Here is part of Bradbury's press release:
A preemptive, go-it-alone approach risks short-circuiting diplomacy and would undermine the very support needed to win the war on terrorism. It would also jeopardize the diplomatic and financial support of our allies--who were critical to our success in the first Gulf War, and are necessary for success in the future.
General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe recently noted, a premature, go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida." Preemptive, unilateral military action could galvanize a new generation of suicide bombers that would threaten the United States and our allies. Further, a preemptive, unilateral invasion of Iraq, without UN support, would set an exceptionally dangerous precedent for the conduct of international affairs in the 21st Century. Any nation could justify attacking its neighbors. India may be emboldened to preemptively strike Pakistan. Mainland China may see a green-light to conquer Taiwan. We should only pursue war after all diplomatic and other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted. In the event that Iraq refuses tough inspections, a broader military campaign may ultimately prove necessary. And I believe without a doubt that Congress would act swiftly to authorize force in such circumstances. But we should undertake war only as a last resort, not a first option.This does not mean giving the U.N. a veto over U.S. actions. It simply means that Saddam is a world problem and should be addressed in the world arena. Congress and the American people deserve to know the real costs and risks of war with Iraq. Oregonians deserve to know what this war will mean in terms of blood and treasure before we put our sons and daughters in harm's way.