[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 133 (Wednesday, September 21, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 21, 1994]



                           CLINTON QUO VADIS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] for 60 minutes.
  Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] on his special order and say that I 
think he has done an outstanding job in trying to keep before the 
public a story that torments most of the dominant media culture. They 
turn it on, they turn it off, they turn it on. Then they build up, and 
they create comebacks. But somehow or other we are going to get to the 
truth on this.
  I know you were on the floor, Mr. Burton. I was not. I had my staff 
tape the remarks of Mr. Mel Hancock who preceded you. If there were a 
category in this country called `Is There No Shame, Is There No Respect 
for Any Institution,' the hands down winner would be the Los Angeles 
school district where my younger brother Richard, of whom I am 
exceedingly and justifiably proud, teaches. That they would turn loose 
forces in that school system to try and make the shabby, unforgivable 
case that President Abraham Lincoln, considered by both parties to 
probably be our greatest President, is somehow or another a homosexual, 
an activist one to boot, is just beyond description. And the fact that 
we could not get into that debate on the House floor yesterday is a 
tragedy. But I am hoping that you and I, who have trekked through parts 
of Central America during the conflict against communism there, where 
the Reagan doctrine prevailed and our side won, can travel to Haiti to 
show our young men and women down there, marines, rangers, commandos, 
Coast Guard, our 10th Army Division, Bob Dole's division, that we 
support them, but that we know that it is not the right mission. It is 
not right to raise young Americans to be decent human beings, 
understanding fully civil rights and how we denied it, for most of our 
history, to Americans of African descent, to understand human rights, 
understand that human life is sacred, and then ask them to stand there 
mute with loaded weapons on safety while limping and teen-age boys are 
beaten to death. It is more than we should ask of any fighting man.

  There was one quote that struck me by all of our fine young GI's who 
are daring to talk to the press. And I can imagine the White House 
sending orders through General Shalikashvili telling our young men and 
women in uniform, ``Don't talk to the press.'' But their remarks were 
pretty cogent yesterday, and the one quote that stuck in my mind was: 
``I thought we came down here to help people. What are we doing here?''
  Another quote was from a young man who said: ``I feel like dumping my 
gear, footing it to the Santo Domingo border and getting out of here.''
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield just 
real briefly?
  Mr. DORNAN. I have an hour.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that is 
distressing to me: First of all, I think the vast majority of the 
Members of both the House and the Senate and the American people did 
not want us to go into Haiti in the first place.

                              {time}  1810

  But now that we are there, one of the things that troubles me, and we 
should be supporting our troops now that they are there, I did not want 
them in, you did not want them in, but now that they are there, we 
should be supporting them because they are our troops. But one of the 
things that concerns me is there have been no apparent rules of 
engagement delineated or given to the troops on the ground. They 
really, as far as I can tell, do not know how to deal with these 
situations, and there are no plans to do it.
  Now, the White House and the Pentagon, it seems to me, before we 
landed one soldier, one marine, or anybody else on those beaches down 
there in Haiti, should have given a set of rules and guidelines for 
dealing with the people of Haiti and how to deal with situations like 
those which took place yesterday. It is apparent that that did not take 
place.
  So if there is one thing I would like to say to the Pentagon, if 
anybody were to be paying attention to this special order, along with 
you and my colleagues, is that let us very clearly, very quickly, set 
up the results of engagement, how we are going to conduct ourselves 
down there, so that the troops and the American people know what the 
guidelines are. Because right now they do not, and I know Members of 
Congress do not as well.

  Mr. DORNAN. I came within a whisker of going with you, taking you 
with me to Somalia. The only reason you did not get over there was 
because we drew a line in the sand and with a date certain and we were 
out of there. But one of the other young soldiers in Haiti, a veteran 
of Somalia, I could not tell from his equipment whether he was a marine 
or with the 10th Mountain Division, was asked by a member of the press, 
who was also a veteran of Somalia, if it reminded him of Somalia. 
Remember Somalia? It began on September 9, 1992, with press lights on 
the beach, while marines landed. Clinton was President-elect. Aideed 
ordered his gangs to welcome the Americans. I remember seeing the 
signs, ``U.S., yes. UN, no.'' There was dancing in the street, kind of 
like the British troops coming into Northern Ireland. Dancing in the 
streets. And within weeks, it had turned sour, and by the time we left, 
there were broken hearts. Mothers, fathers, wives, little children, all 
over this country had lost loved ones. And here is what I heard a 
marine or 10th Mountain soldier, GI, say the night before last. This 
young, very intelligent looking and sounding young man turned around 
and said, same people, same buildings, and it is the same press.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman would yield for just a 
minute, there is a parallel. When we went into Somalia, there was a 
request made to the Secretary of Defense to send Bradley armored 
fighting vehicles and M1-A1 tanks to make sure if anything came up 
unexpectedly we could get to our troops quickly. There was not a well-
thought-out plan, and the Secretary of Defense, then former 
Representative Aspin, denied our commander on the ground those weapons, 
the M1-A1 tanks and the Bradley fighting vehicles. Then a helicopter 
was shot down by a surface-to-air missile or ground fire, and we had 17 
marines, I believe, killed, and Americans saw one of them being dragged 
through the streets over there, naked, his dead body. And it took us, I 
think, 12 hours to go across Mogadishu simply because there was no 
well-thought-out plan and we did not have the Bradley fighting vehicles 
and the tanks requested by the ground commander.
  Now, we see in Haiti a situation where there is no well-thought-out 
plan of engagement, and it worries me that we might involve ourselves 
in a similar situation, not today, but maybe in 2 or 3 or 4 weeks or a 
couple of months, because they are going to be there for a while.

  That is why I say to my colleague, who is a fighter pilot, who 
understands the military better than I, I was a private in the 
military, that the Pentagon and this White House had better get on the 
ball pretty quickly and come up with a plan that is doable and have 
rules of engagement that every one of those men and women on the ground 
understand and make sure they are properly equipped. Otherwise, we are 
liable to have a similar situation like we had in Somalia.
  Mr. DORNAN. Stay with me just one moment, because I want to pass on 
to you, and through the Speaker to the American people, the following 
facts: First of all, I came to Congress in the bicentennial election in 
1976, with Jimmy Carter of Georgia. He called me three times at home to 
press me for votes. I gave him one; I did not give him two. I thought 
we had enough cabinet offices.
  He was a decent man. I always thought when he said he was a 
Christian, that he meant it. He taught Sunday school. But decent as he 
was he did not have a successful Presidency on foreign policy. In fact, 
it was a disaster and his undoing. The Communists were winning 
everywhere around the world under the Brezhnev doctrine. Yemen, 
Ethiopia, Nicaragua, El Salvador in doubt, Angola, Mozambique, Somalia. 
We were losing everywhere.
  Then Carter's friend Brezhnev broke his promise. The Soviets thought 
they could take Afghanistan and that we would not respond. And then 
came Jimmy Carter's gutsiest, but maybe worst, decision, to put Delta 
Force commandos, a brand new force, with marine air transport into the 
desert to rescue American hostages in Iran. The operation was called 
Desert I, it was Operation Talon, as in an eagle's talon.
  We were going to blow our way into the biggest city in one of the 
nastiest countries now in the world, Iran, and attack where our old 
embassy grounds were. As many as 52 Americans were held hostage, 
including some marine guards. And the experts felt, when Carter gave 
the go ahead, that we would probably lose half the hostages, 26 dead. 
We also might lose, they told President Carter, half of the rescue 
force. But rather than see 52 Americans slaughtered, which was still an 
issue then, he was willing to take those risks.

  And because our military was hollowed out, and for the want of one, 
single, big H-53 Sea Stallion, the mission had to be scrubbed. And then 
in the disillusionment and the anger of the men leaving, one big Sea 
Stallion turns too sharply. Its big rotor blades whip into the back of 
a Marine C-130, and we had 8 dead bodies left to be desecrated by the 
Iranians, taking the rings off the burned bodies and everything else. 
It was a mess for President Carter, and I did not attack him too 
severely on the House floor.
  But I want to say something right now, that I believe with all my 
heart, there are mothers and fathers in this country, and young brides, 
and little children that would be half orphan today, if Jimmy Carter 
had not done what he did with Colin Powell and our distinguished 
colleague from the other body, Sam Nunn.
  If they had not worked out this agreement, and the Clinton invasion 
had taken place, there would be an unknown number of parents grieving 
their sons today, an unknown number of widows. There would have been 
letters like one I am going to read in a few moments from one of the 
wives of a Medal of Honor winner.
  We owe Carter that debt. But here is something to think about. 
President Carter, Colin Powell, and our colleague Sam Nunn, could just 
as easily be in caskets in Dover at the morgue today if Cedras, who I 
will not defend, was as diabolical, cruel, and evil as Clinton painted 
him out to be 6 nights ago, and started a firefight in that room. We 
did not have the security, the guns, to prevail. One of our guys might 
have taken Cedras down. But it would have been the end for Powell, 
Nunn, and Carter. By Clinton starting the invasion when he did he 
risked the lives of a former U.S. President, the former Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs, and a sitting Senate chairman. And there has only been 
two Congressmen killed in the line of duty since the Civil War, and no 
Senators. Larry McDonald in KAL 007, and Leo Ryan in Guyana. Larry 
McDonald flying into Korea for the 30th anniversary of the end of the 
war.
  I had described to me today the firefight that would have resulted if 
the Haitians tried to take the three hostages, which Cedras could 
easily have done. When Gen. Philippe Biamby walked in and said, ``We 
are being invaded,'' Cedras stood up and said, ``This is a trick. You 
are tying up my whole military staff here.'' He could have said, ``And 
further than that, you are hostages now,'' and turned to our secret 
service people and the limited protection we had there from the embassy 
and said, ``Turn over your guns, you are our hostages. We are stopping 
this invasion.'' Kennedy would never have done this if he had a team in 
Havana. This is absurd, what happened Sunday. It is more like an Evelyn 
Wough novel than reality.

