← Videos

Netanyahu Testifies to Congress, September 12, 2002

Benjamin Netanyahu testifying to the US Congress on September 12 2002, promising the Iraq war would bring positive reverberations across the region including Iran.

Israeli Perspective on Conflict with Iraq · HouseResourceOrg · uploaded 2011-01-05 · 2:37:06
Original: youtube.com/watch?v=RJcO53f3pz0 · IPFS QmaiGF9sBPVtTokCABbEkLMpepUqsaxhHjrYcaMFuEXRA8

What this video is evidence for

On September 12, 2002, one day after the first anniversary of 9/11, Benjamin Netanyahu testified to the US House Committee on Government Reform. He was then a former prime minister of Israel, and he became prime minister again in 2009. This is the full hearing, from the committee's own recording. Netanyahu urged the United States to go to war with Iraq, and he tied that war to Iran from the start.

On Saddam Hussein's weapons programs, he told Congress: "There is no question that he had not given up on his nuclear program, not whatsoever." No such program was found after the invasion.

On what removing Saddam would do to the region, and to Iran:

"If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region. And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people, and many others will say, the time of such regimes... is gone."

He described Iraq as "a linchpin," and said the collapse of Saddam's regime "could very well create an implosion in a neighbor regime like Iran." Asked whether military action should come first against Iraq or against Iran: "I would choose exactly what the President has chosen, to go after Iraq." Asked who should come second: "I would wait and see what the effects are."

Twenty-four years later, the same man is prime minister of Israel, and the country he named as next is the one being bombed.

Where this fits: see Who Pushed Iran War for the full explanation and sources.

Transcript

Machine transcription (apple-speechanalyzer) of the full 02:37:06. It can mishear names and words, so check exact wording against the video before quoting it.

For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Metanyahu, live coverage here on C Spank. I make a couple of brief comments. President Bush appeared before the United Nations today, and I think he made a very strong case for holding Saddam Hussein accountable for his actions and inactions. The president stated, and I think most of my colleagues and I saw this speech, the president stated no uncertain terms that almost every one of the UN resolutions that had been agreed to by Saddam Hussein has been violated by him. I won't enumerate all of them, but I think the president made a very, very strong case.

I know there's a lot of concern about the problems in the Middle East and Iraq, and whether or not we should take military action to eliminate the threat by Saddam Hussein. And so today, I hope that listening to one of the foremost experts on the Middle East, Benjamin Net and Yahoo, will be able to have a lot of those questions answered. I've had the privilege of meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu on a number of times. Number of occasions and heard him speak on issues concerning the Middle East and in particular Iraq, and I am convinced he's one of the most knowledgeable people on this issue that I've had the pleasure to talk to. And with that, I want to welcome Mr.

Netanyahu, I will now yield to Mr. Kusinich, who is going to make an opening statement, I believe, on behalf of Mr. Waxman. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I'm making this statement on my behalf, Mr.

Waxman, I think we'll have a statement, which his staff will submit for the record. Well, with that objection, we'll put in the record. Thank you. I appreciate the Prime Minister's presence here today, and his willingness to speak to our committee. It seems to me that, and to many others, that one of the largest threats that Israel faces is terrorism.

Israelis have repeatedly been victims of the horrific tactics of terrorism and intimidation. A year ago, the United States truly felt the brunt of this tactic. But our nation has shown determination and bringing to justice those responsible for this attack. And as Prime Minister Netanyahu stated last year to this very committee. on September 20, 2001, at a meeting I was pleased to attend.

There are many terrorist militants all over the region. that continued to operate terrorist missions to attack the United States, Israel, and other nations. For the past few months, the rationale for linking Iraq and Saddam Hussein was supposed to link the terrorist attacks against the United States. Iraq, it's at this moment, the best of our knowledge, does not harbor terrorists who threaten the United States. The U.

S. administration recently admitted, after months and months of talk, that there's no evidence of Iraq being tied to September 11. So, uh, one of the questions I hope that we can get to today is why is the Iraq threat more severe now than ever before. One of the questions that's been raised is exactly what are the military capabilities of Iraq. Yesterday's Washington Post noted that senior intelligence officials did not have an up to date assessment of Iraq's nuclear chemical and biological weapons capacities.

The administration, so far, has not presented credible evidence of a threat to the American people, or this Congress. I wonder if Prime Minister Netanyahu will be able to present us with tangible evidence about Iraq's present nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capabilities. Now, I believe that our nation should work with Israel to focus efforts to bring about a solution to the crisis in the Middle East between Israel and of Palestinians. I think the United States is in a row, to serve as an honest broker in working with both parties, to bring about a resolution of that very tragic condition. Diplomatic efforts, I believe, have not been fully examined in the case of Iraq.

And while Iraq is in defiance of certain U.N. orders, no one can seem to prove to this point that Iraq poses an imminent threat to this country or to any other nation. If the real worry is that Iraq is seeking weapons of mass destruction and may, in the future, plan to use them against its neighbors in the United States, then it would follow that inspections need to resume. Inspections have been proven to be effective in elimination of Iraq's weapons.

This is called preventive diplomacy, not preventive war. Israel, I believe, would benefit considerably from a commencement in the United Nations led inspections in Iraq. If the threat that the U.S. and Israel faces the capability of Iraq to deliver weapons of mass destruction, if they have them and the ability to deliver, we should, of course, eliminate those weapons, find them and dismantle them.

But I would hope that as we proceed with the considerable intelligence of Mr. Netanyahu, that we not lose an opportunity, to make still one more effort at trying to resolve our conditions of dispute with Iraq through the international community, without the United States taking unilateral action, and with an intention that we might be able to resolve this without resorting to war. I thank Mr. Netanyahu for being here, and I look forward to his testimony. Are there other members that wish to make an opening statement, Mr.

Barr? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, as you set the example, I'll submit a written statement in more detail, but I also want to thank the Prime Minister for being here today, also want to draw attention to the president's speech today, which included very important elements in the war against terrorism. I think the president did a masterful job of laying out a sound basis for any number of options in the interest, both of the United States and the world against terrorism and despotism. I think the president's message left the United States in a very solid position to exercise, perhaps, one of the most important tools in the fight against terrorism, and that is flexibility, not to tie oneself down to outside factors, but to always remain focused on maintaining maximum number of options with which to deal with terrorism, which itself maintains by its definition, tremendous flexibility.

So I want to take this opportunity to commend President Bush for a masterful job of laying out the case for military action, should it become necessary, but at the same time, leaving options open. And at least by his actions today before the United Nations, preventing anyone from raising legitimate concerns or criticisms of the president for not making every effort to secure the backing of international organizations and our allies. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Barr, Mr.

Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome our witness, former Prime... Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to our hearing, it's good to see you again.

The last time we met was in this room on September 20, 2001, right after the horrible terrorist attacks of September 11th. At that time, Prime Minister Netanyahu conveyed the grief, empathy, and solidarity of the entire world when he said, Today, we are all Americans. And he spoke with great force and eloquence about the need to confront terrorism. Now we're considering a different question, whether the United States should take military action against Iraq. This question is not an easy one, and it raises complex issues to which Congress has not yet received answers.

Should the United States pushed the return of the international inspectors. Should we seek from the Security Council a resolution authorizing the use of force? What effects will a war on Iraq have on the war against terrorism? And what is the plan for Iraq after hostilities end? The nation in the world where you united in pursuing Al Qaeda, but this consensus is lacking on Iraq.

There are significant differences of opinion in the international community. There are differences of opinion within the United States. There are even differences of opinion within the Bush administration itself. It is appropriate for us to give special attention to the implications for Israel, of war against Iraq, as the Gulf War demonstrated Israel will most likely be the first target of an Iraqi regime bent on retaliation. Iraq fired over 40 SCUD missiles at Israel during the Gulf War, causing severe damage, casualties, and deaths.

Throughout that conflict, Israeli citizens lived under the daily threat of chemical and biological warfare. Israelis will face similar risks and challenges if there is another war against Iraq. But while the topic of this hearing is important, I regret that the minority was not consulted in advance about witnesses for today's hearing. This hearing is entitled, Conflict with Iraq and Israeli perspective. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, the chairman did not send invitations to a single member of the current Israeli government.

Moreover, the chairman did not agree to invite other experts in Israeli foreign policy until yesterday, which was not sufficient notice to allow other witnesses to attend. Although Mr. Natanyahu was indeed Prime Minister of Israel and is respected widely for his expertise, I'm sure he would agree that he represents his point of view, and maybe a point of view that's widespread, but it is one point of view, there are other witnesses, as well, that we should have before this committee. I wrote to Chairman Burton on Monday asking him to invite administration witnesses so that we could find out how the Bush administration plans on working with Israel and our allies in the region. But we have no witnesses from the administration.

We also do not have witnesses who can testify about the implications of military action in Iraq, on other countries in the Middle East. A military confrontation with Iraq may well be necessary, but it is a decision fraught with consequences for the United States, the Mideast, and the rest of the world. We need to hear the broadest possible spectrum of views, so that we can make as an informed decision as possible about this vital issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Connie, Ms. Merrell. I will submit my full statement for the record, but I just wanted to welcome Prime Minister Netanyahu, and point out what we all know when that is today's hearing is a topic of central importance, both to the American people and to the world, and it's necessary, I believe, that Congress debate the merits of an invasion of Iraq, learn the perspective of our allies, determine whether an imminent attack is the wisest course of action, and I do, indeed, have serious reservations about an attack, but I look forward to hearing from Prime Minister Netanyahu, particularly the ramifications for Israel. If we do not attack what may happen to Israel. If we do attack what may happen to Israel.

And I yield back. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Morello. Mr. Clay?

Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman. I, too, will deliver an abbreviated opening statement and submit, in its entirety, to the record. Uh, I, too, would like to welcome our distinguished guest former Prime Minister. Netanyahu to this panel.

I certainly appreciate having your perspective on this highly contentious issue. the conflict with Iraq. This issue has spawned many different points of view. There is, however, a consensus that exists between our two countries. We both believe, without question, that Saddam Hussein must be removed.

Sodom's continued existence in the region serves to further aggravate an opportunity for real peace and cooperation between Israel and his Arab neighbors. I realize that, for the present moment, many questions still remain unanswered. Prime Minister, Netanyahu, I am very interested to learn your opinion on how a new Iraqi regime might be different from the one that is currently in place. Additionally. I am interested in knowing your thoughts about the impact of regional destabilization, and the potential loss of additional American and Israeli lives.

And, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit my statement into the record. Thank you, Mr. Clay, without objection so ordered. Are there further statements by Mr.

Micah? It's nice to see you, Mr. Micah. Thank you. Mr.

Chairman. Always good to be with you, and welcome, former Prime Minister Netanyahu. Just a very brief statement that... Well, I welcome Prime Minister's advice and counsel. I think that we all need to remember that it's the responsibility under the Constitution of the United States for the President of the United States to make a decision in our national security.

Now, I know war does require some advice and consent of the Congress. But we have to remember what we're dealing with here, is someone who has gassed his own population, someone that, less than a little over a decade ago, lobbed missiles into Israel, killing people, and he did, at that time, he didn't have the technology, that, he didn't have the technology that he may have today. and whether it's delivered by a missile or some other means. Uh, we've seen that his goal is to destroy, uh, destroy not only Israelis, but destroy world peace in the United States in the process. So I think it's time that we get a little starch in our spines and realize the threat that we face, that we back the President of the United States.

It's nice to have this discussion, but only he is provided with the intelligence and the information on proceeding. And he should make that decision, and we should support that decision. At Memorial Day, I visited Europe and followed the president through the graves at Normandy. and visited other of our cemeteries. The landscape of Europe is littered with American dead, who've gone in to bail out our weak kneed allies, who have slept while there have been Holocausts, who've delayed taking action when others have been slaughtered.

And I don't think this is the time. We know the terrorists weren't interested in killing 2800 in the World Trade Center. They wanted to kill 28,000 in each tower, and, again, it's nice to have this debate, this discussion, but I think we need to back the President of the United States, and I would strongly support his action based on what we now know, to go after Saddam Hussein. Thank you and yield back. Thank you, Mr.

Micah, Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I simply want to welcome Prime Minister to this committee. You've been here before, and I had the opportunity to visit with you in Jerusalem shortly after you assumed the position of Prime Minister.

We always welcome your input and your counsel, and I admire you greatly for your advocacy of democracy, which I've heard you speak of on many occasions. So thank you for being with us. Thank you, Mr. Turner, since that was so short, we'll go to Mr. Tierney if he has an opening comment, Mr.

Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to forego my remarks and just welcome the witness here, and thank him for his time and his perspective on that, and I know that these hearings, I suspect, will be broadened out. We'll hear other perspectives, also, that we'll all benefit from.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tierney. Any other comments on our side? I apologize, Mr.

Chairman. I wasn't going to make a statement. I'll still try to be brief. I certainly want to add my words of watching. to the former Prime Minister, as I hope you can tell, sir, you have many admirers, uh, amongst whom I count myself, uh, and many, many admirers as wealth, or the great spirit, and, uh, and the great determination of the Israeli.

people, As you've also probably heard, We have some disagreements on some of the particulars that lie behind this issue, and why we're particularly interested in hearing your comments and your very unique perspective and expertise. And I'm just gonna make a simple request of my colleagues, all of us, who have the honor of serving here, of course, are very busy. But I've heard some remarks here today about what we do and what we don't know about what are allegations and what are not. I had an opportunity this morning to go to a meeting with some other members where we were given a document that I see as amongst those in our briefing booklets here today. And it's the backgrounder that the administration put out a decade of deception and defiance.

that I thank every member, as we face this weighty issue, would serve themselves and their nation well by reviewing very carefully, because as you look through it, it details, not based on supposition, not based on unconfirmed intelligence reports, not based upon opinion, but based upon a very clear record, of the kinds of capabilities that we know for a fact, by the United Nations that Saddam Hussein has developed. It confirms the enormous amounts of armaments of chemical weapons, and precursors that are unaccounted for, and that any reasonable person would have to assume are still in existence. You can draw your own determinations from that, my colleague. But I think that as we, as we deliberate on this issue, the facts are probably the most persuasive argument, and the facts are established, and I think we should all do our best to familiarize ourselves with them. So I would just make that respectful, I hope, respectful suggestion to all of us, myself, including, again, Mr.

Prime Minister, welcome. Well, gentlemen. I'd be happy. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that this document be made part of the record.

I think that's very important, I thank the gentleman. Without objection, sir. Yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.

McHugh. Are there further comments by the members of the committee? If not, it was asked of me how this meeting came about, and I was in Israel last week. I had the opportunity to talk, along with my colleagues in our codell with Shamon Perez, the foreign minister, as well as Mr. Netanyahu, and I would like, maybe, the former Prime Minister to comment on this, but it was my impression, and I think the impression of my colleagues, both Democrat, Republicans, and independents, who were on the trip with us, that there is, while liquid and labor do have differences of opinion, they seem to be of one mind, regarding the threat that emanates from Iraq regarding Saddam Hussein.

And so if you would illuminate on that, Mr. Netanyahu, I'd appreciate it. And with that, you're welcome to address the committee. Is your mic on, sir? Is it on off?

There you go. Thank you, Chairman Burton. It's a pleasure being with all of you, and I appreciate the thoughtful remarks and thoughtful questions from all of your distinguished representatives. I will try to address your questions in the course of my opening remarks, and in the question and answer session that will follow it. Because I think they're valid and important, all of them.

And they need, I think, the world needs this discussion and other discussions that will be taking place in this capital of liberty. Last year, a few days after September 11th, I was given the privilege of appearing before this committee to discuss the issue of terrorism. But I have to tell you that, had I been given the opportunity to speak before September 11th, I believe I would have offered pretty much the same suggestions about how the war on terrorism should be fought and how it can be won. I would have pointed out that the key to defeating terrorism lies in deterring and destroying the regimes that harbor, Abet, and A Terre. I would have argued that, to root out terror, the entire network of terror, that is, a network that consists of some half a dozen terrorist regimes and some two dozen terror organizations affiliated with them, that this entire terror network had to be brought down.

And most important, I would have warned that the greatest danger facing our world is the ominous possibility that any part of this terror network would acquire nuclear weapons. Now, I have to be candid and say that even had I presented my views in the most coherent and persuasive fashion. I have no doubt that some of you, and perhaps most of you. would have regarded them as exaggerated and even alarmist. But then came September 11, And fiction turned into fact.

And the unimaginable became real. That single day of horror alerted most Americans to the grave dangers that are now facing our world. And many Americans understand today that had Al Qaeda possessed nuclear weapons last September. then the city of New York would not exist today. And they realized that we could all have spent yesterday, grieving not for thousands of dead, but for millions.

But for others around the world, I suppose the power of imagination is not so acute. It appears that some people will have to, once again, see the unimaginable in front of their eyes before they are willing to do what must be done. Because how else can one explain the violent opposition, the insistent opposition to President Bush's plan to dismantle Saddam Hussein's regime. Now, I don't mean to suggest for a moment that the questions raised here and other questions are not relevant. That is that there aren't legitimate questions about a potential operation against Iraq, indeed, there are.

But the question of whether removing Saddam's regime is itself legitimate is not one of them. And equally immaterial in my mind is the argument that America cannot oust Saddam without prior approval of the international community. Because this is a ruler who is rapidly expanding his arsenal of biological and chemical weapons. This is a dictator who has used these weapons of mass destruction against his subjects and his neighbors. And this is a tyrant who is feverishly trying to acquire nuclear weapons.

The dangers posed by a nuclear armed Saddam were understood by my country two decades ago, well before September 11th. In 1981, the late Prime Minister of Israel, Menachem Beggin, dispatched the Israeli Air Force on a pre dawn raid that destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osiraq. This probably took place months away from Saddam's ability to assemble the critical mass of plutonium for the first atomic bomb, or more than one. Now, at the time, Israel was condemned by all the world's government, even the government of our closest friend the United States. But I think that, over time, history has rendered a far kinder judgment on that act of unquestionable foresight and unmistakable courage.

And I believe that it is history's judgment that should inform our own judgment today. Did Israel launch that preemptive strike because Saddam had committed a specific act of terror against us? Did we coordinate our actions with the international community? Did we condition this operation on the approval of the United Nations? No, of course not.

Israel acted because... it understood, we understood. that a nuclear armed Saddam would place our very survival at risk. And today, the United States must destroy the same regime. because a nuclear armed Saddam will place the security of our entire world at risk.

And make no mistake about it, if, and once Saddam has nuclear weapons, the terror network will have nuclear weapons. And once the terror network has nuclear weapons, it is only a matter of time before those weapons will be used. You cannot prevent. a dictator who has used terrorism in the past, who cavorts and supports and encourages terror organizations from using this weapon, by giving it to someone, by having them threatened to use it against his enemies, Once one of the terror regimes, once one of the principal regimes in the terror network has nuclear weapons, you cannot prevent the terror network. from having nuclear weapons.

Two decades ago, it was possible to thwarts Saddam's nuclear ambitions by bombing a single installation. But today, nothing less than dismantling his regime will do, because Saddam's nuclear program has fundamentally changed in those two decades. He no longer needs one large reactor to produce the deadly material necessary for atomic bombs. He can produce it in centrifuges, the size of washing machines, that can be hidden throughout the country. And I want to remind you that Iraq is a very big country.

It is not the size of Monte Carlo. It is a big country. And I believe that even free and unfettered inspections will not uncover these portable manufacturing sites of mass death. So, knowing this, I ask all the governments and others who oppose or question the president's plan. to look at it from the other end of the logic.

Do you believe that action can be taken against Saddam only after he builds nuclear bombs and uses them? And do the various critics, especially overseas? believe that a clear connection between Saddam and September 11th must be established before we have a right to prevent the next September 11th. Well, I think not. I'll try to give analogy.

All analogies are imperfect, but here is one. If you try to defeat the mafia. You don't just go after the foot soldiers who carried out the last attack, or even stop with the apprehension of the particular dawn, who sent them. You go after the entire network of organized crime, all the families, all the organizations, all of them. Well, likewise, if you intend to defeat terror, You don't just go after the terrorists who carried out the last attack, or even the particular regime that sent them.

You go after the entire network of terror. All the regimes that support her, all the organizations that they harbor. All of them. And doing this always entails the need to act before additional attacks are carried out. When the security of a nation is endangered, a responsible government has to take the actions that are necessary to protect its citizens and eliminate the threat that confronts them.

And sometimes, this requires preemption. I have to say that in the history of democracies, preemption has been, in my mind, the most difficult choice for leaders to make. Because at the time of the decision, you could never prove the critics wrong, you could never show them the great catastrophe that was avoided by preemptive action. And yet, we now know that had the democracies taken preemptive action to bring down Hitler in the 1930s. The worst horrors in history could have been avoided.

And we now know, and we know this from defectors and from other intelligence, that had Israel not launched its preemptive strike on Saddam's atomic bomb factory. Recent history would have taken a turn to catastrophe. But the most compelling case for preemption, against Saddam's regime, I believe, was not made by the President's powerful words this morning. But by the savage action of the terrorists themselves on September 11th. Their wake up call from Hill has opened our eyes to the horrors that await us all tomorrow, if we fail to act today.

Now, I was asked, by one of you, about the sentiment of Israelis, in the face of the palpable risks involved. My friends, I want to say that I'm here today is, as a citizen of a country that is most endangered, by a preemptive strike. For it is, I think, clear, that in the last gasps of Saddam's dying regime, he will attempt to launch his remaining missiles, his remaining payloads, including biological and chemical payloads, at the Jewish state. And though I'm speaking here today as a private citizen, I believe, and I know that I speak and reflect the sentiment of not just the majority, but the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a preemptive strike against Saddam's regime, and this cuts across political lines in Israel. We support this preemptive American action, even though we stand on the front lines.

while others criticize it as they sit comfortably on the sidelines. But we know that their sense of comfort is an illusion. For if action is not taken now, we will all be threatened by a much greater peril. We support this action because it is possible today to defend against chemical and biological attack. We have gas masks, they're available.

We have vaccinations, they're available. Well, there are other means of civil defense that can protect our citizens and reduce the risk to them. And indeed, a central component of any strike on Iraq must be to ensure that the Israeli government, if it so chooses, has the means to vaccinate every citizen of Israel before action is initiated. And I want to stress that, ensuring this is not merely the responsibility of the government of Israel, but also the responsibility of the government of the United States. Let me repeat this.

The government of Israel, and the government of the United States, must jointly ensure that the people of Israel have all the available means of civil defense before action begins. But equally, I can say, that no gas mask, and no vaccine. can protect against nuclear weapons. Science hasn't yet invented such a device. And this is why regimes that have no compunction about using weapons of mass destruction.

and will not hesitate to give these weapons to their terror proxies, must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. These regimes must be brought down before they possess the power to bring us all down. If a preemptive action will be supported by a broad coalition of free countries in the United Nations, all the better. But if such support is not forthcoming, then the United States must be prepared to act without it. International support for actions that are vital to a nation's security is always desirable.

But it must never constitute a precondition. If you can get it, fine. If not, act without it. I don't want to sound like something familiar to you, but I would say, if you can't get it, just do it. Now, my friends, under exceptional circumstances, public figures may sometimes be forgiven for quoting themselves, and I hope today that you will indulge me in grant me this privilege, because nearly two decades ago, I wrote the following.

I said that the West can win the war against terrorists. It can expose its duplicity and punish its perpetrators and its sponsors. But it must first win the war against its own inner weakness. And that will require courage. We shall need at least three types of courage.

First, statesmen must have the political courage to present the truth, however unpleasant, to their people. They must be prepared to make difficult decisions, to take measures that may involve great risks and subject them to public criticism. Second, the soldiers who will be called upon to combat terrorists will need to show military courage. Third, the people will have to show civic courage. The citizens of a democracy threatened by terrorists must see themselves, in a certain sense, as soldiers in a common battle.

They must not pressure their government to capitulate or surrender to terrorism. If we seriously want to win the war against terrorism, people must be prepared to endure sacrifice. And even should there be the loss of loved ones, immeasurable pain. Terrorism is a phenomenon which tries to evoke one feeling, fear. It is, therefore, understandable that the one virtue most necessary to defeat terrorism is the antithesis of fear, courage.

Courage, said the Romans, is not the only virtue. But it is the single virtue without which all other virtues are meaningless. The terrorists challenge must be answered. The choices between a free society based on law and compassion, and a rampant barbarism in the service of brute force internity. Confusion and vacillation, excuse me, facilitated the rise of terrorism.

Clarity and courage will ensure its defeat. My friends, though I wrote these words almost 20 years ago, They were never as pertinent, I think, as they are today. A year after September 11, I'm certain that this great nation possesses the three types of courage needed to defeat the monstrous evil that now confronts us. President Bush has shown courage by boldly charting a course to victory. The American military is, once again, prepared to shoulder the burden of defending the enemies of freedom.

