test_pdf.pdf

SENA
ENATOR
JOSEPH
BIDEN
not it was used properly or misused.
I will say only one other thing. I have been around long enough to know that in very important issues of
consequence to our security, our economy, our nation’s well-being and health, that it is best to build a record. And
during the entire run up to the war in Iraq—and I actually put it together so the press would not have any doubt
about it—I put together a compilation of all the things I said about what I believed or did not believe about the
information we were being given by the intelligence community relative to the nature and the immediacy of the
threat, and the capacity.
I never believed and so stated contemporaneously back as far as July of last year, that they had any ability to
have reconstituted their nuclear capability. I never believed there was any evidence of them having weaponized the
stockpiles—which I did believe, because the UN had indicated it—that they still had, in their possession. And I
never believed that there was any reason for this being moved by the vice president and others for any other reason
than to create the sense of urgency that did not exist. There was no imminence to the threat if there was not the
probability that he was reconstituting—or close to reconstituting—nuclear capability or he had weaponized his
anthrax, VX, and other stockpiles. I did believe he had stockpiles. Whether he had weaponized those in a way that
he could, in fact, disseminate those materials in a way to kill tens, hundreds, thousands, or as indicated by the
administration, millions of people—I never believed any of that and I still do not believe that.
Will we get to the bottom of this? The answer is not before this next election is over. Even the 9/11 commission,
headed by a very well respected former Republican governor, has been stonewalled in terms of access to information
on this score. My guess is you will see between now and November of this year, the CIA and in particular the
director, take the full brunt of this. The president and the cabinet will be hopeful that that will satisfy everyone—
that a dead dog has been delivered to the door, and that we have found the culpable party and we will move on. But
I believe that there must be, even if it has to wait until after the next election, there must be for our own safety’s sake
in the future a thorough, serious investigation of this matter.
You all remember—and in the interest of time I will not take you through it —that famous exchange when
John F. Kennedy sent the Secretary of State over to meet with Charles DeGaulle during the Cuban missile crisis. I
will paraphrase in the interest of time. [The secretary] said, by the way, Mr. President, the president of the United
States has authorized me to show you all this evidence. [DeGaulle replied,]I do not need to know, I do not need to
see it. I trust the president of the United States. He would not make this assertion without it being absolutely true.
The single goal I have for a Republican or Democratic president next time around, is to reassert our credibility
to the degree that a foreign leader would be willing to say that to an envoy of whomever the next president is.
(Applause.)
It is in our national interest that that be the case. And I do not think you would find a single world leader,
including Tony Blair, who would buy it without proof. Very damaging, very damaging to our war on terror.
Yes, sir?
Q: Senator, Hermann Hagena, retired German Air Force. I am now working for European security, the
military mostly. First let me express my appreciation for the concern you have shown for the sensitivity of your
friends and allies in Europe in questions of arms control. I really appreciate it. You brought up the possibility of a
space race, a military space race between China and the United States—a subject that I am dealing with too. My
question is: China maintains that both Russia and China have for at least 10 years tried to reach agreement in
Geneva, at the [Conference on Disarmament], about extension of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, interpreting this
treaty in such a way, officially, that it would prohibit deployment of any weapon, not just nuclear, but also conventional
weapons in space. At the time the treaty was concluded it was not considered likely or possible to deploy
conventional weapons, but the preamble says outer space should be for the benefit of all mankind.
How likely do you think it is that a future U.S. government would change the attitude towards a new
interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty? Thank you.
MR. BIDEN: I really am on thin ice here. I would argue that it warrants more than reinterpretation. I would
argue that only through U.S. leadership should we be able to negotiate a clearly articulated position relative to the
weaponization of outer space. Now I suspect the reason why neither China nor Russia has been able to reach
agreement on this, is that you have, not an official policy, but you have clearly articulated positions coming out of
this administration that suggests we should weaponize space. For peaceful purposes (audio break, tape change)…
but there is open discussion, hardly anything is being discussed about arms control or arms buildup now because
of the overwhelming predominance of the issues relating to terrorism, the war in Iraq, and the war in Afghanistan.
47
47