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I believe, let me just say, if I might, that 
is exactly the point that I was trying to make a couple minutes ago. 
The President and the administration and the person they put into 
Secretary of Defense, Mr. Aspin in Somalia, simply did not have the 
expertise or the understanding to deal with the problem.
  As a matter of fact, they did not, in Somalia, put the proper 
equipment on the ground to protect our troops. As a result, we lost a 
lot of young people unnecessarily.
  In Haiti, they launched an air movement. There were planes in the air 
while the former President, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff and Senator Nunn, chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed 
Services were negotiating. You are absolutely right. That is what is so 
troubling. Because there is no real strong understanding of how to deal 
with foreign policy. Now we have got our troops on the ground and we do 
not have rules of engagement. I would like to see our troops out of 
there and all Americans out of there as quickly as possible. It looks 
like we will be there for a while, and it will cost $2 billion or $3 
billion at least before we get them out of there. But if they are going 
to be kept there, then we must support them and we must make sure that 
the rules of engagement are very clear and that there is proper 
equipment on the ground and a proper plan to protect those troops in 
any eventuality.
  The President showed, by his actions when he launched that air 
attack, which was called back, when he launched that air attack with 
those three people negotiating, it shows his lack of understanding and, 
I think, lack of concern.
  Mr. DORNAN. There is the question of whether it was a real attack.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. We may never know that. The point is, I think 
Jimmy Carter, and I understand he told the President he was very upset 
that that took place when he got back here.
  Mr. DORNAN. He is flaming mad.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. So we as a Congress need to urge, demand that 
the White House and the Pentagon make sure that all of this is very, 
very clear, that they know what they are doing before we lose some 
lives in Haiti. I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. DORNAN. I want to again draw on this analogy of mission creep. 
But before I do I want to tell our excellent recorders, Mr. Speaker, 
that if they want a title, because they usually title our remarks in 
the record unless we give them a title, I would title this Clinton Quo 
Vadis, 4 years of high school Latin enabled me to translate whither 
goest thou. Translate that.
  Here is a Newsweek magazine article, a long article on values. They 
took key words that we feel embrace concepts missing in many young 
Americans today.
  Tom Selleck, excellent actor and a friend, was here on the Hill a few 
weeks ago telling all of us, he is an activist Republican, that he 
could do no Republican campaigns between now and the end of the year 
because he had taken on a responsibility with a bipartisan 
conservation/liberal group, to sell six words to American youth that 
liberals and conservatives could agree on.
  I will refer to one of them that Newsweek titled a section of this 
article on values a few weeks back. The word was ``responsibility.'' 
That is one of the six words. Here are the only things that liberal and 
conservative ethicists and psychiatrists and psychologists and school 
teachers apparently can agree on: caring, of course; citizenship, that 
is why we teach civics to young kids in grade school; respect, I guess 
that is the flip side of what some young people will initiate gunfights 
over, disrespect, do not diss me, do not disrespect me, respect; 
responsibility; trustworthiness, we agreed that we must teach young 
boys and girls to be trustworthy, and justice, we want to teach young 
people what justice is.
  Here is the greatest example of responsibility, and I will send it to 
Tom Selleck, tell him to use this.
  Newsweek asked the widow of one of our 19 superbly trained delta 
commandos, special forces men, and our rangers that were killed in that 
fire fight from hell on the night of October 3 and 4, in Somalia.
  Five days after Matthew Rearson was killed by a mortar in front of 
their hangar headquarters, while the rangers were being withdrawn, 
angry, because they were not allowed to justifiably avenge and punish 
the killers of their 19 comrades, the U.S.S. Harlan County arrived in 
that huge harbor at Port-au-Prince, on October 11, 5 days later.
  On the 501st anniversary of Columbus day, October 12, the Harlan 
County was ordered to turn tail and evacuate the Port-au-Prince area. I 
believe that was the opportunity for us to go in, almost a year ago, 11 
months ago, and train the police in some sort of civil decency not to 
beat women and teenagers with, as one of the GI's down there said, 
crowbars. But on that horrible first week of October, during that first 
week of October 1993, two Americans in the prime of life, young but in 
their maturity of their midthirties, a first sergeant and a master 
sergeant who had come to love one another as close as brothers, both of 
them married, both of them expert riflemen snipers, both of them giving 
cover to our men on the ground that Sunday afternoon, October 3, both 
of them begged on the radio three times back to the ranger headquarters 
at Mogadishu airport, let us land and rescue or give cover and support 
to Michael Durant's helicopter crew, to his copilot Ray Frank, two door 
gunners, Tommy Fields and David Cleveland, let us give them fire 
support on the ground until the rescue column can get there. We see 
movement in that crashed helicopter.

  Twice they were turned down. Their third plea, a long pause, two-star 
general was tracking all of this. They were his men. He said, all 
right, you can go down.
  The helicopter went down, was hit so badly with rocket fire, although 
it limped smoking with one of the men with his leg cut off by the 
rocket blast back to Newport and crashed, totaling the airplane but 
saving the crew.
  That same helicopter that came down to a few feet off the ground, 
Randy Shugart, Gary Gordon jumped off and began to run. The first 
landing they could not make. They had to back off 150 yards away. They 
began to run a gauntlet of intense rifle and automatic weapons fire and 
RPG fire, rocket-propelled grenades. They are running toward Durant's 
helicopter.
  When they got to the helicopter all four men were alive but so badly 
injured from the hard impact that not one of them could undo his own 
seatbelt and get out of the plane.
  In the helicopter, the aircraft commander sits on the right side 
because of the collective in some helicopters that only have one 
collective. So Durant was luckily on the right side, which is the side 
of the helicopter up against a building, the tail forming a slight 
wedge, a V.
  One of the men, I think Shugart, took Ray Frank, 35 combat months in 
Vietnam and within a month of retirement, lay him in the open side on 
the street, take out one of the gunners, Tommy Fields. On the right 
side, they take out Michael Durant. Thank God, he is still with his 
family today. And they take out David Cleveland, the other door gunner.

                              {time}  1830

  He is alive, smiling at Durant. Durant told me this personally. He 
laid them on the right side, the side against the wall.
  We do not know what the fate of David Cleveland was, except that his 
burned remains came back to Dover. We do not know the final moments of 
Tommy Fields or Ray Frank.
  Michael Durant, Chief Warrant Officer, did hear Shugart hit. Gordon 
gave him the last few rounds for an M-16 rifle he had given him. All 
that Gary Gordon had was his Beretta pistol. He went back around the 
front of the helicopter to hold off literally hundreds of people, on 
the slim chance that a caravan of HummVess might arrive with enough 
firepower to rescue these four badly injured crewmen.
  Then Michael Durant heard Gary Gordon moan as he was struck, as he 
had heard Shugart moan when he was struck. Then the crowd came around 
the front, overwhelmed David Cleveland, alive, and Michael Durant, 
alive, and only Durant is here to tell the story.
  Gary Gordon and Randy Shugart got the Medal of Honor. I asked that 
they be awarded that before I knew their names and knew the full story, 
because I had heard that they had begged to go down and try and rescue 
this second helicopter shot down October 3. There was a ceremony at the 
White House May 23, where the men were posthumously awarded the Medal 
of Honor given to their beautiful, young, widows.
  One of the fathers, Herb Shugart, with his wife, Lois, at his side, 
Randy's mom and dad, refused to shake Clinton's hand. He said, ``You 
had flown Aideed down to Kenya. You have treated him like a victor. You 
do not know enough about military operations. You should not be the 
Commander-in-Chief. You let my son down and you let Aideed live. Now 
these men are dead.'' Words to that effect. At the end he told him, ``I 
have nothing more to say to you''.
  This is a scene I do not want to see reenacted in the White House as 
another mother, father, or widow refuses to shake Clinton's hand 
because the mission was not clear, because there was mission creep, 
because, after a while the side we were there to support turned against 
us.
  Here is what, under the title of responsibility, Carmen Gordon, the 
wife of Sergeant Gary Gordon, wrote to her children, Ian and Brittany, 
to be read many times in their youth and their adulthood as they grow 
up. The italicized prologue says:

       In 1993, Master Sergeant Gary Gordon was killed trying to 
     rescue a fellow soldier in Mogadishu, Somalia. His widow, 
     Carmen, and their two children, Ian, 6, and Brittany, 3, live 
     in Southern Pines, North Carolina, close to the military 
     community that they love, the Special Forces community, in 
     what they call the world's greatest fort, Fort Bragg.

