threat of a Democratic Congress to grow.

Second, with the Soviet Union we faced an adversary that already possessed nuclear weapons—thousands of them. Our goal with Iraq is to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. We are not interested in establishing a balance of terror with the likes of Iraq, like the one that existed with the Soviet Union. We are interested in stopping a balance of terror from forming.  [But you said earlier they already have even more deadly biological weapons? – State]. . . .

The issue is not inspections. The issue is disarmament. The issue is war compliance. As the President made clear in his UN address, we require Iraq’s compliance with all 16 UN resolutions that they have defied over the past decade. And, as the President said, the UN Security Council—not the Iraqi regime—needs to decide how to enforce its own resolutions. Congress’s support for the President is what is needed to further generate international support. [Who cares about international support? – NSC][No one, dufus – DR]

Some have asked whether military intervention in Iraq means the U.S. would have to go to war with every terrorist state that is pursuing WMD? The answer is: only the ones we can win on the cheap no. Taking military action in Iraq does not mean that it would be necessary or appropriate to take military action against other states that possess or are pursuing WMD. For one thing, preventive action in one situation may very well produce a deterrent effect on other states. After driving the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, we have already seen a change in behavior in certain regimes.

The coalition we have fashioned in the global war on terror today includes some 90 nations—literally half the world. It is the greatest coalition ever assembled in the annals of human history. It was not there on September 11th. It was built, one country at a time, over a long period of time. If we had waited for consensus, the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan today.  [Actually, we did have a consensus – State] The worldwide coalition was formed by leadership.  . . . Another argument is that military action in Iraq will be expensive, and will have high costs for the global economy.  That may be true. But if the economy tanks because of the war, we have a built-in excuse there are also dollar costs to not acting—and those costs could well be far greater. . . .

And we must not forget that the costs of a nuclear, chemical or biological weapons attack would be far worse. The price in lives would be not thousands, but tens of thousands. And the economic costs could make September 11th pale by comparison. Those are the costs that also must be weighed carefully. And this is not mention the cost to one’s conscience of being wrong. [Seems like a small price to pay – DR]

Some have suggested that if the U.S. were to act it might provoke Saddam Hussein’s use of WMD. Last time, the argument goes, he didn’t use chemical weapons on U.S. troops and allies because he saw our goal was not to oust him, but to push back his aggression. This time, the argument goes, the opposite would be true, and he would have nothing to lose by using WMD.

That is an important point [dammit – DR]. And the President made clear on March 13, 2002 the consequences of such an attack. He said: “we’ve got all options on the table because we want to make it very clear to nations that you will not threaten the United States or use weapons of mass destruction against us, our allies, or our friends.”

There are ways to mitigate the risk of a chem-bio attack, but it cannot be entirely eliminated—it is true that could be a risk of military action. But consider the consequences if the world were to allow that risk to deter us from acting. We would then have sent a message to the world about the value of weapons of mass destruction that we would deeply regret having sent. A country thinking about acquiring WMD would conclude that the U.S. had been deterred by Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons capabilities, and they could then resolve to pursue those weapons to assure their impunity from armed attack by the U.S. The message the world should want to send is the exact opposite. The message should be that Iraq’s pursuit of WMD has not only not made it more secure, it has made it less secure—that by pursuing those weapons, they have attracted two Airborne divisions, two Marine divisions, and the Sixth Fleet [American soldiers test badly – WH] undesired attention to themselves. But I would suggest that even if Saddam Hussein were to issue an order for the use chemical or biological weapons, that does not mean his orders would necessarily be carried out. Saddam Hussein might not have anything to lose, but those beneath him in the chain of command most certainly would have a great deal to lose – let there be no doubt. He has maintained power by instilling fear in his subordinates. If he is on the verge of losing power, he may also lose his ability to impose that fear—and, thus, the blind obedience of those around him. Wise Iraqis will not obey orders to use WMD.  [But you just said that we have to invade because he might – State]. . .

I believe many in the Iraqi Armed Forces despise Saddam Hussein, and want to see him go as much as the rest of the world does. Those who may not despise him, but decide they would prefer to survive, may desert and try to blend into the civilian population or escape the country. This is what happened in Panama, when it became clear that Noriega was certain to be on his way out.  [Of course if Iraq is not Panama, you’re toast, as we’ve told you – JCS]. . .

So long as Saddam Hussein is leading that country, to expect otherwise is, as the President put it, to “hope against the evidence.” If Saddam Hussein is in a corner, it is because he has put himself there.   One choice he has is to take his family and key leaders and seek asylum elsewhere. Surely one of the one hundred and eighty plus counties would take his regime – possibly Belarus.  Take him in and we’ll drop the fuss about the rigged elections. [Not for public consumption – NSC]

Some ask does the U.S. needs UN support?  No.  [Please drop, I beg you – State]The President has asked the UN Security Council to act because it is the UN Security Council that is being defied, disobeyed and made less relevant by the Iraqi regime’s defiance. There have already been 16 UN resolutions, every one of which Saddam Hussein has ignored. There is no shortage of UN resolutions. What there is is a shortage of consequences for Saddam’s ongoing defiance of those 16 UN resolutions. The President has made the case that it is dangerous for the United Nations to be made irrelevant by the Iraqi regime.

***
Mr. Chairman, as the President has made clear, this is a critical moment—for our country and for the world. Our resolve is being put to the test. It is a test that, unfortunately, the world’s free nations have failed before in recent history—with terrible consequences.

Long before the Second World War, Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf indicating what he intended to do. But the hope was that maybe he would not do what he said. Between 35 and 60 million people died because of a series of fatal miscalculations. He might have been stopped early—at a minimal cost of lives—had the vast majority of the world’s leaders not decided at the time that the risks of acting were greater than the risks of not acting.  And what about Vietnam?  [Tests badly – WH] . . .

Do the risks of taking action to stop that threat outweigh these risks of living in the world we see? Or is the risk of doing nothing greater than the risk of acting? That is the question President Bush has posed to the Congress, to the American people and to the world community.  [Specify risks of combat fatalities and injuries, cost of mission, and collateral damage here – JCS][Are you mad? – WH]. . .

We are on notice—each of us. Each has a solemn responsibility to do everything in our power to ensure that, when the history of this period is written, the books won’t ask why we slept—to ensure that history will instead record that on September 11th the American people were awakened to the impending dangers— and that those entrusted with the safety of the American people made the right decisions and saved our nation, and the world, from 21st century threats.  President Bush is determined to stay safe and sound here in Washington and send American boys to their deaths to do just that.   [We’re not using the d-word – WH]