Con to the question "Should the US Have Attacked Iraq?"
"But tonight I have to vote no on this resolution [authorizing the use of force against Iraq]. The reason is that this resolution is too timid. It is too limited. It is too weak. This resolution fails to recognize the new reality of the era of terrorism. And that reality is that war abroad will, without assertive security action, increase the prospects of terrorist attacks here at home. In fact, war on Iraq alone leaves Americans more vulnerable to the threat that is facing us today...
The United States has many challenges, threats and priorities to respond to, particularly in the region of the Middle East and Central Asia. The Israel-Palestinian conflict, India-Pakistan, the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction. Even if we say the number one issue should be containing weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, I frankly do not believe that Iraq should be our first concern."
Speech on the Senate Floor, "Graham's Opposition ot the Resolution to Wage War," St. Petersburg Times, Oct. 20, 2002
Experts PhD's, JD's (lawyers), Judges, Members of Congress, Ambassadors, Consulate Generals, heads of government, Cabinet-level positions, military generals/admirals, Chief Weapons Inspectors, members of legislative bodies with significant involvement in, or related to, the US - Iraq conflict. [Note: Experts definition varies by site.]
Involvement and Affiliations:
US Senator (D-FL), 1987-2005
Candidate for the Democratic nomination for President, 2004
Member, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 2001-2003