  Carmen writes:

       My dearest Ian and Brittany: I hope that in the final 
     moments of your father's life, his last thoughts were not of 
     us. As he lay dying, I wanted him to think only of the 
     mission to which he pledged himself. As you grow older, if I 
     can show you the love and responsibility he felt for his 
     family, you will understand my feelings. I did not want him 
     to think of me, or of you, because I did not want his heart 
     to break.
       Children were meant to have someone responsible for them. 
     No father ever took that more seriously than your dad. 
     Responsibility was a natural part of him, as easy path to 
     follow. Each day after work his truck pulled into our 
     driveway. I watched the two of you run to him, feet pounding 
     across the painted boards of our porch, yelling, ``Daddy!'' 
     Every day, I saw his face when he saw you. You were the 
     center of his life.
       Ian, when you turned 1 year old, your father was beside 
     himself with excitement, baking you a cake in the shape of a 
     train. On your last birthday Brittany, he sent you a hand-
     made birthday card from Somalia. But your father had two 
     families. One was us, and the other was his comrades. He was 
     true to both.
       He loved his job. Quiet and serious adventure filled some 
     part of him I could never fully know. After his death, one of 
     his comrades told me that on a foreign mission, your dad led 
     his men across a snow-covered ridge that began to collapse. 
     Racing across a yawning crevasse to safety, he grinned widely 
     and yelled, ``Wasn't that great?''
       You will hear many times about how your father died. You 
     will read what the president of the United States said when 
     he awarded the Medal of Honor: ``Gary Gordon * * * died in 
     the most courageous and selfless way any human being can 
     act.'' But you may still ask why. You may ask how he could 
     have been devoted to two families so equally, dying for one 
     but leaving the other.
       For your father there were no hard choices in life. Once he 
     committed to something, the way was clear. He chose to be a 
     husband and father, and never wavered in those roles. He 
     chose the military, and ``I shall not fail those with whom I 
     serve'' became his simple religion. When his other family 
     needed him, he did not hesitate, as he would not have 
     hesitated for us. It may not have been the best thing for us, 
     but it was the right thing for your dad.
       There are times now when that image of him coming home 
     comes back to me. I see him scoop you up, Ian, and see you, 
     Brittany, bury your head in his chest. I dread the day when 
     you stop talking and asking about him, when he seems so long 
     ago. So now I must take responsibility for keeping his life 
     entwined with yours. It is a responsibility I never 
     wanted.
       But I know what your father would say. ``Nothing you can do 
     about it, Carmen. Just keep going.'' Those times when the 
     crying came, as I stood at the kitchen counter, were never 
     long enough. You came in the front door, Brittany, saying, 
     ``Mommy, you sad? You miss Daddy?'' You reminded me I had to 
     keep going.
       The ceremonies honoring your dad were hard. When they put 
     his photo in the Hall of Heroes at the Pentagon, I thought, 
     can this be all that is left, a picture? Then General 
     Sullivan read from the letter General Sherman wrote to 
     General Grant after the Civil War, words so tender that we 
     all broke down. ``Throughout the war, you were always in my 
     mind. I always knew if I were in trouble and you were still 
     alive you would come to my assistance.''
       One night before either of you were born, your dad and I 
     had a funny little talk about dying. I teased that I would 
     not know where to bury him. Very quietly, he said, ``Up home. 
     In my uniform.'' Your dad never liked to wear a uniform. And 
     ``up home,'' Maine, was so far away from us.
       Only after he was laid to rest in a tiny flag-filled 
     graveyard in Lincoln, Maine, did I understand. His parents, 
     burying their only son, could come tomorrow and the day after 
     that. You and I would have to travel so far.
  Then there is a bit more. Mr. Speaker, our colleague, Olympia Snowe 
of Maine, who I think will be the next Senator up there, she was there 
the night that the remains, the burned remains, of Gary Gordon came 
home.
  Every single person in Lincoln, ME, she told me, except the babies, 
were on the street. It was close to midnight. It was very cold. It was 
the beginning of winter. She said, ``You could hear a pin drop as 
Lincoln, ME, buried its Medal of Honor hero, Gary Gordon.''
  An irony of fate is that Randy Shugart, his best friend, fellow 
recipient of the Medal of Honor, was also from Lincoln, another 
Lincoln, Lincoln, NE. His mom and dad, Lois and Herbert, are retired 
near Carlisle, the Army barracks and the Army War College there. 
Farmers, simple people. I have not met the Gordons, but I have met Mrs. 
Shugart and the parents, as I said, Herb and Lois.

                              {time}  1840

  These are the finest people we have in our country, the salt of the 
earth. These young men and women of all ranks up to the highest ranking 
officers leading them. These are the backbone of our country. A poll 
came out last week and it shows the presidency is considered way down, 
but still considered about twice as high as Congress. We are right down 
at the bottom with the respect of only 7 percent of this Nation. 
Religion is up near the top but not at the very top. The very top of 
all the institutions in this country, held in most respect by our 
fellow Americans, are the Armed Forces of our United States. That is 
fitting and as it should be. But where are we going? Quo vadis, Mr. 
Clinton, on Haiti?
  Listen to this excellent article by Ray Kerrison, syndicated 
columnist. The title says ``Clinton to Install a Haitian Marxist who 
Hates U.S.''
  One of our colleagues, David Obey, took the well the other day and 
said only two words at this point should be coming from Mr. Aristide, 
``Thank you.'' We have not heard those words yet.
  Here is the Ray Kerrison column:

       A week before the U.S. Marines hit the ground in Haiti, 
     President Jean-Bertrand Aristide sent a message to his 
     followers back home through Radio Democracy, a U.S.-financed 
     radio station set up for his use and benefit.
       In Creole, Aristide cried, ``With the machine guns of the 
     enemy, we shall return and they will be dumbstruck.''
       The ``enemy,'' in case you missed the subtlety, is the 
     United States. The message on Radio Democracy was broadcast 
     from a U.S. Air Force plane flying above Port-au-Prince a 
     week, mind you, before thousands of young American troops 
     were ordered to risk their lives to restore Aristide to 
     power.

