Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, to the occasional charge of ``hand-wringing'' and ``weakness'' leveled at the many of us who are voting today against this resolution, perhaps the same could be said of this statement: ``Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq . . . would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. . . . Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.'' But this statement comes from American patriots, our first President Bush and his National Security Adviser General Scowcroft, in explaining why they rejected the approach some urge today.

As most Democrats today vote against launching a ground invasion of Iraq, we must candidly recognize that some of the most insightful arguments supporting our position were advanced by Republicans and military leaders like Scowcroft, Schwarzkopf, and Zinni.

Party affiliations will not be chiseled on the gravestones of young Americans who die to win this war, nor on those of the American families jeopardized by diverting precious resources from the real war on terrorism, nor those harmed by new terrorists provoked by what too many will view as a new crusade against Islam.

Why in the face of overwhelming support do so many of us vote ``no'' today? We respond not just to those we represent but, most of all, because individually we must answer to the face we see each day in the mirror. We must answer to history. We must answer to our children and our grandchildren.

When more than one of every four members of this House cast our vote against this ill-considered resolution, we vote not against President Bush, who deserves our support and respect, but aware of the conflicting advice he is still receiving we say: listen to the voices of your better nature. The prudent remains--first, attempt holding Iraq accountable through effective, comprehensive international inspections.