Friday, April 16, 2004

Inhofe proves Saddam had WMD's
Mr. HOLLINGS. Come on, in this terror war, might doesn't make right; right makes might in the war on terror. Don't worry about a big old defense budget. Get me a big old State Department budget. Let's start making friends. We can't do this by ourselves. We are whistling ``Dixie'' running around with an atom bomb and a bunch of GIs killing.

The question is: Was it really worth the invasion of Iraq to get rid of Saddam with 530-some American dead, over 3,000 injured, $160 billion in costs, and creating more terrorism rather than less terrorism? We actually, this minute, have more terrorism rather than less terrorism. We hope--and we want to support our effort in Iraq to bring it to as quick a conclusion as possible--we hope we have democracy, but right now, if you had to call the hand, it would be a loser because we were misled into this war.

Saddam Hussein didn't have any weapons of mass destruction, but when the President--and I want to explain that vote--when the President on October 7, 2002, said there is clear evidence of peril--those are his words, ``clear evidence of peril''--we cannot wait until the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Wait a minute. That was on October 7. On October 11, we voted. Once the Commander in Chief says there is clear evidence of peril, and 4 days later we have a vote, anybody reasonably sane and prudent would vote to support his Commander in Chief. We thought there was clear evidence of peril. There was not clear evidence of peril.

I will be delighted to yield.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, is the Senator aware that 13 months ago they found 11 chemical rockets with warheads that would hold 140 liters of any kind of chemical? They found with that VX gas enough to load these 11 rockets. Subsequent to that they found 36 more. That is 47. Each rocket, with 140 liters of VX gas, can kill a million people; is the Senator aware of that? Would the Senator call that a weapon of mass destruction?

Mr. HOLLINGS. We ought to make my colleague, Senator Inhofe, the inspector rather than David Kay, who didn't find any of what the Senator was listing. In other words, I don't think there is any more argument. There might have been a little bit here, a little bit there, but there was no imminent threat. There was no clear evidence of peril. You can find stuff that could have killed anybody. We could all get the chicken flu, but we are not trying to eliminate the State of Delaware because they have a little chicken flu there. Come on.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield further?


Mr. INHOFE. If they found 47 chemical rockets, rockets that would hold 140 liters of chemicals, why would they have them if they didn't intend on using them against somebody? Would you inform the Senator?

Mr. HOLLINGS. Why didn't they use them? Excuse me, why didn't they use it? You found them, why didn't they use them? Why didn't you call Saddam and say use them?

Mr. INHOFE. Why did they have them if they weren't wanting to use them at some point?

Mr. HOLLINGS. What is the excuse? You should have called him, you found them, and Saddam didn't use them. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. You are running around on the floor of the Senate finding all kinds of things, but we had inspectors upon inspectors, and they have pretty well proved there was no clear evidence of peril.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Will the Senator yield for a question?


Mr. JEFFORDS. I commend the Senator for his accurate statement relative to the purported threats. There was no way to deliver. I think 900 miles was the furthest rockets could carry, and there was no threat really ever given anyway. I want to clear that up from my perspective.

That's what the fucking local news led with, I swear to God. "Inhofe has proved that Saddam had WMD's."

No comments:

Post a Comment