  By the way, Mr. Speaker, and as an aside here, this is so offensive 
and shocking to me that I am resisting it in a way. I have to find out 
where Mr. Kerrison got this and I am going to check this out through my 
committee assignments and find out if these are the exact words of Mr. 
Aristide.

       Are there words sufficient to portray the treachery nesting 
     in Aristide's heart, to describe the folly of President 
     Clinton ordering a new American occupation of Haiti or to 
     measure the ineptitude of Jimmy Carter as a pariah diplomat?
       If it were not so embarrassing and potentially tragic, it 
     would be the stuff of comic opera.
       This is what Clinton and Carter have wrought: Three years 
     after the collapse of the Soviet Union and communism, at an 
     incalculable cost in blood and resources to the United 
     States, an American president has used the might of the 
     nation to install a Marxist president in Haiti.

  He is not there yet.

       It defies comprehension. Stalin and Khrushchev, Kennedy and 
     Nixon, even in their graves, must wonder if the world has 
     been turned inside out and stood on its head.
       Jean-Bertrand Aristide's history shows him to be 
     psychologically unstable, violently anti-American, 
     contemptuous of democratic principles and a devotee of 
     ``necklacing,'' the torture art in which a tire is strung 
     around an opponent's neck, filled with gasoline and set 
     afire.
       That President Clinton should stake the whole weight of 
     American prestige and power on anyone so flaky, deceitful and 
     tyrannical is cause for alarm.
       Clinton and Carter have not resolved the staggeringly 
     complex problems of Haiti. They have merely postponed them 
     and, ultimately, made them more flammable.
       ``If Aristide is returned to power, there will be civil war 
     in Haiti,'' said Raymond Joseph, editor of the Haiti 
     Observateur, the Brooklyn newspaper. Joseph has in his 
     possession a tape of Aristide's broadcast last week, when he 
     gloated of returning to power under the guns of ``the enemy'' 
     and leaving the Americans and his rivals ``dumbstruck.''
       How can a nutty professed Marxist with dictatorial 
     convictions build a democracy in Haiti? He cannot. So the 
     whole Haiti exercise is a political fraud with consequences 
     yet to be determined.
       The Aristide record is shocking. Joseph recalled, ``In a 
     speech on July 28, 1988, for the 73rd anniversary of the 
     first American intervention in Haiti, Aristide said that 
     Cuba showed us the way to go in 1959 and Nicaragua showed 
     us the way to go in 1979.

  Those two countries still suffer, Mr. Speaker.

       ``Aristide told the crowds that Cuba had drawn a line in 
     the sand and dared the American eagle to cross it. He said to 
     them, `Would you not like to be like Cuba and tell the eagle 
     that here is the line in the sand and cross it if you can?'''
       That was six years ago, but nothing has changed, despite 
     Aristide's three-year exile in the United States. ``The 
     speech last week shows that he is still the same man,'' said 
     Joseph. ``He has not changed. It is his character.''
       Like so many, Joseph said he will hold the United States 
     responsible for what happens if and when Aristide is restored 
     to power. ``He is now America's client and there is going to 
     be big trouble,'' said Joseph. ``There will be a civil war, 
     and the U.S. will have to defend Aristide.''
       The unpredictable Haitian is, himself, an overthrow 
     specialist. Before he was ousted by the military junta, 
     Aristide orchestrated some mini coup d'etats of his own.
       ``Many mayors, who were elected at the same time as 
     Aristide, were deposed and replaced by committees from 
     Aristide's organization,'' said Joseph.
       So much for the man charged with installing democracy in 
     Haiti. ``Six months before Aristide was overthrown, I wrote 
     an editorial in my paper asking Aristide the question: If 
     elected mayors can be replaced, what guarantee do you have 
     against a coup d'etat?''
       In evaluating the prospects of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, it 
     is critical to understand that he still regards the United 
     States as the enemy. He calls it ``the great Satan.''

  Stealing from Iran.

       Yet he is about to be installed back in power by the 
     president of the United States in an arrangement that Carter 
     called a ``win-win agreement.''
       The United States is about to plant a second Fidel Castro 
     in the Caribbean, proving there is no limit to Clinton's 
     folly and Carter's naivete. The unanswered question is, who 
     will pay the price?
  Mr. Speaker, we live in an audiovisual period of history and it 
probably will stay that way for the rest of our lives, maybe forever. 
There is no way to change that. People resist reading and, 
unfortunately, although there is a great percentage of Americans from 
all economic classes that read our newspapers, support our public and 
private libraries, read our news magazines, most people get their news 
electronically. On the other hand, I think it has been healthy for 
Government that since April 3, 1979, we have put out, by six cameras 
paid for by the taxpayers, in this Chamber the proceedings of this 
House.
  Because people are not reading enough about Haiti and our involvement 
there, let me take advantage of the research I have been able to do. 
Let me explain just briefly, Mr. Speaker, a little about our prior 
invasion, our occupation of Haiti, and why Yogi Berra might be pressed 
to say, ``It's deja vu all over again.''
  The President of the United States in 1915 was a good man, former 
president of Princeton, an intellectual, a man of peace, a lover of 
democracy, so much so that he wanted to insert it into every country 
around the world even if they were resistant. Woodrow Wilson.
  His Secretary of State was a man that had run for the Presidency 
three times and lost each time, but lost with his head held high, a 
great orator of this Congress, William Jennings Bryan. William Jennings 
Bryan, like Mr. Wilson, was an intellectual and a lover of democracy. 
In 1915, the President of Haiti, Vilbrun Guillaume Sam, was involved in 
torture, it appears. And the poor, the rebels in those days, were 
called Caicos, like the islands in the Caribbean, the Turks in Caicos. 
They had 167 peasant Caicos prisoners in Port-au-Prince and they 
tortured them all and killed them all. The crowd, somewhat similar to 
the crowds we saw yesterday, threw caution to the winds and like any 
deep passionate revolution, they did not care about dying on the 
barricades. They overwhelmed the government in Port-au-Prince. 
President Sam fled to the French Legation, to their embassy, where the 
French tried to hide him. The crowds had no fear of France because they 
had whipped France's greatest general, Napoleon. Cost him more dead 
soldiers with combat and disease than Napoleon had lost at Waterloo, 
50,272.

