I say at this point, for different reasons, Bush and Hussein are both very threatening to world peace and to deny that is to be incredibly naive.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Hussein has a strategy. I'm sure he'll implement that strategy, and it would be to our detriment. We're embarking on an exercise about which we know nothing.
The idea of reasoning with terrorists without force or with appeasement is naive, and I think it's dangerous.
It was known in the mid 90s already that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous tyrant that he had already launched aggressions against Iran, he had invaded Kuwait.
The Hussein regime's support for terrorism, within and outside of its borders, its appetite for the world's most dangerous weapons, and its openly declared hostility to the United States were a combination that was a gathering and growing danger to our country.
We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
I think the attempt to draw a comparison between Iran and Syria is false, misleading and dangerous.
And now when we hear that Iran and Iraq plan to cooperate more closely and that a fundamentalist is coming to power in Tehran - a man about whom we cannot be sure that he is absolutely averse to terrorism - it is very worrisome.
We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.
Peace in the Middle East isn't going to be created by another war or violent act on the other side.
The Iraqis are not threatened by the Turks or by the Iranians or by the Saudis and they tell me that these are not weapons of mass destruction, they are weapons of self-destruction.