And most of all, the American people have summoned the necessary courage to fight back and to win. For me, that courage was most pointedly manifested last year on Flight 93, because right there, in the eye of the storm, ordinary citizens displayed extraordinary heroism, and rose to thwart the murderous designs of the terrorists. They thereby saved an untold number of lives, including perhaps the lives of some people in this very room. It is, I believe, that same civic courage that has been displayed this past year, and the willingness of Americans to rally behind their government to wage war on terror. I recognize this courage, ladies and gentlemen, because I see it on the faces of my countrymen every day.

Every day, millions of Israelis, who have been subjected to an unprecedented campaign of terror, have stood and stand firmly behind our government in the war against Palestinian terror. We have not crumbled. We have not run. We have stood our ground and fought back. You see, the terrorists and the tyrants of the world, they always get it wrong.

They were wrong about Churchill's England. They are woefully wrong about Israel, and they are wrong. dead wrong about America. And I think they simply don't have the means to understand the power of freedom. They think that by bombing our free societies, we will collapse.

They see our free debate is debilitating. They would see a hearing of this kind, the questions that are raised here, as a sign of weakness. They don't understand. It's a sign of enormous strength. They think our open discourse is a sign of that weakness.

They believe that their cult of death is stronger than our love of life. But of course, they're wrong. There is nothing stronger than the will of a free people, uniting to protect its life and its liberty. And now it's up to us to prove the terrorists and the tyrants wrong once again. I'm not saying it will be easy.

And it certainly will demand some sacrifice. But it must be done today, because tomorrow's sacrifice will be infinitely greater. 60 years ago, Winston Churchill put it this way. If you will not fight terror, when your victory will be sure and not too costly, he said. You may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you.

There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory. My friends, this is the heart of the matter. What I said before this committee one year ago, holds true today. Today, the terrorists have the power, or, rather, have the will to destroy us, but not the power.

Today, we have the power to destroy them. Now, we must summon the will. to do so. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you all. You know, Mr. Netanyahu, in the late 30s, the Churchill voice was a voice in the wilderness, and all the world, including the Prime Minister of Great Britain, didn't buy it. And it wasn't until the axe finally fell that they realized that they should have listened in the first place. I think your message today is very clear.

I think it's just as clear as what Winston Churchill was trying to get across in the late '30s, and, unfortunately, wasn't able to convince the world of until it was involved in World War II. I think your statement, which is very eloquent, boils down to one thing, and that is, do we react to another attack on America after hundreds of thousands or millions of lives have been lost, or do we preempt that kind of action from happening in the first place? And I think you made a very strong case today that we should support President Bush and respond before it happens. There are many of my colleagues, many of the people in this country that say, you know, to declare war on Iraq, would be a mistake, and we should wait and check and wait and check. But we are at war.

3,000 people lost their lives last September the 11th. at the Pentagon, in Pennsylvania, and at the World Trade Center. And we're at war. And I think people tend to forget that. We're not waiting for a war to begin.

We're at war right now. And it seems to me that the terrorist network to which you referred needs to be attacked, and needs to be attacked as quickly as possible, so that we don't have more severe losses than we've already experienced. With that, let me just ask a few questions here. To your knowledge, has Iraq kept its team of nuclear scientists together, and is that an indication that they're going to continue to develop nuclear weapons? Also, what nations are aiding Iraqi, if you know, in the nuclear program.

And, of course, finally, if you might elaborate a little bit further on what you think is first use of nuclear weapons, that might be. I can only give you the information that I can divulge from my tenure as Prime Minister, and it is three years old. The information we had was that Saddam was pursuing all avenues of developing weapons of mass destruction. He and the means to deliver them. I have to say that he was enjoying, in this effort, the support of Russian technology, and I should say Russian technologists, on site.

They were a principal source, and other regimes, including North Korea, were supporting that effort as well. There is no question that he, uh, had not given up on his nuclear program, not whatsoever. There is also no question that he was not satisfied with the arsenal of chemical and biological weapons that he had and was trying to perfect them constantly, if perfect is the word to describe this Ghoulish enterprise. So, I think it... I think, frankly, it is not...

not serious. To assume that this man who, 20 years ago, was very close to producing an atomic bomb spent the last 20 years sitting on his hands. He has not. And every indication we have is that he is pursuing, pursuing with abandoned, pursuing with every ounce of effort. The establishment of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.

If anyone makes an opposite assumption, or cannot draw the lines connecting the dots, that is simply not an objective assessment of what is happening. Saddam is hell bent on achieving atomic bombs, atomic capabilities as soon as he can. Let me ask you a question regarding chemical and biological weapons. We've been told that the SCUD missiles that were launched at Israel during the Persian Gulf War, if they had been tipped with chemical or biological weapons, the weapons would have been destroyed when they hit the ground. But we've been told that there are drones that he has had in his possession, that had in the nose of those drones, the ability to spray, if you will, chemical or biological weapons when they flew over a given target.

Are you familiar with that? Can you elaborate on that? I'm familiar with some of this, yes. But I think, Mr. Chairman, that it's very hard to say what the effectiveness of chemical and biological warheads will be when they actually impact on the ground.

It's very hard to say. They might be intercepted in the air. We have some capability to that effect in the form of the arrow anti ballistic missile, which is jointly developed by Israel in the United States. That's a very important development to stop missiles before they get there. But then, again, these missiles would explode in midair, and it depends what residual parts of the warhead materialize on the ground, probably not much.

But suppose some of these missiles are not intercepted. Suppose they come in, it is impossible right now, to the best of my knowledge, from the information that we have available to say what the extent of damage will be. Hence, the emphasis, and the emphasis in my remarks, on civil protection. Assume the worst, prepare for the worst, you'll come out the best, or at least, you'll minimize the risk. We have to assume that you'll fire the missiles, we cannot assume that we'll intercept all the missiles, and we cannot assume that the warheads will not distribute a chemical, and, what is worse, biological material.

So we must take all the precautions, and it is possible, as I said, to reduce, substantially reduce the risk of such attacks, even if they get through. And this, I think, should be the focus of Israel and the United States before action is taken. That is, I don't think this is an ancillary part. of the war aims. I think this should be built into the war aims.

Israel, the most likely target, the target of choice of Saddam, as has been demonstrated once, must be protected. Mr. Turner? Mr. Costinich?

Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister. When you were Prime Minister, did you identify the nuclear capabilities of Iraq, if any? We couldn't place an exact time. We knew that he was developing these nuclear capabilities.

We couldn't, Mr. Koshenge, say exactly how long it would take him to complete the engineering of an effective nuclear device. But our assessments kept shrinking. That is, our intelligence community, as we moved along the axis of time, the time that we assumed it would take him to create nuclear weapons, at least the assessments that I was getting as Prime Minister, was constantly shrinking, but we could say with absolute precision how long it would take them. Do you have any new evidence of Iraq's weapon capabilities, nuclear capabilities?

I cannot give you... even an oblique reference to information in the last three years, because I'm... Well, because I'm busy going around the world visiting Washington. I'm not... We appreciate you being...

prying into, uh, privileged dossiers, uh, there is, uh, there's this thing need to know, and I don't really need to know right now, but I think that you can be sure, uh, that when I did need to know, there was a constant upgrading of these weapons, constant upgrading of these weapons, constant efforts to, uh, uh, to make them more lethal, and to expand the reach of the delivery systems to, to deliver them. I would respectfully suggest to the Prime Minister, notwithstanding the great affection I have for Mr. Prime Minister, that there is a need to know, if the United States is being called upon to launch preemptive action against Iraq, there is a need to know the evidence, and because I share the concern that other members have articulated here, about the effect that a preemptive attack on Iraq, by the United States, would have not only on the people of our country, would be called upon to way to that, and innocent civilians, but also the effect that it would have on Israel. Now, you stated, in your remarks, that if the United States launched a preemptive attack on Iraq, that Iraq in Saddam Hussein, as you describe it, dying gas would be expected to launch a counterattack on Israel. If the United States does not launch a preemptive attack on the state of Iraq.

Do you see any indication that Iraq is prepared to launch an attack on Israel? First of all, let me comment on, when I said, I don't need to know, I meant, I don't need the detailed, that detailed, uh, kind of detailed information that always involves, uh, just by the nature of the information. Some indication of sources, and I, for one, try to avoid that. when I'm not in office. That's what I meant.

But I also say that if you connect the dots, you know, here's a man who, from the minute he achieved powers, is trying to create a nuclear weapon, 20 years ago, he's very close to producing it. He's foiled, he changes the technology to centrifuges that will prevent him being foiled again. We know that he's taking in nuclear technologists and nuclear technology from various countries. We know that he's developing the means to deliver these weapons. We have defectors who describe how committity is to this above all else.

So we have all these dots, and we say, Well, we don't know exactly what is happening. You know, it's like you're about to see somebody plunge the knife into someone. You're looking through a keyhole. You follow the murderer. You know that he's suspected of, he's already killed a few people, and you see him trailing somebody, and you're trailing him.

You go, he shuts the door. You are looking through the keyhole, and you see him grasping the throat of this person, raising the knife, and then the light goes out, and the next thing you know is, a body is found. And you can say, Well, you know, I didn't actually see him on flagrante in the act, if you will. Mr... But I think, Mr.

Kusini, that it is simply... not, uh... reflecting the reality to assume that Saddam isn't feverishly working to develop nuclear weapons. as we speak. The question I had, though, do you have any indication that Saddam Hussein is going to attack Israel?

Oh, if he will attack his will? Absent a preemptive launch by the United States. I think it's, uh, I cannot, uh, tell you that he will attack Israel at a particular time. I think what you have to assume, and this is a fair assumption, that he doesn't have to necessarily directly attack Israel. What you can do, what these people do.

For example, the Taliban regime didn't directly attack the United States. It harbored a terrorist group, that did the job for them. The Taliban regime did not have its intelligence officers casing the joint, so to speak. Somebody else did it for them. If Saddam has a nuclear weapon, he could have, he could use it to threaten or to actually detonate a nuclear regime directly or indirectly.

He doesn't have to necessarily do it, and undertake the risk of response by Israel or by anyone else. And this is precisely the problem. The problem is, you're not dealing with Iraq alone. You're dealing with a terror network. You're dealing with a system where you have proxies.

We now live in a world where these regimes have proxies. Well, you know, I know my time's run out. I just, uh, Mr. Netanyahu, thank you. I just want to ask one last question, and that is, you talk about a network of terror.

Are there any other nations that you would recommend that the United States launch preemptive attacks upon at this point? No, the issue is not... The issue is not... First of all, are there other nations that are developing nuclear weapons, yes? Should we launch anything?

other preemptive attacks? First, let me say what they are, and then let me make a suggestion how to proceed. Thank you. The answer is categorically, yes. The two nations that are vying competing with each other, who will be the first to achieve nuclear weapons, is Iraq and Iran.

And Iran, by the way, is also outpacing Iraq, in the development of ballistic missile systems, that they hope will reach the eastern seaboard of the United States within 15 years. So I guess that doesn't include California, but includes Washington. But what it does, what a third nation, by the way, is Libya as well, Libya is, while no one is watching, under the cloak, is trying very rapidly to build an atomic bomb capability. So you have here now three nations. Not surprisingly, all three have been implicated in the past in terrorist activity, using the clandestine means of terror and proxies.

Now, the question that you ask, I think, is vital. And that is, what do you do about it? You can fight all of them. You have to dismantle the network. And the question is, do you dismantle all of it at once?

No, you didn't. The first thing you did in facing the after the wake up call on September 11th was that you took on the first regime, the obvious regime that had directly perpetrated that catastrophe. You removed the Taliban regime, and you scattered Al Qaeda, although it has not been completely destroyed. Now the question is, what's your next step? Knowing that three of these nations are developing nuclear weapons.

This is not a hypothesis. It is packed. Iraq, Iran, and Libya are racing to develop nuclear weapons. So now, what is the next step? I believe that the next step is to choose.

It's not a question of whether you have to take action. Just choose, choose the right one. But what kind of action and against whom? I think of the three, Saddam is probably, in many ways, a linchpin, because it is possible to take out this regime, with military action, and the reverberations of what happens with the collapse of Saddam's regime could very well create an implosion in a neighbor regime like Iran. For the simple reason that Iran has, I don't want to say, a middle class, but it has a very large population, that is that might bring down the regime, just as it brought down the Shah's regime.

So, I think that the choice of going after Iraq is like removing a brick that holds a lot of other bricks that might cause this structure to crumble. It is not guaranteed. The assumption of regime removal in Iraq, an implosion in Iran, an implosion in Libya is an assumption. It is not guaranteed. But if I had to choose, should there be military action first against Iraq, or first against Iran.

I would choose exactly what the President has chosen to go after Iraq. Who would you choose second? I would wait and see what the effects are. And I think that the effects could be quite mighty and startling. This region, the political culture in this region, is not one in these society is not one of respecting force, it is worshiping force, and the determination resolution of the United States in applying it.

I think that this could have beneficial effects that might preclude the application of further military action. I'm not saying that you should disavow it from the start. But I'm saying that the more resolutely and quickly, you act now, the more victories you gain up front, the more victories you might end up gaining later without the need to apply such overt military power. Mr. Horn.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, uh, thank you. We have seen you in Israel, and we've seen you here and you are very rational about these issues. So I'd like to ask a couple of things. You have a peace movement in Israel.

We have peace movements in the United States, and we talk about inspectors that might do something, if Saddam does let us in. Could you tell me what you would tell those people in both Israel and the United States, are they just naive or what? A lot of them mean very well, I'm sure. But that doesn't solve the problem. Well, I think there's I think there's a confluence of opinion right now in Israel.

Mr. Horn, I think there's been a sea change in opinion in Israel. In the last two years, there was never a peace camp, because the entire country was united in the desire for peace, but there were different ideas on how to achieve it. The idea that animated Oslo was that the piece with our Palestinian neighbors would be achieved, not by the traditional method of deterrence, which is what I think you can do with a dictatorial society, opposite you, a dictatorial regime, it was based on the idea that you could develop trust with a dictatorship and forego deterrence. And in order to develop this trust, we gave Israeli government at the time gave Arafat a larger swath of territory, girding and overlooking our major cities, gave them a small army, gave them 50,000 rifles, gave them international recognition, access to a great deal of money.

And in exchange, he made two promises. One is that he would recognize Israel and forego the propaganda for its destruction. And the second is that he would abandon terror. He pocketed all these benefits, and then proceeded to summarily violate these two commitments. His state controlled press, every word, every image that you hear and see in the Palestinian media is controlled by Arafat, was propounding day in day out in Arabic, the doctrine of policy, the destruction of a state, Israel.

to a generation of Palestinian youngsters, to everyone. And secondly, of course, proceeded to launch the worst and most consistent campaign of terror that the world has seen. Nothing compares to the horror of September 11, No single terrorist action in history has compared to it, and I hope nothing will ever compare to it again. But there is equal unprecedence, lack of precedence for the day in, day out, carnage that Arafat had meted on us, with the savagery of suicide bombings carried out by people who graduated his suicide, kindergarten camp, suicide universities, who visited his suicide museums, and so on. So people woke up.

They now say, We were wrong. Many people. I can't say all, but I'd say, just by reading the public opinion polls, talking to people in Israel, this is a tremendous unanimity in the country. And I think they're not fooled. They understand that Arafad is essentially an Osama bin Laden with good PR.

Well, medium PR. You know, it's not that good. At least in America, it doesn't go very far. It has a wider reach in Europe. But I think many in America have seen through him.

I don't think he gets the time of day here. And I think it's a question of time before he's ousted. I hope he should have been ousted, in my opinion, right at the start of this outrage two years ago. But I fully agree with President Bush when he says that Arafat has to go. There has to be the opportunity for other leaders to rise.

So I think in Israel today, actually. I see a lot more unanimity than before. And I see frankly, notwithstanding the confines of a debate in a Democratic society. I see a similar process here in the United States following September 11th. My friend, whom I respect a great deal of the Pulitzer Prize winning writer, Charles Kronhammer, said that in the 1990s, America slept, and Israel dreamed.

And he said that on September 2000, Israel woke up with the beginning of the Terror campaign launched against it. And a year later, in September 2001, America woke up with the bombing of New York and Washington. I think that reflects what has taken place in our democratic societies. I'm not sure the same applies with equal vigor to other parts of the Democratic world, but I think it doesn't matter. Europe never had a stellar record in understanding global threats, threats to Europe itself, and acting in time to thwart them.

But the United States and Israel have a pretty good record, and it's because the people unite in their understanding of the danger and their willingness to act against it. What do you think of the inspectors approach did do much before he just moves things around? It did some, but it's a cat and mouse game, and he's the cat. And he's successful. successful cat.

It is not very difficult to deceive inspectors. It's not even very difficult to deceive satellite inspection. You can burrow tunnels and hide the Earth. Did you ever see The Great Escape, the movie The Great Escape? Remember that movie?

You know, where all these guys come out, and they have the sand, which they distribute through the trousers while they're walking the yards. That's the essentially what dictators do. They can create tunnels and labyrinths that you never discover, that are impervious to radar, and other means. When you have an entire country to hide portable centrifuges that are a little bigger than those two climbers. It's not very difficult.

You can get away with it, and he has gotten away with it, frankly. Thank you. Mr. Tierdy? Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. Sir, I just want to revisit something that Mr. Sinach brought up earlier. Now, I think you mentioned in your own comments that Iran is much more further along the path on throw power or ability to move a nuclear or other rocket toward the United States than is Iraq, am I right? More developed than Iraq than Iraq.

than Iraq, yes. Right. But Iraq is trying to catch up. Well, we also know that there are speculation that Iran may have nuclear weapons or be moving much further along, but we know that Iraq, in fact, is still floundering around looking for materials in order to move in that direction. Right.

I don't know that Iran has nuclear weapons. No, I don't think anybody would do, but there's speculation on that, but we also, we know, at least as certain as we can possibly know, that Iraq is still looking for some materials in order to try to get to that point. Right. We have information, it reported in the Washington Post and other papers, that Iran shelters dozens of Al Qaeda fighters, identifying the cities of Mashad and Zabal. from saying that properly.

Yet we have the administration telling us they don't have any firm evidence, that there's any connection between Al Qaeda or the acts of September 11 in Iraq. So I guess I want to ask you again, in light of those comparisons or whatever, why is it that you think that if all of these countries, in your words, are problems for us, why you would pick Iraq first, as opposed to Syria, Iran, or the others? Well, I think that it's not the first. It's the second. The first one was the Taliban.

Now the question is, what is the second? I think... Well, excuse me one second. You're making a connection between the Taliban and Iraq? Yes, I am.

I'm saying that the if you look at those who harbor terrorists, and those who support terrorists, and... I guess I was looking for a connection between September 11th, and my understanding why we went to the Taliban, is there was a connection there, they were harboring somebody that we believe, did the act of September 11th. Yes, that's the first reason why you did it. You're gonna take me from September 11 to Iraq somehow? Yes, but I'm saying something else, I'm saying the connection is not whether Iraq was directly connected to September 11th.

But how do you prevent the next September 11th? That is, you have here, um, a system, or a subset of the international system that simply disavows any constraints on the use of power. It is fueled, these handful of regimes, and the terrorist organizations that they harbor are fueled by a terrible anti Western zealotry, a militancy that knows no bounds, doesn't respect any force, knows no limits to the use of power. And one would be around, you said? One is Iran, one is Iraq.

More nuclear capacity, more rocket capacity than Iraq, and harbors Al Qaeda people, or at least... Yes, Now, the question... the question you have is this. The question you have is this, this is now a question of not of values. Obviously, we like to see a regime change, at least I would, in Iran, just as I would like to see in Iraq.

The question now is a practical question. What is the best place to proceed? It's not a question of whether Iraq's regime should be taken out. But when should it be taken out? It's not a question of whether you'd like to see a regime change in Iran, but how to achieve it.

Iran has the something that Iraq doesn't have. Iran has, for example, 250,000 satellite dishes. It has internet use. I once said to the heads of the CIA, when I was prime minister, that if you want to advance regime change in Iran, you don't have to go through the CIA cloak and dagger stuff. What you want to do is take very large, very strong transponders, and just beam, Melrose Place, and Beverly Hills 2050, and all that, into Tehran, and into Iran, because that is subversive stuff.

They watch it, the young kids watch it. The young people, they want to have the same nice clothes, the same houses, and swimming pools, and so on. And that is something that is available in, forces internal forces of dissension that are available in Iran, which is paradoxically, probably the most open society in that part of the world. It is a lot more open than Iraq, which is probably the most close society I Earth. And therefore, you have no ability to foment this kind of dynamic inside Iraq.

So the question now is, choose. You can beam Melrose Place, but it may take a long time. On the other hand, if you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region. And I think that people sitting right next door in Iran, young people, and many others will say, The time of such regimes of such just bots is gone. There was a new age, something new is happening.

Do you have speculation on your part, or do you have some evidence of that effect? You know, I was asked the same question in 1986. I had, uh, written a book in which I had said that the way to deal with terrorist regimes, well, with terror, was to deal with the terrorist regimes, and the way to deal with the terrorist regimes, among other things, was to apply military force against them. The way we did in Afghanistan. The way, for example, I want to answer your question.

I guess I'm running out of time, so I quickly was trying to get there. We've done, I think, what you propose in Afghanistan, yet I haven't seen that sort of neighborhood effect. Well, I think there's been an enormous effect. The effect was, we were told that there would be a contrary effect. First of all, people said that there would be tens of thousands of people streaming into Afghanistan, zealots who would be outraged by America's action, and this would produce a counterreaction in the world.

But I think... What happened? that when you take an action like we did in Afghanistan, we're going to see all the other countries just fold. No, what we saw is something else. First of all, we saw everybody streaming out of Afghanistan.

The second thing we saw is all the Arab countries, and many Muslim countries, trying to side with America, trying to make to be okay with America. The application of power is the most important thing in winning the war on terrorism. If I had to say, what are the three principles of winning the war on terror, it's like, what are the three principles of real estate, the three L's, location, location, the three principles of winning the war on terror, are the three W's winning, winning, and winning. The more victories you amass, the easier the next victory becomes. The first victory in Afghanistan makes a second victory in Iraq, that much easier.

The second victory in Iraq will make the third victory, that much easier too, but it may change the nature of achieving that victory. It may be possible to have implosions taking place. I don't guarantee it, Mr. Turner. But I think it makes it more likely.

And therefore, I think the choice of Iraq is a good choice. It's the right choice. No. Miss...? Marilla?

Mr. Wells. Yes, thanks, Morell. Mr. Chairman.

Right. Thank you, Prime Minister Netanyahu. I'm wondering about your understanding, sir, of, uh, the enmity among the main, uh, Iraqi factions, uh, the Shias, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and how difficult do you think that rebuilding Iraq would be given these particular factions? And I wonder, do you think that a U.S.

led redevelopment of Iraq would significantly further destabilization in the Middle East? So what happened? I was asked by you and by others, what would happen after the ouster of Saddam, and I think that this is a vital question, because I think it depends on what the U.S. does.

If the U.S. merely goes in, throws out Saddam and walks away, I think it will miss an important opportunity. and actually not affect the true meaning of regime change. When I use the word regime change, I mean, I mean, those words in their most fundamental meaning.

Regime change, change the nature of the regime. That is, not replace one dictator with another, but replace dictatorship with democracy, or at least with democratization. This is the great opportunity that would be afforded to the Middle East, to the prospects of peace and development, to the Iraqi people themselves, and to others. That is, if the United States, after ousting Saddam, seeks to advance a democratized Iraq, couples those political goals with an economic package, to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq, to advance it, to create small business grants and loans, to create the spirit of entrepreneurship that very much characterized Iraq for many, many decades, actually, for many centuries, then Iraq could be transformed. It may not be, it may not become, a Western democracy.

I'm not Pollyannish about it. But when people say, It's not possible to have democracy in a Muslim country. I say, Oh, really? What about Turkey? And I say, Well, okay, Turkey is not necessarily Luxembourg, that's true.

But if I have to choose between Turkish style democracy and Iranian style theocracy, or Saddam style democracy, where he gets 99% of the vote, then I know what I choose, and what you would choose, too. So I think that's really the task, the task, and the great opportunity and challenge, is not merely to affect the ouster of the regime, but also to transform that society, and thereby begin to the process of democratizing the Arab world. I think that's absolutely essential. And I think we can draw lessons, Congressman Morella, from the struggle that the democracy is led by the United States waged against another unreformed despotism, with a militancy that knew no bounds to the use of force. I'm talking about, of course, the battle against Hitlerism.