                              {time}  1850

  So the crowds overwhelmed the French Embassy, and there is deep 
passion and hatred on all sides in Haiti. They grabbed President Sam 
and tore his head and his limbs from his body and carried his body 
parts out into the street.
  That was too much for President Woodrow Wilson and Secretary of State 
William Jennings Bryan, and in went the U.S. Marines. We set up a naval 
admiral as Governor General. After about 3 years there was what is 
called the second Caicos rebellion. The crowds rose up again. This time 
America was the Satan and they began killing across the countryside. 
Fifteen U.S. marines were killed, a very close figure to the 30 killed 
in Somalia or the 18 killed in the firefight the night of October 3 and 
4, 1993. Fifteen marines were killed.
  The peasants paid dearly, as did Aideed's men and women in the 
streets of Mogadishu, but the ratio was far worse, 1,500 dead. That was 
1918.
  Today with television and Dan Rather doing a darn good job in the 
streets down there, if it was like today the Marines would have been 
pulled out. But in 1918, at the same period when World War I, with my 
dad in the trenches of Europe, was ending, we were in no mood to see 15 
marines killed. So 3 years turned into 19 years.
  Only when Woodrow Wilson was gone, two other Presidents had come and 
gone, Herbert Hoover formed a commission. Another firefight. By the 
way, six marines won the Medal of Honor in Haiti, mostly fought in 
1917-18. He started the commission that came to fruition in Franklin 
Delano Roosevelt's second year, 1934, before we pulled out. This will 
not happen this time if 15 marines, or the Tenth Division soldiers are 
killed. We spent 19 years in Haiti and we left no democracy behind.
  The Marines avenged their 15 dead men and caught the guerrilla leader 
with a rather romantic name, Charlemagne Peralte. When they captured 
Peralte they killed him, hopefully. I do not know the history. 
Hopefully it was in a firefight and not an execution. And since they 
had the leader of the revolution, the second Caicos revolution, they 
photographed him and spread that photograph all over Haiti hoping that 
it would dissuade any more rebellions.
  But as with Che Guevarra, captured and executed, not killed in a 
gunfight, wounded and then executed in Bolivia it had an opposite 
effect. In the case of Che Guevarra he became a hero to people like Tom 
Hayden, Jerry Rubin, the Chicago Seven, and all of the American haters, 
and the Oliver Stones of the 1960's. This man, Charlemagne Peralte, 
became a martyr hero to all Haitians because the photograph made him 
look like Jesus Christ on the cross, and the Christian heritage mixed 
with the West African religious heritage, they had a martyr. And even 
though we stayed 16 years, we never had the respect of the people 
again.
  Flash forward from 1934 to Aristide's next to last month in his short 
presidency. His chief of police was a man with a deceiving name. There 
are nine categories of angels, and those who study theology know the 
second highest category is cherubin which we get from the word cherub, 
and this man's name is Cherubim. Chief of police Cherubim, and this is 
in the intelligence community given as fact, oversaw the slaughter of 
five young students who were against Aristide in the main prison there 
in Port-au-Prince where they have tortured people on all sides, no 
matter who is in power. And they let the windows open so that the 
screams would go out over the city area so they could intimidate 
whomever they wanted to intimidate. These five young people were 
killed.
  The lieutenant who oversaw the murders is named Solomon, another 
little play on names, Solomon. It appears that he was protected by 
Aristide the next month, September, the month he was overthrown and, of 
course, in that month he was overthrown, there is not much debate in 
the intelligence community. But there is debate on this House floor as 
to whether Aristide gave the order to kill Roger Toussaint, one of his 
adversaries. And with that final killing Aristide was overthrown.
  Now we can get into the situation that we seem to be in a lot of the 
times in the Balkans, in Bosnia and Herzegovina on who is doing the 
most killing, who is committing the most human rights abuses, Bosnian-
Serbians, Bosnian-Croations or Bosnian-Moslems. And it appears 
overwhelmingly most of the killings are the Serbians in Bosnia. But it 
does not excuse the human rights violations on the other two sides. At 
this point I believe that there are human rights violations manifest on 
both sides, but I am willing to concede that there is a total lack of 
professionalism in the Haitian police and army. The ugly, brutal, 
indiscriminate, unprovoked beating of women and teenagers who had not 
yet begun to throw stones is evidence that there is a sergeant class on 
down or an officer lieutenant class on down in the police and in the 
military that thinks they can do whatever they want.
  Now I see my distinguished colleague on the floor from New York over 
here who is going to contradict probably a lot of what I am saying. But 
here is a piece of intelligence we would probably both agree with. One 
of the reasons these out-of-control police authorities in Port-au-
Prince felt they had the right to continue their pattern of beating 
people without provocation in the streets is that we had helicopters 
flying over the city for 2 days prior to today,``We are here to work 
with your police and military.''
  That is what our helicopters were telling the military and police of 
General Cedras and the police of Michel Francoise.
  Talk about giving mixed signals to the people, talk about frustration 
of the young men we saw on the news last night saying, ``Why are we 
here? I thought we were to stop the killing? They killed that man right 
in front of us. Why?'' And tensions are building.
  President Carter courageously put his life on the line, and Colin 
Powell in more danger than he was in Vietnam, and not armed as he was 
in Vietnam where he always had a sidearm, and Sam Nunn, the first 
Senator in that much danger in the history of our country in a long, 
long time were under the guns of Cedras where they could have been 
easily taken hostage. They tried to prevent great loss of American life 
trying to solve this problem.
  Where does that leave us right now? It leaves us in an absolute tar 
pit, a superpower stuck in a tinderbox situation.
  There are stores of gasoline hoarding because of our blockade. 
President Carter is right on that, and I believe Senator Nunn. I saw 
him on the Senate floor yesterday back up former President Carter, that 
removing the sanctions was part of the Sunday agreement last Sunday. 
And I think that these gasoline supplies inside Cite Soleil, Sun City, 
are as dangerous as the ones inside Panama City in the Commandante area 
when our attack began there and Noriega's forces burned up that whole 
poor area of the city.

                              {time}  1900

  And this gasoline can be used for Molotov cocktails or, depending on 
which side, to burn down the poorest city area in the entire Western 
Hemisphere, Cite Soleil. All it takes is one incident where an American 
soldier, a 19-year-old or an 18-year-old sees a friend hit in the face 
with a rock and fires his weapon. Or are we not allowing them to have 
bullets in their weapons as we made that mistake with the Marine 
Barracks guards in Beirut on October 23, 1983? I do not think we will 
relive that mistake.
  What happens if these out-of-control police decide to defy Americans 
as they did not in the film clips we saw last night when one American 
sergeant, who had had enough, or a corporal or, for all I know, a 
private, stepped forward and waved his hands and said, ``Get out of 
here,'' and they left in their vehicle, 10 of them, 8 of them; what 
happens if they decide to stay and fight? What about those crowds 
jumping up and down who are then interviewed? Remember, their native 
language is French, not English. But in pretty good English they are 
telling us, ``Why are you letting us be beaten? I thought you were here 
to help us, to liberate us.''
  This thing can go bad in an instant.
  We have 14,000 Haitians in Guantanamo. Yesterday I was going to take 
the floor and say while we have this open window of opportunity, take 
them back to Port au Prince while we have the chance. I am glad I did 
not say that. Because I would not say that today. I would not take 
anybody back into that tinderbox today. We have 14,000 people costing 
us $2 million a day in Guantanamo. We have 23,000 Cubans there because 
Castro is far worse than Cedras on his worst day. We have 30,000 Cubans 
in Panama. Panama reneged and would not take the Haitians. I do not 
know why they would not take Haitians. They have got 30,000 Cubans in 
Panama. We pay the bill. So we have a total of 53,000 Cubans.
  I have not seen a boat person report. I wish God would send us a 
message on our computers how many Cubans have died at sea because of 
Castro over the last 30 years. I wish we had an absolute hard figure 
how many Haitians have died at sea, from drowning, dehydration, shock, 
hurricanes, shark attacks; I wish we had a computer figure from God to 
tell us exactly how many Vietnamese died because we cut and ran from 
Vietnam.
  So now we are put in position, those of us who have thought that 
there was either no policy or at most, an ill-conceived policy in 
recent history on Haiti, of wanting to support our men and women in the 
field in harm's way, of wanting to support these children and women 
being beaten in the street, of wanting to feed and help the Cuban and 
Haitian refugees in Panama and on the southeast tip of Cuba, just 
across the strait from Haiti, in Guantanamo Bay. But we are boxed into 
a corner. The joke is going around that Mr. Warren Christopher has had 
his State Department authority co-opted by this quickly-put-together 
team of a senior Senator, a most respected retired general out there, 
and a former President who has beautifully rebuilt his image as a 
person who cares about human rights and people, and the joke is that 
all this would not be happening if Mr. Christopher were alive. Well, 
maybe that is unfair to him. But where has he been? What has he been 
doing? Where is Strobe Talbott? The State Department is a disgrace.
  I also know for a fact that Secretary of Defense Perry is 
uncomfortable. I do not know who ordered General Shalikashvili to go on 
Ted Koppel's ``Nightline.'' I could see in his eyes he wanted the holy 
blazes out of there, because Ted asked some very tough questions. He 
could not give the proper answers, this policy is so without 
definition, so filled and riddled with the beginning of mission creep.
  Listen to this article, Mr. Speaker; I will submit this for the 
Record, and I will read the first and the last paragraph, an article by 
Mark Helprin, not to be confused with one of the architects of this 
misguided Haitian policy, Morton Halperin. This is Mark Helprin, who is 
a novelist and contributing editor of the Wall Street Journal. He 
writes to the President, Mr. Speaker. He says,

       Mr. President, Haiti is on an island, and its navy, which 
     was built mainly in Arkansas, is well characterized by the 
     Institute for Strategic Studies as ``Boats only.'' The 
     Haitian gross national product is little more than half of 
     what Americans spend each year on greeting cards, its defense 
     forces outnumbered five to one by the corps of lawyers in the 
     District of Columbia.
       With other than a leading role in world military affairs, 
     the Haitian army has retreated into a kind of relaxed 
     confusion in which it is also the fire department, captains 
     outrank colonels, and virtually no one has ever seen combat.

Except beating people in the street.
       Which raises the question, Why has the leading superpower 
     placed Haiti at the center of its political universe?
       Mr. President, in trumpeting this gnatfest at a hundred 
     times the volume of the Normandy invasion you have invited 
     challenges from all who would take comfort at the spectacle 
     of the U.S. in full fluster over an object so diminutive as 
     to be a source of wonder.

  It gets better for about 10 more paragraphs, and here is the way it 
ends.

       Like your false-ringing speech, the dry bones of your 
     authority had none of the moral flesh and blood that might 
     otherwise have invigorated even a senseless policy. The 
     animation that you have failed to lend to this enterprise was 
     left to the soldiers in the field, who with the greatest 
     discipline and selflessness would have taken on the task 
     that, generations, ago, you refused.

  Oxford sounds.

       I wonder if your view of them has really changed. In your 
     philosophy they must have been pawns then, and they must be 
     pawns now: The only thing that has been altered is your 
     position.
       Though it is fair to say that I differ with your policy, if 
     our soldiers had gone into combat I would have been behind 
     them 100 percent, and I hope that, despite the orders in 
     Somalia, you would have been too. This is a lesson that you 
     might have learned earlier but did not, the truth of which 
     you now embrace only because you have become president of the 
     United States. You are that man will march only if he is 
     commander in chief. Yours, Mr. President, has been a very 
     expensive education. And, unfortunately, every man, woman, 
     and child in this country is destined to pay the bill for 
     your training not because it is so costly but because it is 
     so achingly incomplete.

  Mr. Speaker, I submit that for the Record and yield back that final 
moment for my colleague from New York, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Owens], who will give you the other side of the story.

