Reply #10: Oops [View All]

[quaker bill]

HEARING OF THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE;
10:37 A.M. EDT TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1999
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1999_h/990928-iraq-sfrc.htm

SEN. KERRY: Sure.

Well, I thank the chair. And I thank you again.

I just have -- as a parting comment -- I mean, the strategic exigencies that brought us to understand that it was unacceptable to have the invasion of Kuwait, which was cloaked in a certain amount of rhetoric, was far more oriented towards longer-term implications of the potential of his moving further south -- oilfields, economy. As Jim Baker said back then, "This is about jobs." And then they found other rhetoric to couch it in. But that was a code word for those oil fields and, I think, the longer-term strategic implications of the Middle East. Now, that was sufficient to bring all of us to believe, though timing was questioned, that we had to be prepared to use force, and we ultimately did.

It seems to me that a Saddam Hussein who has the ability to develop potentially more threatening weapons of mass destruction -- and notwithstanding -- I mean, it was the show of force and the determination of the United States that really took away from him that option, previously. If the determination is not there, then the use that he put it to previously, in other circumstances, could become far more attractive again in the future, which I think is the bottom line of what you are saying.

So I think we're -- and I thank the chair for having this hearing. I mean, I think we're talking about a very significant, large strategic interest of the United States that for various reasons has been second-tiered to sometimes more emotional and certainly of-the-moment perceptions of other issues that don't rise to the same strategic, longer-term interests of our country. So I think it's important for us to be thinking about where we go, because I've said, and I think you and others have said, there's an ultimate time -- as long as he's there, and it may well be that the Iraqi people will settle that. But as long as he is there, I think most people understand that that threat remains and it's real. So -- and there's a time of confrontation. So I think we're better to do it sooner rather than later and to be real about our resolve.

<<AND ANOTHER>>

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1996/somnibil.htm

Mr. KERRY.
Certainly one is not vulnerable to the charge of failing to prepare for a ballistic missile threat by supporting the Pentagon's and administration's request for $2.9 billion for their BMD effort. Indeed, I strongly support the vigorous research and development effort to enhance our technical capabilities to spot, track, intercept, and destroy intercontinental ballistic missiles and their warheads, and I have been a consistent supporter of programs to develop and field theater ballistic missiles .