There were arguments that intervention in Libya was not in the U.S. national security interest

[ProSense]

15. Have you

"Libya is a fucking mess."

...ever seen a country that wasn't after months of civil war? That wasn't my point. I was speaking specifically about U.S. military action.

Let's take the case of Saddam. Clinton took out his chemical weapons infrastructure. He had no capability to gas his own people again.

It was the lie about him acquiring WMD that Bush used to push the Iraq war. Members of Congress, whether they voted for the IWR or not, thought that such weapons in the hands of Saddam would be dangerous.

Feingold:

<...>

My colleagues, my focus today is on the wisdom of this specific resolution, vis-a-vis Iraq, as opposed to discussing the notion of an expanded doctrine of preemption, which the President has articulated on several occasions. However, I associate myself with the concerns eloquently raised by Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd and others that this could well represent a disturbing change in our overall foreign and military policy. This includes grave concerns about what such a preemption-plus policy will do to our relationship with our allies, to our national security, and to the cause of world peace in so many regions of the world where such a doctrine could trigger very dangerous actions with very minimal justification.

I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree, post-9/11, we face, as the President said, a long and difficult fight against terrorism. We must be very patient and very vigilant, and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices.

With regard to Iraq, I agree, Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations.

Yes, I agree; if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time. I agree, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. I agree, a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy.

I also believe and agree, as important and as preferable as U.N. action and multilateral solutions to this problem are, we cannot give the United Nations the ability to veto our ability to counter this threat to our people. We retain and will always retain the right of self-defense, including self-defense against weapons of mass destruction. When such a threat requiring self-defense would present itself--and I am skeptical that is exactly what we are dealing with here--then we could, if necessary, act alone, including militarily.

These are all areas where I agree with the administration. However, I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I am not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a dramatic action, but when the administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the administration's motives in insisting on action at this time.

- more-

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/Z?r107:S09OC2-0011: