Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.
And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.


KARL: Good evening, Aaron. Well, the president's speech drew predictable praise from Republicans, who are almost to a person up here on Capitol Hill lining up in support of the president's policy on Iraq. It also drew some praise from the growing ranks of democrats who are supportive of the White House Iraq policy.
But then there are the democratic critics, and they are a relatively small but a very powerful lot. And the democratic critic up here who has emerged as the staunchest critic of the president's Iraq policy is Robert Byrd. He spoke right after the president's speech on "LARRY KING LIVE" and said he was not impressed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BYRD: There was nothing new, nothing that we haven't known for a month, six months, or a year. I kept waiting. He continues to demonize Saddam Hussein. I agree with all of that. Nothing new in that.

BYRD: There was nothing new, nothing that we haven't known for a month, six months, or a year. I kept waiting. He continues to demonize Saddam Hussein. I agree with all of that. Nothing new in that.

BYRD: There was nothing new, nothing that we haven't known for a month, six months, or a year. I kept waiting. He continues to demonize Saddam Hussein. I agree with all of that. Nothing new in that.

BYRD: There was nothing new, nothing that we haven't known for a month, six months, or a year. I kept waiting. He continues to demonize Saddam Hussein. I agree with all of that. Nothing new in that.

BYRD: There was nothing new, nothing that we haven't known for a month, six months, or a year. I kept waiting. He continues to demonize Saddam Hussein. I agree with all of that. Nothing new in that.

But what he does in doing that is he obscures the fact that the United States Senate is being asked to vote on a resolution which puts the stamp of approval on the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attacks and preventive war. I think that's wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Among the most interesting words I read today came from someone else who might like the nomination in 2004, Senator Edwards, who is supportive of the president but.

KARL: Yes, this was interesting. Senator Edwards of North Carolina, clearly somebody thinking about running for president, has been one of those people that have come out and said that he will clearly support the president on this resolution. But in a speech today that was billed as a major policy speech, Edwards seemed to be almost in a debate with himself, because while he was supporting the president on this resolution he was also criticizing the president for going it alone. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Instead of demonstrating purpose without arrogance, as the president promised in his inaugural address, the administration's policy projects exactly the opposite: arrogance without purpose. We seem determined to act alone for the sake of acting alone.

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Instead of demonstrating purpose without arrogance, as the president promised in his inaugural address, the administration's policy projects exactly the opposite: arrogance without purpose. We seem determined to act alone for the sake of acting alone.

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Instead of demonstrating purpose without arrogance, as the president promised in his inaugural address, the administration's policy projects exactly the opposite: arrogance without purpose. We seem determined to act alone for the sake of acting alone.

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Instead of demonstrating purpose without arrogance, as the president promised in his inaugural address, the administration's policy projects exactly the opposite: arrogance without purpose. We seem determined to act alone for the sake of acting alone.

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Instead of demonstrating purpose without arrogance, as the president promised in his inaugural address, the administration's policy projects exactly the opposite: arrogance without purpose. We seem determined to act alone for the sake of acting alone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)