-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, my friend the Republican whip says that we have a ``clear and present danger'' in Iran. Well, we are in the fifth day of this war, and so far, we have five different explanations from the White House as to why we invaded Iran.

Iran is triggering turmoil and chaos in the Middle East, that is for sure, but when you listen to these explanations of why we are willing to risk American lives, you wonder if the White House has clearly made up their mind about a strategy.

Listen to them, starting with the State of the Union Address and the President saying we have to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. There is a bipartisan consensus for that position, but it is hard for this President to explain why, in his first term, he eliminated the international inspectors in Iran who were making sure that they didn't develop a nuclear weapon. Those inspectors were eliminated by President Trump in his first term.

The second explanation of why we are at war in Iran was their development of ballistic missiles. Yet we know that this is reminiscent of the excuse given for the invasion of Iraq years ago. Remember the allegation that there were weapons of mass destruction which could harm our allies, even the United States? Ballistic missiles in Iran are not capable of reaching the United States. Using that as an excuse as a ``clear and present danger'' is hard to rationalize.

The third explanation of the five we have had so far from the White House is regime change. Regime change. Well, certainly, the Iranian people deserve a regime change, but are we willing to back them up? If they go in the streets and are being massacred and slaughtered like the previous administration in Iran was responsible for, what will we do? Send troops to the streets of Tehran? That has never been explained by this administration.

The fourth explanation for our invasion of Iran given by the White House in this early stage is that the Israelis were going to do it anyway and we probably would be dragged into the conflict. Really? So Israel is dictating America's foreign policy?

The fifth explanation that I heard on the radio this morning from the President last night: A nuclear war was about to be launched by Iran. Really? With what missiles? What capacity? What weapons? This is a theory that is not backed up by any type of fact.

Here is the reality. Five days into this war, we have had five different explanations of why we are in this war.

Let me tell you my experience, having been here on the vote to go to war in Iraq. It is far easier to get into a war than it is to get out of a war. I remember that vote, and I remember that night here, standing in the well of this body, when I was 1 of 23 Senators--1 Republican and 22 Democrats--who voted against the invasion of Iraq. We knew at the time that there was a possibility that a larger war would emerge rather than just a simple invasion, and it did. For 9 years, we fought on, American soldiers valiantly doing their duty and many of them losing their lives in the process. It is far easier to get into a war than it is to get out of one.

This scattershot explanation of why we are going into Iran does not give me confidence that this administration has a clear strategy, but it does confirm my fear that we have an impulsive Commander in Chief-- impulsive. Remember when he said he needed to have Greenland as part of the United States and he was willing to defy not only Denmark, a traditional ally of our country, but also the NATO alliance to do it? Our Commander in Chief in Greenland? Even worse, declaring that the nation of Canada should somehow become the 51st State of the United States. For goodness' sake, for decades, Presidents of both parties have been able to count on the friendship, support, and alliance of Canada. Now, they are in a position where they question whether the United States can be trusted to deal with. That has been achieved by this impulsive Commander in Chief.

And, of course, NATO. For 75 years, the strongest alliance on Earth, maybe in history, has kept us out of a third world war. What does this President, this impulsive Commander in Chief, do? He threatens the very basis of NATO and whether the United States has a future in it. I can't believe he did this. There are so many countries depending on the NATO alliance, and this impulsive President went to challenge them head-on and really destroyed the confidence which we have had with so many of these allies for so many years.

That is the reality of the Commander in Chief as we launched this war in Iran, and I worry about it--five different explanations in 5 days as to why we are there.

Before we ask the men and women of America, the families of America, to put their sons and daughters at risk in a war, shouldn't we have a fulsome debate here on the floor of the Senate? That is what the Republicans fear: a real debate on why this war is being launched. And that is why we have to remind them to pick up their copy of the Constitution and look at article I, section 8. It is only three words, but it is pretty clear--the powers of Congress: ``To declare War.'' ``To declare War.''

Many of my Republican colleagues would like to ignore that phrase and say it means nothing. They are prepared to say that we will not have a debate when it comes to this invasion of Iran. That is a mistake. It is a serious mistake. We learned that in Iraq. And credit President Bush at the time for at least allowing us to engage in that debate before there was an active invasion. This President has not. He launched a war, and now, he is saying to Congress: Step out of the way. You have no role in this.

Ultimately, the Constitution says the American people have a role through their elected representatives in the Senate and in the House.

I urge my colleagues to support Tim Kaine's effort today to establish again what this Constitution clearly says: The power to declare war is ours. If we give it up, then we are turning our back on the Constitution and our responsibility to the American people.

Vote on Motion to Proceed
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source