Now, America, first the first thing it said was, we have to oust Hitler. They didn't say, What will happen afterwards? How will we deal with Germany? Well, all the questions that come to mind later. They never ask that.

Because the first thing, the danger, the palpable danger of this regime, and that particular regime, acquiring nuclear weapons, was in their minds, and the threat to our civilization was in their minds. So first, he had to go. But they didn't stop there. They went in there. They imposed actually limitations on German sovereignty.

some of which last to this very day. They put in the martial plans, they had democratic elections, they transitioned to the permanent political, democratic political system that we have in Germany today. And now, five, six decades later, when you ask, what is the protection against the re emergence of neo Nazism, of a new Hitler in Germany, it is not American tanks, it is not NATO soldiers. It is German democracy. There are neo Nazis there, but they're simply washed away by democracy.

We have a situation where the Arab world is cloistered. It doesn't have that ventilation. It has to choose between Saddam and Diatolas, between Arafat and the Hamas. And I think that the greatest achievement, The greatest change would take place in the greatest long term protection, against the return of another Saddam, another bin Laden, and other Mullah Omar. And after Arafat is ousted in other Arafat, I think the greatest protection is to ventilate these societies with the winds of freedom.

Democracy, or if I want to be realistic, democratization, coupled with an economic package. I think that should be the step against afterwards in Iraq. And I think it would actually stabilize Iraq. It might send a message. I think it will, to neighboring Iran, to neighboring Syria, and the people will wake up and they'll say, We can have a real life.

We can have choice. Our children can have a future. That could be. That's not a bad idea. But can we do it alone?

Yeah, if you want to, you could do it alone, but I don't think you will do it alone, frankly. I think that, uh, you won't do it alone for the simple reason that, uh, in these circumstances when you lead, others will follow. If you wait for them to join you, you'll never lead, and they won't follow. Lead, they'll follow. Thank you.

Mr. Clay? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Ned and Yahoo, you, uh, said earlier that you didn't like to be quoted, but I'm going to quote you from a... speech you gave before a Senate committee in April. Quote, clearly, the urgent need to topple Saddam is paramount. The commitment of America and Britain, to dismantle this terrorist dictatorship before it obtains nuclear weapons, deserves the un conditional support. of all sane governments.

Many analysts believe that the Gulf War ignited Islamic terrorist groups, if Saddam is toppled. Will this action inflame Arab animosity toward the West, and serve to empower terrorist groups throughout the Middle East? And in your opinion, do you really believe, uh, that Saddam can be removed from office, without compounding terrorist forces? Uh, Mr. Clay, I happen to be an analyst who thinks that what is spread and inflamed, uh, Islamic fundamentalism are the twin events that took place 20 years ago.

One is the establishment of the overt, overtly Islamic Republic of Iran that fanned the flames of militant Islamism, from the Philippines to Los Angeles, worldwide, infecting, unfortunately, a minority of Muslims, but in many, many communities. And the second event was the victory of the Mujahidin in Afghanistan, over a superpower, thereby convincing, if you will, this brotherhood of Islamic fighters, of which bin Laden was one, that the power of fanatic Islam could overcome any power, including that of a superpower. I think these are the things that fueled, that rocketed Islamic fundamentalism, and militant Islamic terror, to their present proportions. I think that what compresses it is exactly the opposite of what fueled it. What fueled it was the sense of victory.

What compresses it is a sense of defeat. The crucial thing that drives the spread of militant Islam and militant Islamic terrorism is hope. It is hope that the doctrine will be able to achieve its designs of world domination and the crushing of enemies. The more that hope grows, the more militant Islam and militant Islamic terror grows, the more it is crushed, the more it compresses, the more in the same proportion, the ability of these terrorists and these militants to reduce, to recruit new recruits to their cause. That, too, is reduced proportionately.

I began to say to Mr. Therney, I think, that I think it was Mr. Attorney. He asked me, well, you know, how do you know? And I said that in 1986, I wrote a book that said that you should take action against terror regimes.

And that would tend to compress them and their activities. And apparently, it turns out that President Reagan had read this book. Now, I don't know if he read it before, he decided to strike Libya or after, but, uh, nevertheless, Secretary Schulz wrote to me, he said that this made a profound impression on him. Somehow, word got out, that I had something, I was advocating this. So after the United States bombed Libya, I was interviewed by CBS, by Mr.

Rather, Dan Rather. He interviewed me, and he interviewed a noted Arabist analyst, and he asked, What would happen now? After this American bombing of Libya, And the Arabist, I think it was Patrick Seal, said there will be more terrorism. Terrorism will grow, the Islamic masses would be inflamed. American embassies would be burnt.

Gaddafi would become a hero, and he would make more terrorism. I think I'm giving him a fair paraphrasing of his remarks. Then Mr. Rather asked me, What do I think would happen? And I said, nothing.

Nothing would happen. American embassies would not be burnt. Uh, Kaddafi would crawl into his hole. He would be very careful in committing any more terrorist acts, not because he's not a terrorist, but because he might die. He almost did in that raid.

And people will respect American power. And in fact, what that single action did was to produce a complete cessation, nearly a complete cessation, of terrorism from Libya. He tried one clandestine act, was caught in the process, and, of course, didn't do anything since, but Libya has avoided this because of that action. In short, what I'm arguing is that the application of American resolve in force. preferably with other countries.

But the application of that force against militant Islam and against militant Islamic terrorism is the only way to compress it. There is no other way to compress it. But I'm also arguing that at the long run, what you have to do is to get at the sources of fanning the hatred, the sources that fan the hatred, the regimes that propagate the creed. And where else, where better to begin the process of changing these regimes, where, than in the places where you're going to change them anyway? You can go, of course, to other places in the Arab and Muslim world, in which you are not engaged directly in a conflict today.

I would not advise that. I would say, use the opportunity of eliminating the nuclear threat from Iraq, and begin a regime change there. Use the opportunity of a regime change in what I call Arafatistan, when we have a new regime there, to begin a democrat process of democratization, a process of economic reconstruction, and open opportunity, political and economic for the people. Use that in order to begin to change the political culture that is so cloistered and close, have it ventilated. That ultimately is the protection.

And I think that will create not the inflaming of masses, but the dousing of the hatred that is systematically sprayed from the these regime centers. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Clay. Mr.

Lewis? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Prime Minister, I...

I would just like to ask... It seems pretty obvious, on its face, that... But I want to ask this question, why is Saddam Hussein creating these weapons of mass destruction? Why is he in such a rush to get his hands on nuclear weapons? He doesn't have a means to deliver to deliver a nuclear weapon.

But it seems to me that he has some plans, he has some goals. What... So, it's pretty obvious, but it seems like there are those who, uh, probably don't understand his intentions. I think some of our allies. And if you look at the situation with the United Nations.

He has continued to deny them the opportunity for inspections. So it seems like that there's a good reason for why he is persisting in this course. Mr. Lewis, who's not developing those weapons to win the Peace Prize. Yes.

Where do you think he would be more likely to direct those weapons through a terrorist organization? It depends on how confident he feels. Just imagine, if he had, suppose he had a nuclear web. Suppose we hadn't knocked out. The Osi Rock reactor, and he had developed, and he would have developed, by the late '70s or the late '80s, he would have developed a nuclear bomb, a lot before that.

All right, now he devours, he devours Kuwait, which he did. It's not clear to me that we would have had a Gulf War, because he would brandish that weapon right up front. He'd say, Go ahead, make my day, or whatever he would say. Okay? And, of course, the United States would now be caught in a tremendous bind.

Because if he had that weapon, he doesn't necessarily need in the age of terrorism. He doesn't need ballistic missiles to reach the United States. First of all, he's developing ballistic missiles. But he could, equally, use terror proxies to deliver a payload here. I had said, at written in 1986, that the danger of militant Islam, and these regimes, and the terror organization, is not understood in the West.

And I said that, because of the proliferation of these adherents in the West, then these regimes do not need ICBMs, because they, the terrorists, will be the delivery system. They themselves could deliver a payload, and I said, too, and here again, you're catching me, quoting myself, because, well, I like to quote themselves. What can I do? I say that the next thing you will see is not a car bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center. I said the next thing you'll see is a nuclear bomb in the Will Trade Center.

Well, I wasn't exactly right. They didn't use a nuclear bomb. They used two airplanes stocked with fuel. It's like a small tactical bomb. That's what they used, and that's what Saddam could use.

Once he has the weapon, he has the choice. He could flaunt it, he could use it, he could let others use it. He could have delivery systems in the West that do not require missiles. You could put it on top of a missile. Do we want to wait?

Is the issue that we want to wait and find out, do we have any doubt that he's developing, to be honest and fair? And I must be honest and fair. This is not a court of law. This is not a question of legalisms. It's a question of...

a realistic assessment of a threat, a palpable threat to our common civilization. There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking, and is working, and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons. No question whatsoever. And there is no question that once he acquires it. History shifts immediately.

I'll give you an example to drive this point home. And I'll do something that, uh, uh, well, I'm a private citizen, so I'll say this. Now, just imagine, imagine, that the Taliban takes over Pakistan. Pakistan is alleged to have nuclear weapons. Imagine that the Taliban would have atomic weapons.

Imagine that you could forestall it. Would you forestall it, Mr. Lewis? Don't you think this is a catastrophic development? Absolutely.

You see, all nuclear proliferation is bad, but some of it is a lot worse. If Holland acquires nuclear weapons, it is not the same thing as the Taliban, or Saddam, or Iran, the Aitolas, acquiring nuclear weapons, or Kaddafi. It is fundamentally different. Because these regimes have no compunction whatsoever in the use of these mass weapons. Saddam himself has shown that he was willing to gas people, one of the few instances since the 1920s, when gas warfare was used.

You cannot rely on the concerns on the, on the, I would say, on the mechanisms that inhibit the use of these weapons that apply elsewhere, even in non democracies, there are such inhibitions. What you have here are single man regimes typically. Without the political, military, and scientific buffers, that always provide a hedge between the leadership and pressing that button. Here, it's Saddam's whim. He decides, he pushes the button.

He has a peculiar way of resolving issues like that. And during the Gulf War, there was a debate, a problem of some medical shortages, he was sitting in the cabinet room, and he called the health minister to the other room, and he killed him. Well, I think we can... He can press the button. He can press the trigger.

The emergence of nuclear weapons. That is regime, single man regimes, or zealot, tyrannical, terroristic regimes that acquire nuclear weapons is an enormous threat to our civilization. I cannot stress that enough. And I'm not speaking here as a partisan, because in Israel, we don't have a decision. Am I speaking as an Israeli, yes.

But I'm speaking here as a citizen of the free world. As a citizen of a world that is entering dangers that are not yet understood, It is not important that we meet here in 10 years, and I will say, I will quote what I say here today, because if they had nuclear weapons in September 11th, We couldn't meet here. Well, you know, I think, um, I think the question was asked after 9/11 last year, why didn't we know, and why didn't we do something? And I think we can be forgiven for being called off guard the first time. But I don't think we can be forgiven when we know, we absolutely know, that a man like Saddam Hussein has that kind of power, and has all the will to put him in the hands of, but those weapons in the hands of terrorists.

And we don't do something about it. I don't think we can be forgiven for that. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Lewis.

Ms. Swanson? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sitting here, and I'm very troubled.

We were attacked a year ago in 9/11, by what we thought was a group called Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden. I don't hear his name anymore. We launched a response to an attack on Continental United States. I don't hear his name anymore. We have not won a war in Afghanistan.

We don't know whether Osama bin Laden is dead or alive. No one has given us any proof. We don't know where the Achaeda cells are around the globe. And all of a sudden, we're no longer looking for it. I think they pulled off a brilliant scheme.

are the most prestigious intelligence group in the world, could not warn us, and we did nothing. So I'm troubled, because we've won no war against the terrorists. It seems to me that we're focusing on somebody who is in a neighborhood, who has weapons of mass destruction, but the circumstances could describe India, Pakistan, and their squabble over cashmere, Iran, and several other places in the world. But we're focusing on Saddam Hussein and Iraq. There is an orderly process that seems to be overlooked in all of this.

And I was very fascinated to hear Kofi anon today. And, in essence, he was saying that only the United Nations can give any legitimacy to any type of action, by one country, against another. We tried to change the leadership in Cuba. We had the Bay of Pigs, if you remember, trying to go after Fidel Castro. He's only 90 miles off our coast.

