Biden’s Speech Prior to Vote
Three days later, just prior to the vote to authorize military force, Biden gave a lengthy speech from the floor of the Senate and explained why he would vote for the resolution (beginning on S10290).
Biden said he viewed the resolution not as a “rush to war,” as some of his Democratic colleagues alleged, but rather a “march to peace and security.”
“I believe passage of this, with strong support, is very likely to enhance the prospects that the secretary of state will get a strong resolution out of the [United Nations] Security Council,” Biden said.
Biden added that the resolution would increase the probability the U.N. would get inspectors into Iraq to do meaningful investigations of its weapons program.
“I will vote for this because we should be compelling Iraq to make good on its obligations to the United Nations,” Biden said. “Because while Iraq’s illegal weapons of mass destruction program do not — do not — pose an imminent threat to our national security, in my view, they will, if left unfettered. And because a strong vote in Congress, as I said, increases the prospect for a tough, new U.N. resolution on weapons of mass destruction, it is likely to get weapons inspectors in, which, in turn, decreases the prospects of war, in my view.”
Biden seized on this statement in Bush’s address to the nation: “Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.”
Biden praised Bush for choosing, up to that point, “a course of moderation and deliberation” and noted that Bush promised that any military action would be “with allies at our side.” Biden said the resolution emphasized “the importance of international support, manifested through the United Nations Security Council.”
Though Biden pushed forcefully for a wider international response, he was not opposed to military action, if necessary.
“Ultimately, either those weapons must be dislodged from Iraq, or Saddam must be dislodged from power,” Biden said.
It’s true, as Biden has said recently, that he saw the resolution as a means to compel Iraq to allow weapons inspectors back in.
- Biden, Oct. 10, 2002: Concerning Iraq, our first step should be the one the president apparently has chosen: to get the weapons inspectors back into Iraq. … I agree with President Bush that given a new mandate and the authority to go any place, any time, with no advance warning, U.N. inspections can work. They can succeed in discovering and destroying much of Saddam’s chemical and biological arsenals and his missile program. They can delay and derail his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and, at the very least, they will give us a clearer picture of what Saddam has, force him to focus on hiding his weapons and not building more, and it will buy us time to build a strong coalition to act if he refuses to disarm.
Biden argued the resolution “would finally force Saddam to face the choice between inspectors and invaders … and there is at least a chance that he might make the right choice.”
Biden also warned that the cost of a war would be much higher than most Americans believed, and that reconstruction of Iraq would be difficult, costly and likely take a decade — comments that seem prescient given how events unfolded. But again, Biden said he was not opposed to military action if diplomacy failed.
“There is also a chance Saddam will once again miscalculate, that he will misjudge our resolve, and in that event we must be prepared to use force with others if we can, and alone if we must,” Biden said.
The resolution passed the House 296-133 on Oct. 10, 2002. It passed the Senate the following day 77-33.