Now we're trying to choose a new regime and a new leadership in Iraq. There's no guarantee that we're going to gain a Democratic leadership in Iraq. But what really troubles me is that we're going to go against the orderly process, a diplomatic effort, and we're going to be come aggressors in a neighborhood that we're not even part of. Uh, listening to you, uh, secretary, I would think our prime minister, excuse me. Listening to you, I would think that you're building up a great case for Israel.

to be the aggressor, and we are your allies. But, as a member of the United Nations, we then will violate the process that we bought into. And that is very troubling to me. Oh, I know, all about the danger. Is that Iraq presents?

But I don't know, and I feel very uncomfortable in going this alone without the support of the United Nations, since we and you are a member of the United Nations. We violate the artly process. Would you comment, please? Yes, well, I think the first question is, do you want to merely avenge September 11, or do you want to win the war on terror? If you want to stop with September 11th, go after Al Qaeda.

Can you connect the dots for me between... Yes, yes. The aggressors on 9/11, the aggressors. No, I'm saying that if you fight... This is my question.

I'll answer it. I think that if you, I think, uh, Ms. Watson, there is, uh, there are now. developing enormous threats, not merely to Israel. Israel is attacked because it's seen as a front line, a frontal position of the United States.

They hate us because they hate you. They don't hate you because of us. That, too, but the main reason, they hate us, is because they've hated you, and for these militants, they've hated you for about two centuries in the West for about five centuries. So there is a hatred of the United States. That hatred has produced that attack, that attack by bin Laden, is something that you wanted, obviously, to punish.

And in many ways, you did the first thing that is required. You took down the Taliban regime. And now bin Laden is scattered. I don't think he's going to be effective, because he needs territory to work from. He's on the run.

It's very hard to work when you're on the run, when you have no inviolable territory. I suppose he's, like, kind of a Dr. Gebbels after the collapse of the Nazi regime. So apprehending him is obviously important. It's also a matter of justice, just as apprehending Gebbels was a matter of justice.

But if you start taking away the regimes that could serve his purpose, for example, I was told by your members here, that Al Qaeda, some of them are in Iran, deprive that base, there is no international terrorism of any kind. Al Qaeda, Kizbala, Hamas, you name them, all of them. There is no international terrorism, if you take away the support of sovereign states. And the sovereign states are a few. If you want to win the war, you just have to neutralize these states, in neutralizing them, you have two options.

It's like when kamikaze fighters are coming at you and bombing you. You can shoot one, you can shoot the other. But if you really want to, if you really want to stop it, you have to shoot down the aircraft carriers. They're only a handful of aircraft carriers. Now, when I say shoot down, you have really two options.

You can either deter or destroy. Saddam has not been deterred. He has not been deterred. He's not been deterred by inspections. He's not been deterred by even by your threats.

He devoured, he devoured Kuwait like that. And once he possesses nuclear weapons, I assure you, he won't be deterred, you'll be deterred. That's the difference. So I think if you want to win the broader war on terror, you have to get rid of these regimes. Now, the question you ask, and I think it's an important one, is you say, Well, what about the UN?

The U.N. is the one that should give you... the... the legitimacy, and I think Kofi Anan, who happens, personally, I'm very close to him, and a friend of his, but I take issue with his claim today that the U.

N. offers only the U.N. offers unique legitimacy. Well, yeah, it offers something unique.

I mean, this is an organization where Libya is chairing the commission for human rights, and where Syria chaired the Security Council. It is a fact that the UN has failed time and again. Failed time and again to act against aggression and time, often, in fact, siding with the aggressions. And the reason that is the case is something that was seen over two centuries ago by a great thinker like Emmanuel Kant. He said that an amalgamation of dictatorships and democracies together would not protect peace, because dictatorships tend towards war.

And only democracies tend towards peace. And he was right. And the UN, unfortunately is such an amalgamation. So it fails. It failed in the case of preventing Saddam from almost acquiring a nuclear bomb.

And when we bombed that, the UN attacked us. By the way, I said that the entire world condemned us. But that is not exactly true, because I'm told that in the, sort of, in the bowels of the, of some of the main security organizations of the U.S. government.

They were following this. When we struck at Osirac. And at the time, Saddam was calling... It was never used the name Israel. He always said the Zionist entity.

I think the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark, or the sorry, the Empire strikes back, was making its heyday then. So anyway, when they heard that Israel had struck at Iraq, they said, Hooray, the entity strikes back. But nevertheless, the formal position of the United States, the formal position of the UN, condemned Israel, was about to place sanctions on Israel. So the UN, in this case, and in many cases, simply has not been able to overcome the debilitating weaknesses inside it that, notwithstanding the goals and ideals of the charter, hobble its ability to be effective and stopping aggression. Aggression has been stopped in the last 100 years, not by the UN, and not by the League of Nations, it's predecessor.

It simply crumpled and died, effectively, in the mid 30s, unable to stop totalitarian aggression. Aggression has been stopped, only when the key democratic countries were able and willing to act, when they were unable and unwilling to act, no international structure was sufficient. That happened in the first half of the 20th century, it must not be allowed to happen in the first half of the 21st century. And I think we're fortunate to have the United States, whose people and leadership, and I think a broad swath of leadership, a bipartisan leadership, understand that this aggression has to be stopped and stopped in time. May I just...

Just follow up with this one last question. Well, okay. So that I might quote you accurately. Are you saying that we are to circumvent the United Nations and, uh, not seek a legitimate process through the United Nations, but that the United States needs to go it alone? I just want you to clarify what you're saying...

Yes. Yes, I'm saying that you can. seek UN support, and it would be good to have, but I wouldn't make it a precondition of eliminating the Saddam's regime before it acquires nuclear weapons, because if you make it a condition, you'll never reach it. Mr. Shays?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your very generous five minute rule here. And, um, let me say... There is a five minute rule on you or me, I'm sorry.

No, no, I... I just not familiar with the household. Excuse me. He's taking a little poke at the chairman, but that's all right. No, no, I'm not taking a poke at the chairman.

Mr. Chick... condition for the fact that I may take ten minutes instead of five. I want to say, first, to you, Mr. Netanyahu.

You have been warning the world, not just the United States, about terrorism, for decades. You have had a lonely journey, not unlike Churchill, frankly, in the '30s. I happen to think that you are dead on, and it's a privilege to be able to ask you some But I have a number. Thank you. But I first want to make a statement.

We knew that Saddam Hussein had a robust chemical biological and nuclear program before the war in the Gulf. We knew he had it after. And we knew that he kicked out the inspectors when we were successfully dismantling his chemical, biological, and nuclear program. We know that for fact. We also know that he had a delivery system for chemical and biological agents.

And while that was more quiet in the past, it is now very clearly public information. So I am left withdrawing this conclusion. Why would the burden have to be on those to say that he's still continuing these programs? Why shouldn't the burden be on those to claim that he stopped? Because no one can give me even a scintilla?

of possibility that he has changed his mindset and changed his ways. And I'd love a short answer to that 'cause I have some follow ups. I have nothing to add to your, um, uh, very, um, acute reasoning here, uh, but I do, I do want to say that the last point, one of the points, which we're connecting the dots, is, uh, that intelligence, including from defectors, who say exactly what you're saying, that he is absolutely committed, pushing with all his power to develop these weapons now. So you must ask, okay, if we want to take Newtonian physics, if an object is moving with a certain direction with a certain momentum, there has to be something that will make him change his mind. What is it?

The kicking out of the monitors? No. Okay, let me ask you this. In 1981, I was a state legislator. I was, frankly, shocked that there was a preemptive strike.

I voiced my concern as a state legislator, not that it mattered much, but I just, when the press asked me, I said, I'm shocked by it. One of my first briefings, when I got elected in 1987, was my interest in understanding that raid. And after our people described it to me, I figuratively got down on my knees and said, Why didn't we congratulate and thank them for doing it? And this gets into this whole issue, them, in other words Israel. This gets into this whole issue of preemption.

We knew that we had an ally, the Soviet Union, who became our enemy socially, politically, economically, and militarily. We developed. We knew what the threat was. We developed a strategy, and it was reactive. It was containment, reactive, mutually sure destruction.

Now, that went out, clearly went out the window on September 11th. I mean, that was the one question that I didn't have answered. There was no red line. That's what we learned from the terrorists. Now, it strikes me that we have to know the threat as all three commissions have told us.

We have to have a strategy, and then we reorganize. I don't see how we can come to any other conclusion that the strategy has to be preemptive. And I'd say to my colleague, the ambassador, who I understand, where she's coming from. But it strikes me, and I was surprised by my own majority leader, being surprised that we can't do preemptive. What other choice is there in combating terrorism, if it's not preemptive, and I'll just qualify it with one other point, color it in a little bit.

At that very table, we had a noted scientist who said, His biggest fear was that a small group of dedicated scientists could create a biological agent, an altered biological agent that would wipe out humanity as we know it. And I was struck... We were all struck with the fact that if a country allows that to happen, what are we going to do? Just wait till it happens, it has to be preemptive. Is there any other choice than preemptive?

I think not, but I think that there are two, uh, three reasons why that is the case. The first reason is that you have now. When you have... here the situation where you have to go through and ask the regime as opposed to deter it. One, you may have a regime that is not deterrible.

For example, if it has a penchant for suicide, you can't rely on deterrence, because Because if the regime is willing to die, collective death for the glory of their twisted version, say, of Islam, it's not gonna work. Or if there are people within it who are moving in that direction, it's not necessarily deterrence may not work. The second is a regime that has no limits to the use of force, that it's simply completely committed to that force. A good example of that is the Nazi regime. No matter what you did to it, as long as it lived, as long as Hitler breathed, as long as that click was there, it simply would not stop.

You had to oust it. And the third situation where you must change the regime is that if you don't, you cannot begin to affect a societal change. I think the removal of the dangers, I don't think you rely on the terms when it comes to most of the terror network. I think this is what distinguishes it from, say, the communists, you know, the communists, you could deter. It was very easy.

They were very rational. I think that we're pursuing any rational goal, but they pursued it very rationally. And every time they had to choose between their ideology and their survival, they chose their survival. They backed off, Berlin, whatever. Cuba.

The militant Islam is, you can't rely that they'll make that decision because they could go down with the ship. They have no compunction of killing as many people on this side of the aisle, but also quite a few of their own. And therefore, you know, you never heard of a communist suicide bomber, but you know, militant Islam produces hordes of them. So when you have a regime system, that is not susceptible to deterrence, you have no choice but to take it out. But what is taking it out mean.

It means, and this is, I think, my answer to you, Congressman, is, it means that you cannot just have regime removal. You really have to have regime change in the fundamental meaning of that word. You really have to start changing the mentality, the poison, toxified mentality that these regimes have put into the minds of millions, hundreds of millions. And that is the real task, the great challenge. Now, if you don't, then it's a question of time where you'll have suitcase devices of mass death.

You can have biological devices, you can have nuclear devices. That's a question of time. Let me just... And so the ultimate protection, and I come back to the example of Germany, the ultimate protection, that you won't have it, that you won't have a new Hitlerism, is the ventilation of German society by democracy. The long term protection, and it's not foolproof and it's not aromatic, but we have to try.

is once the regimes are ousted, it's to begin the process of democratization in these places which harbor this militancy today. Let me just ask one other area here. And it does strike me that, based on your testimony, that preemption is required somewhere, but if you have a preemptive strike in one place, it may result in not needing a preemptive strike elsewhere. But I want to ask you about a boonie doll. And, uh, a bunidal in in Baghdad.

I'm struck by the fact that, in a sense, Saddam was trying to destroy the evidence. I mean, he's one of the most vicious terrorists. And I'm struck by the fact that Osama bin Laden, what he did was he united terrorists. There wasn't just one type of terrorist from one country in Afghanistan. He brought them all together.

There was a network. And I'm just interested to know your feeling about that so called suicide. Is it possible that Saddam was basically trying to destroy any evidence that somehow he is protecting terrorists and giving us then legitimacy and going in? It's possible. But I can't tell you about that specific case, but I can tell you that the terrorists and the terrorist regimes, they're all, they're all connected, sometimes loosely, sometimes tightly.

For example, you know that Osama bin Laden, first of all, enjoyed domicile in Afghanistan. Actually, they moved from Afghanistan, from the Sudan to Afghanistan. He has to have a place, okay? Once he had that place, he moved from there, for example, to Lebanon, where he had meetings with Hezbala, who were tied in with Palestinian terrorists. He was also talking bin L...

The key point that he had a network, and he was, he was kind of the president. Yeah, but the key point is this, that I don't care how many networks he has. If he doesn't have regimes that give him an inviolable place, where he doesn't have to run and hide all the time, his effectiveness goes down the tubes very fast. And that's the key thing. If you take away the sovereign states, you bing down.

You just bring down this whole structure of international terrorism. But what you don't do, is you cannot prevent the re emergence of this madness 20 years or 30 years or 15 years from now. You cannot... The only way you can do that is by making sure that when you bring down the regime, instead of replacing one dictator with another, you begin a different process that is taking place around the world, everywhere, except there. Everywhere you have democracy sweeping the world, everywhere you have the United States pressing for democratization.

And it's been a spectacular success. I mean, the whole world is democratized. You democratized Latin America, and if anyone veers there, you go down gangbusters on them. Russia is democratized, you're seeking human rights in democratization in China, you're South Africa, Mongolia, Albania, everybody's democratizing, except this one area. This one area remains, and it's a big one.

with these poisonous regimes in there, remains untouched, and in the gurgling cauldron of this mad zealotry, our brewing the new bin Ladens, the new suicide bombers, from the Arafats and the Talibans and the bin Ladens of this world. You can't leave it that way. You can't just go into the cauldron, pick up a Taliban, throw them out. You get a new one. You have to...

you have to turn over the pot. You have to do something else. You have to start a different process. Thank you, Mr. Shays.

Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Prime Minister, we've known each other for many years, and I've always held you in the highest regard, and with great respect, and admired your eloquence, and none more so than on the two occasions you've appeared before this committee today, and then right after September 11th. And on your last appearance, you articulated the empathy and solidarity with the United States is a fellow victim of terrorism, because Israel has been suffering from terrorist attacks before September 11th, and even more since September 11th. So the United States and Israel share, not only that, but the reason we share that is we share values of democracy, of pluralism, of respect for individual rights, and so your enemies are our enemies, and our enemies are also your enemies. Today, we're talking about Saddam Hussein, not just here, but the president of the United States, before the United Nations. And he has said to the United Nations, As an international body, isn't it their obligation, he has said, to enforce the rules and resolutions that they've adopted that have been flaunted by Saddam Hussein.

Now, I certainly hope that the United Nations won't hobble themselves and live up to the responsibility that they have to insist, in fact, demand that Saddam Hussein open up his country to full, unfettered inspections and any kind of weapons that he might have. The question I want to ask you is, if the United... Is there a value, as you see it, from an Israeli perspective, for the UN, to act in concert with the U.S. going against Adam Hussein?

One, to stop what he is doing to develop these weapons? And secondly, should there have to be a military action to rebuild Iraq after Saddam Hussein? Congressman Waxman, there would be much value if you could rely on it. I don't want to pull rank, but I spent four years in the UN, and a hell of a lot of time, the security council, and I cannot tell you that this is necessarily a bastion of responsibility. Now, on occasion, not very frequent, the UN does the right thing, but on many occasions, it does the wrong thing.

This is an organization that branded Zionism is racism, that, you know, it's what Aba Iban once said, that, you know, if the Arab country is put before the UN, a resolution that the Earth is flat, it'll be passed by the UN. that problem of inconsistency, and is what plagues this issue. And so now you have a question, I think a different question. Is it desirable? The answer is to get you in support, the answer is absolutely yes.

The question I put forward is, is it a precondition for such action? Suppose you try, give it some time. It doesn't happen. What do you do then? Now, there are two ways of trying.

One is you talk to them, they either do it, they don't do it. The other is, you actually try to press forth a resolution, and somebody, one of the permanent members, vetoes it. So now, and maybe passes another resolution. So now you may be actually working against a failed resolution, or even an antagonistic resolution of the UN, well, antagonistic resolution, you can always block at the security council, but a failed resolution. Well, I want to certainly say that...

if the United Nations doesn't live up to its responsibilities, that shouldn't preclude the United States from living... It's respectable. I totally agree with you. I full agree. And then the question is, what actions we should take, and the president has argued that we need a regime change in Iraq, because Saddam Hussein is clear in his motives to want to dominate the Middle East, and particularly the oil wealth by virtue of having a nuclear bomb, which he's actively working to achieve.

Now, you said one of the reasons Israel is so concerned about all of this is, you know, things that happen, if you do take action, things that happens, if you don't. Israel, what everyone expects, be the victim of Saddam Hussein's last gaps, to stay in power. And you argue that the U.S. should be working with Israel to deal with that circumstance should happen.

I absolutely agree, that it's essential that the United States and Israel work closely in concert, as we have in the past, and we need to in the future to deal with terrorism, and then, God forbid, any kind of use of weapons of mass destruction short of nuclear weapons by Saddam Hussein. But let me examine this. A couple things that have been thrown out in the debate here in the United States. Some people have said, If we go after Saddam Hussein, it's diverting us from the war on terrorism. How do you answer that?

I don't think so. I think it helps you enormously, because in the mindset of the terrorists and the people they wish to recruit, there is a common front of, as I said, of a handful of states, and actually not a much larger number of organizations. So if you start taking them one by one, taking them on, deterring some, destroying others, you are sending a message to the entire terror network. I would put it, just as a victory for terrorism anywhere in any part. the entire network emboldens the entire network.

A defeat of any part of the terror network discourages the entire network. and makes it lose its head of steam. It's exactly opposite the advice that, I suppose, you're hearing from some, that if you take action, you'll inflame more militancy and more terrorism. My experience has been the exact opposite, the exact opposite. You might have an exchange for a while of blows and counter blows, but if you're persistent, and you're applying your power, uh, concertedly, and, uh, consistently, you'll douse the flames.

You'll, uh, is doused to... Dampen? Yes, yes. You'll douse the flames. My English is rust, you know, Henry.

Let me ask you another question. about what is being talked about. And this doctrine of preemptive action. Some people have said preemptive action is appropriate if there's an imminent threat, but the president today said at the United States, and he's worried about the gathering danger. You didn't say an imminent threat, but the gathering danger.

Now, how do we decide when preemptive action is appropriate? Saddam Hussein's working on weapons of mass destruction? So is Iran. Syria is much more active in helping Hezbollah and Hamas as part of the terrorist network. We follow this doctrine of preemptive action, beyond Saddam Hussein.

Do all of these countries merit preemptive action by us? How do we distinguish them? Probably not, because not because they don't merit it in moral terms, but because you won't need it. I think the first question you ask is, how imminent is it? Look, do you want to wait?

and find out? The answer is no. You have, uh, what I called here, the wake up call from hell, but you don't have to wait until hell, uh, rushes you and beat you in the face. It already has, in effect. So the question of time, I think, the sooner, the better.

But now the question is, when you choose a target, I think Iraq brings two things, a confluence of two things. One, it is sufficiently important in this network to have a tremendous effect, if it collapses, it'll have a beneficial seismic effect, quite the country of what is being described. And the second thing is that it happens to be one of the two now, as we learn one of the three regimes that is racing to build nuclear weapons. So you get two birds with one stone. You knock out a main developer of nuclear arms in the Terran network, and you also send reverberations across the network.

So if I had to choose, yes, I would choose that, would is Iran less dangerous? No. Is it more dangerous? Maybe, certainly not less dangerous. But would I counsel necessarily a preemptive strike on Iran?

I'm not sure. I wouldn't, I would be very careful about that. I think that there is a great deal of possibility, of internal processes of change in Iran, that simply do not exist in Saddam Hussein. You remember that, at the end of the Gulf War, there was an assumption in quarters of the American government, that having been dealt this blow without regime changed without bringing him down, that there would be an internal revolt, so to speak, in Iraq, but this was a wishful thinking, because Iraq simply is a police state, without any ability to foment the kind of process that occurred, in fact, in Iran and the downfall of the Shah. Iran has that ability, and therefore, you shouldn't apply force.

I'll say this. You shouldn't apply force indiscriminately, and certainly for the application of force against Palestinian terrorism, against Iraq, and so on. But I think that force should be applied judiciously. That is, it should be applied with great resolution, with great force, but at that part of the, you know, that part of the front, so to speak, where you'll get maximum effect. And I think this is the case with Iraq.

This is why the relevant question is not whether the others merit punishment, but where the application of force would do the most good, and that is what I think we're discussing here. Thank you very much. You've given us testimony, they'll help us think through these very difficult issues, and it's been very, very helpful. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Waxman. Mr. Lantos. Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman. It's a pleasure to see you again, Mr. Prime Minister. My colleagues have raised many of the issues that I wanted to raise, but I would like to go at them in a somewhat different way. So if you'll bear with me, and I'll be happy with whatever length of response you give me.

Much of this debate in Europe, the United Nations, and to some extent in this country, about Saddam Hussein, has the quality of people discussing the merits of an abstract painting. You like it, I don't like it. This is what I like. This is what I don't like about it. And I find this extremely disturbing, because, obviously, with vis a vis Saddam Hussein, we are looking at a record, his historic record.

which there is no point repeating, because we are all aware of it. What he did to his own people, what he did in beginning the war against Iran, in which hundreds of thousands on both sides died, the gassing of his own people, the attack on Kuwait, the attempted assassination of our own former president, the list is long. But every one of us, in this body, every one of us in the public arena who deal with foreign affairs, also brings a record. Now, I was intrigued by your discussion with Mr. Shays concerning preemption.

And I'm delighted to tell my good friend, who joined this body, many years after I did, that when your Air Force took out the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, The following day, I gave a floor speech in the Congress commending that action, because it was self evident that without preemption, Iraq would have proceeded with a program of developing nuclear weapons. And the Persian Gulf War would have turned out quite differently, because the civilized world could well have faced a nuclear equipped Iraq, and might not have been willing to undertake a war against the nuclear attack. equipped Iraq. So it seems to me that the president's speech today at the United Nations, and I don't know if you have had a chance to see it or read it, was right on target. And I think the enemies of the United States would be well advised to understand that there is enormous bipartisan support for the president's position vis a vis Iraq.

And when the president comes before us, within the next few weeks or months, with a proposal to obtain congressional approval, while he's unlikely to get the almost unanimous approval that he got against the war on terrorism a year ago, My friend and colleague, Henry Hyde, and I sat in the manager's chair for nine and a half hours because everybody wanted to speak on this issue. We had one negative vote. We are likely to have more negative votes than one, but there is little doubt in my mind that there will be overwhelming bipartisan bicameral approval when the proposal comes before us. Now, one of the many criticisms of the concept of preemption. stems from a rather naive historic imagery of chivalry as part and parcel of military activities.

Some people still feel that chivalry is not dead, that Saddam Hussein will act according to the appropriate rules and procedures. And it is so self evident, to even the most superficial observer of recent history. that it is only his capability or lack of it, which prevents him from striking out with whatever force he has. So the notion of preemption. is not just an option.

It is mandated by the nature of this new enemy. This is a new kind of enemy, and to apply the rules of 17th century chivalry, to the regime of Saddam Hussein, to me, appears to be absurd. I would like to ask you to comment, if you would, about the public views and private views of many Arab leaders that has been commented on in the media. But perhaps those of us who occasionally or frequently meet with Arab leaders are personally exposed to this profound dichotomy. A totally different private view of a possible strike against Iraq and an utterly divergent public view.

First of all, do you agree that that is, in fact, what is happening, that many of the Arab leaders are really telling different stories in private and in public. In private, they are saying, go to it. We can hardly wait to get rid of him. We will be supportive in whatever way we can. But publicly denouncing this possible action.

The second thing I would be grateful if you could comment on, is a chronological question. Some of the opponents of regime change in Iraq argue that it may not be too difficult to change the regime in Iraq in a military sense, not a cakewalk, but not overwhelmingly difficult. But that what comes after it, we have no idea about, and how long we may have to stay there, nobody knows. I'm puzzled by these objections, because when North Korea attacked South Korea, and almost took over the whole country, the South Koreans were able to maintain a small perimeter around the port city of Pusan. And now we are back to the 38th parallel.

We have been there for almost a half a century. And the question to be asked is, would we prefer a communist North Korea regime controlled Korean Peninsula to this very long term commitment that we had to make? It is costly? It is cumbersome. We don't like it.

But it seems to me, it is infinitely preferable to have at least half of the peninsula today. Free and open and democratic and pro Western, than to have the regime in the North run this whole Korean peninsula. My view is that whether we are talking about the Cold War, which lasts two generations, or military involvement in Korea, which is now into its third generation. aren't long term rational commitments of our resources, preferable to accepting extreme fanatical, irrational regimes, developing weapons of mass destruction as the alternative. The answer to your second question is, clearly, that I agree with you, I think.

Imagine, we know what is happening in that half of the Korean Peninsula, because this regime, that is at starvation level, probably the lowest GDP per capita on Earth, is busy developing nuclear weapons. and missiles. And then exporting it to the other terror regimes. So there is something developing, Congressman Lantos, which, I think, certainly is certainly developed in my thinking. I'm a Kantian, as you could see by my references to Kant, and Kant basically said 200 years ago that the way to secure world peace, and this great essay that he wrote perpetual peace.

He said, The only way to do it is to distinguish between democracies and dictatorships, understand that whereas democracies tend towards peace, because they reflect the will of the majority. Dictatorships tend towards war, because Dictator gets to be a dictator by practicing aggression against his own people. So he'll do it to others, too. And Khan said, basically, that the only way you could have peace with dictatorships, he said, peace with democracy is automatic and self sustaining. But pieced with dictatorships could be purchased, he said, by deterrence.

It turns, not by the United Nations, but what he called the League of Free Nations, which means the Democracies banding together to deter aggression or roll it back if deterrence failed, which is essentially NATO. What didn't happen, opposite Germany, happened, vis a vis a far greater dictatorship of a much more powerful dictatorship of Soviet Russia. And it worked, a cold piece. We call it a Cold War, but it was a cold piece, a piece of deterrence. I've come to the conclusion that, faced with these types of regimes who may be undeterable, There really is, in the long run, only one kind of piece.

That is, the piece of democracies, or if you will, a piece of democratization. Because if you have these territories in which madness rules, in which they develop botulisms that they'll put in Manhattan or Washington, or suitcase nuclear devices, that they'll detonate in the cities of the West, that you not only have to preempt and oust these regimes, but you really have to begin this process of democratization. So I've, I think Kant was right for two centuries, but I think in the 21st century, we may have to go back to a democratic peace period. I think this relates to your question. Are we willing to pay the price?

Well, I think freedom has its price, and our security has its price. I tend to think that the American people, I tend to agree with you, from my visits to the United States, and even my talk in the quarters of Congress. I think there's a solid majority who understand that action must be taken. Sometimes with a shorter time horizon, and sometimes with a longer time arise in both going back and going forward, on the need to secure our world. But I think that, I think, yes, you have to pay the price of freedom.

On the question of the private and public opinions of Arab leaders, it's well known that not only on this issue, but on many issues, there is a divergence simply because there isn't pluralism in Arab public political life. There is a party line that is enhanced and enforced by a collection of dictatorships, usually. And so people don't deviate from it. In the case, however, of Saddam, I see the following. I see something somewhat different than this dualism.

In 1991, there was practical Arab unanimity, and the need to roll back Saddam from Kuwait. Saddam devoured an Arab country, and every country thought it would be his next target, and therefore, they proceeded to support the extrication of Kuwait from Iraq's gullet. And that was perfect unanimity, and even public unanimity in the presence of Arab countries in the coalition. A decade later, you see something else. Some of them, and the more democratized, the more liberal these leaders are, want to see Saddam go.

Some of them may be even as closest neighbors, but they won't say it openly. But others, many others, fear that if Saddam goes, then he will be replaced. That regime will begin a regime change in the broader sense of the word, that is, the process of democratization in the Arab world. And that is why you're getting a much broader consensus, not uniform and not total in private, but pretty broad in private. against an American action, because the regimes themselves are fearful of the dynamic of freedom.

And again, this doesn't apply to all of them. Some of them are much closer to liberalizing their societies than others. But I think this is a dynamic that now occurs. In any case, if I had, you know, asking for an Arab consensus, public or any other type. Before you take on Saddam, is actually a little worse than waiting for a UN consensus.

Actually, it's a lot worse. On some things, you just do the right thing. And I think America's about to do the right thing. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Netnia. Do you have time for a few more questions? I have all the time in the world, Mr. Fish.

Thank you. I do want to say that the chairman was very sorry that he did have to leave, and was very grateful that you were willing to spend your day or afternoon with this committee, and wanted me to convey that. I, um, you had mentioned, uh, that, um, it would be our responsibility to help. Israel would clearly become the target if there was a preemptive strike against, um, Iraq. I have a sense that if the United States and others were able to push the border of his activity closer to Baghdad, that most of the missiles would not reach Israel.

But the point you made was that we would need to help you acquire smallpox and immunize your population. I think you made reference to that. And I'm curious how long it would take to do that. It doesn't take very long. I think I don't want to get into these discussions.

I'll just tell you that, for example, the cost of vaccination against smallpox, which is what we're really talking about. The cheap one costs 20 cents, and the expensive one costs a dollar. Well, you know, we have six billion citizens in Israel, not a huge cost. And I think we've already, we're well underway. to produce this, but I'm saying I don't want to get into the intricacies, Congressman Shays, of the precise way of allocating vaccines and other devices.

But I want to say, and I want to do stress the principle once again, and I thank you for, again, bringing it up. I think it's absolutely essential that the U.S. and Israel, see to it, that Israel has all the means of civil defense available in today's world before that action is initiated. If not, then the risk that we are taking will be an undue risk.

I don't represent the government, the government, I don't know if it even takes a formal position. But I do talk to an awful lot of Israelis across the board. And I think they would, if they were here, and if I can speak for so many people who would actually agree with me, they'd say, yes, we want Saddam Regim taken out, yes, we're prepared to take the risk, But no, we're not prepared to take a risk, that is, that has not been reduced to its barest minimum. And it's not difficult to see that all these means of civil defense are available. That is as important a responsibility of the United States as it is of Israel, because after all, Israel will be the first one attacked.

Well, Israel has been fighting terrorism for 50 years, and, uh, you clearly have learned a long time ago, there is no good terrorist. It's been amazing, the thought that your country has put into this effort. And we're learning a great deal from you. The chairman did want some questions about Saudi Arabia, it's never come up in any dialogue. I don't think you brought it up, and I'm curious why it hasn't kind of shown.

God, I thought I was talking about Saudi Arabia all the time, Mr. Chase. I think that, uh... I think that, uh, Saudi Arabia is, uh, is one of those cases of a regime that, uh, at once has fueled terrorism, and at the same time, has espoused a relationship with the United States. It is fuel terrorism by funding terrorists, including Al Qaeda, received a lot of Saudi money in the early '90s, but it is now fueling Palestinian terrorism by offering a graduated, uh, remuneration system for suicide bombers.

Saudis pay the families. That's as big a stimulus as you can, a bigger incentive for the suicide bomber. In fact, the distance center was that the family is actually worse off. And if you add to that, a stimulus that an incentive that the family benefits from Saudi money are actually stimulating terrorism. So the Saudi Arabia has been doing that, and it's also been, unfortunately, fomenting inside Saudi Arabia and outside Saudi Arabia, the Oahabist Creed that is, I think, a particularly insidious form of militant Islam.

And at the same time, Saudi Arabia, at least on the diplomatic level, claims to be a friend of the United States. I think the way to handle that is to say to the Saudi is something that President Bush had outlined in one of his speeches. He said, All nations will have to choose. You're either with us or against us in this battle. And I think the Saudis should be held accountable to that.

I think they should be pressed as forcefully as possible, to cease and desist those things that promote militancy and terror. And I think you should hold them to it. Is it your view that the Hamas and the Hezbollah on occasion work together? That Hamas and the Khizbala? Absolutely.

They cooperate. We know they're cooperated. Funded primarily by the Iranians and Syrians. Funded by Iran, the Hezbollahs, operating with the compliance of Syria and Syrian controlled soil in Lebanon. Syria also enables Iran.

to land planes in Damascus Airport, stockpiled with rockets, aimed at our cities, and other weaponry, to go through Syrian territory, and Syrian controlled territory in Lebanon, to reach the Khizbala. So Khizbala is a perfect example of the Terror network. You have two terrorist regimes, cooperating with one another, fielding a third a terror organization that has links to about, oh, about a dozen direct links to about a dozen of the two dozen terror organizations, direct links. So everybody's connected. They're connected in these concentric circles.

If you could start this out for me, though, this is... And I was trying to elude to it at the end when my time was really running out. I thought not to put a nice word next to horrific people, but I gave the Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden credit for doing something that hasn't happened in the past, and that is basically to unite a world organization of terrorism, school that the university in Afghanistan. But whether they were from Indonesia, Malaysia, they'd train in Casobo, the chain and training, Chesnia, they'd come back. And what I'm struck with is that it strikes me that there really is no good terrorists, they interact, that if a nation like Iraq is, for instance, having a bunidal as a resident protected, that that is a very strong case for the fact that this is, in fact, a terrorist nation interacting with the rest of the world, in this fight against the West.

And I guess what I'm, I would like you to tell me why we can't hold accountable, the people that Saddam Hussein's houses, and allows to live in his country, and why we can't make the very strong claim that he is a part of Al Qaeda and the whole organization. process. Well, he is, he provides safe haven to Abu Nidal and others who practice terrorism, and without the safe haven, there is no terrorism. Syria does the same, by the way. There are more than a dozen terrorist groups that have official addresses in Damascus.

So it's the same system. And I think that, obviously, right now, he's very careful. He would be very careful right now. He's under the gun, he understands that his days appear to be numbered, so he'll make all the noises, and he'll make all the gestures to say that he's abandoning it, that he's finished with it, and so on. All the while, trying in his basement, the basement of his 50 palaces to develop the bomb.

If he gets away with that, then he will treat you, and us, and everyone very differently. By the way, I should say that within the constituent parts of the Terror Network, both the regimes and the organizations, there is cooperation and harmony, but there's also competition. Everybody wants to be king of the militant Islamic heap. They all want to be on the top. They all want to be the new Saladins, or the new Nassirs, and Osama bin Laden wanted to be the ultimate, the ultimate, grand maestro of terrorism.

So, you know, he was, and I must say that he had capabilities, unfortunately, or has talents that put him close to the top. They all want to be the linchpins. They all want to be the crucial one that connects, unites, and commands all the rest. But effectively, what they do is cooperate with one another. And unless you dismantle this system and its entirety, if you leave any part of it intact, it'll grow.

It'll grow back. It's like, it's like a malignant growth. You have to get rid of the system. And I think we're getting close to getting rid of the system. Before we adjourn, is there anything else you want put on this congressional record?

I want to, uh, thank you, uh, and, uh, Mr. Shays, and thank Congressman Burton, and thank, uh, first of all, thank, uh, Congressman Landis for his, uh, the degree of his patience, uh, and also for all of your discerning comments. I think that, uh, I think that today, uh, was another expression of the strength of this country, and the strength of democracy. Nations, democracies don't go to war easily, and they usually debate and argue before they do. Sometimes they have to be bombed into going to war.

In fact, that's what happened in World War II. All of Europe had been conquered. You had to, America was actually bombed in Pearl Harbor and was, and that was a pivotal event that opened the eyes of Americans. And once their eyes were open, they gathered the power that is available in this great free nation, and the result was preordained. I think in a similar way, the bombing of September 11th opened the eyes of Americans to see the great conflict and the great danger that faces us, and once opened, then the overpowering will of the majority of the people of the United States, or the steamroller, is inexorably moving to decide this battle.

I think this is, I think this was called by Congressman Lantos, a hinge of history, and it is exactly that. It is a hinge of history. And one year later, I can come here and say that history is moving in the right direction, that had America not woken up, and America not mobilized its action, had it not, if it had not had the courageous leadership of President Bush, then I wouldn't be able to say that I'm confident today. But I am saying that I believe that the war on terror is going in the right direction, and that I'm confident that if we pursue this direction, then we will achieve victory. And victory is victory for America, and victory for Britain, victory, for all the democracies, however vacillating and however reluctant their governments are.

This is a victory for all free societies. And I'm sure it will be achieved. Thank you.. I would just conclude by saying, it's gonna be a very interesting debate, because even in my district, the phone calls against preemptive action is basically 40 to 1 against it. So it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

And just on a lighter note. You mentioned television, and one of your colleagues, Foreign Minister Perez, said, television makes dictators impossible. And then he went on to say, It makes democracy intolerable. I'd agree with that part. of Mr.

Paris's name. Have a good day. Thank. you. Thank you very much.

This year, Mr. Charity. Thank you. How do you spell paranoid? This Sunday on C Span's book notes, University of Kentucky Professor Emeritus Arnold Ludwig on the King of the Mountain, the nature of political leadership.

---

Last Updated: 2026-09-27