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 20, 1994]

                     A Soldier of the Not Great War

                           (By Mark Helprin)

       Mr. President, Haiti is on an island, and its navy, which 
     was built mainly in Arkansas, is well characterized by the 
     International Institute for Strategic Studies as ``Boats 
     only.'' The Haitian gross national product is little more 
     than half of what Americans spend each year on Greeting 
     cards, its defense forces outnumbered five to one by the 
     corps of lawyers in the District of Columbia.
       With other than a leading role in world military affairs, 
     the Haitian army has retreated into a kind of relaxed 
     confusion in which it is also the fire department, captains 
     can outrank colonels, and virtually no one has ever seen 
     combat. Which raises the question, why has the leading 
     superpower placed Haiti at the center of its political 
     universe?
       Mr. President, in trumpeting this gnatfest at a hundred 
     times the volume of the Normandy Invasion you have invited 
     challenges from all who would take comfort at the spectacle 
     of the U.S. in full fluster over an object so diminutive as 
     to be a source of wonder.
       Anyone considering a serious challenge to the U.S. has been 
     reassured that we have no perspective in international 
     affairs, that we act not in regard to our basic interests but 
     in reaction to sentiment and ideology, that we can be 
     distracted by the smallest matter and paralyzed by the 
     contemplation of force, that we have become timid, weak, and 
     slow. This is what happens when the leaders of the world's 
     most powerful nation take a year to agonize over Haiti This 
     is what happens when the elephant ignores the jackals and 
     gravely battles a fly.


                             why not cuba?

       Given that Haiti is a nation doomed to perpetual 
     harmlessness, that it is not allied to any great power, that 
     it does not export an ideology, that it does not have an 
     ideology, and that it is of no economic consequence to any 
     nation except perhaps the Dominican Republic, you strained to 
     justify intervention the way a prisoner with his hand 
     stretched through the bars strains for a key just out of his 
     reach.
       In your recent address you mentioned rape three time, the 
     killing of children three times, an the words ``dictator'' or 
     ``tyrant'' 18 times. If we must act ``when brutality occurs 
     close to our shores,'' why not now invade Cuba, or Colombia, 
     or the South Bronx, or Anacostia? Every year in the U.S. we 
     are subject to more than 100,000 reported rapes and 20,000 
     homicides. How do rape and murder in Haiti, no numbers 
     supplied, justify U.S. intervention? And if they do, where 
     were we in Rwanda?
       It is possible that having no idea whatsoever about the 
     balance of power among nations, the workings of the 
     international system, and the causes and conduct of war, you 
     are directing the foreign relations of the United States of 
     America in accord with the priorities of feminism, 
     environmentalism, and political correctitude? Why not invade 
     Saudi Arabia because of the status of women there, Canada 
     because they kill baby seals, Papua New Guinea because it 
     doesn't have enough wheelchair ramps?
       Haitian illegal immigrants (did you not mention AIDS 
     because it would offend the Haitians, or some other group?) 
     have been to some extent motivated by the embargo and are a 
     minute proportion of the total that seek our shores. If it is 
     so that the best way to deal with a country that spills over 
     with souls is to invade, it, que viva Mexico? Should the U.K. 
     invade Pakistan; France, Algeria; and Hong Kong, Vietnam? For 
     that matter, why have you not hastened forward to Havana? In 
     fact, the history of great-power interventions shows that 
     conquest does not prevent but, rather, facilitates population 
     transfers.
       Your desire to wipe out the expenditure of $14 million a 
     month to maintain the leaky embargo that you put in place was 
     not consonant with your robust urge to spend elsewhere, and 
     was a rather dainty pretext. Fourteen million dollars is what 
     we in this country spend on ``sausages and other prepared 
     meals'' every seven hours. If you truly believe, Mr. 
     President, that ``restoring Haiti's democratic government 
     will help lead to more stability and prosperity in our 
     region,'' then you, sir, have more Voo doo than they do. The 
     entire Haitian gross national product is worth but three 
     hours of our own. Were it to grow after intervention by 10% 
     and were the U.S. to reap fully one half the benefit, we 
     would surge ahead another nine minutes' worth of GNP. This is 
     not exactly high-stakes geopolitics.
       Why, then, Haiti? Why are your subordinates suddenly so 
     Churchillian? Clearly, in a real crisis they would be so 
     worked up that all their bulbs would burst. The nations towed 
     along for the ride (Poles? Jordanians?) seemed not to know 
     whether to be embarrassed by the stupidity of the task or 
     amused by the peculiarity of their bedfellows. This the 
     secretary of state described as ``a glowing coalition.'' 
     Never in the history of the English language has such an 
     inept phrase been launched with such forced enthusiasm to 
     miss so little a target. Granted, the vice president's 
     ``modalities of departure'' did much to inspire the nation to 
     a frenzy of war.
       Why Haiti? Because, like the father in Joyce's story, 
     ``Counterparts,'' who bullies his son because he cannot fight 
     his bullying boss, what you do in Haiti says less about Haiti 
     than about North Korea, Europe, and the Middle East, where 
     the real challenges lie, and where you cannot act because you 
     do not have a lamp to go by and you have forced your own 
     military to its knees.
       Why Haiti? Because you have been unable to say no to the 
     Black Caucus as it stands like the candlestick on the seesaw 
     of your grandiose legislation, and because you are a liberal 
     and in race you see wisdom, or lack of wisdom; qualification, 
     or lack of qualification; virtue, or lack of virtue. And 
     because the Black Caucus is way too tight with Father 
     Aristide.
       Why Haiti? Because you have no more sense of what to do or 
     where to turn in a foreign policy crisis than a moth in Las 
     Vegas at 2 a.m. You should not have singled out Haiti in the 
     first place, but once you did you should not have spent so 
     much time and so much capital on it, blowing it out of all 
     proportion, so that this, this Gulf Light, this No-Fat Desert 
     Storm, is your Stalingrad. Six weeks and it should have been 
     over, even including an invasion, about which the world would 
     have learned only after it had begun. All communications with 
     the Haitian regime should have been in private, leaving them 
     the flexibility to capitulate without your having to distract 
     Jimmy Carter from his other good works.
       Though you and your supporters made a marriage of 
     convenience with the principles of presidential war powers, 
     your new position is miraculously correct, while that of the 
     Republicans who also switched sides in the question is not. 
     You did have the legal authority to invade Haiti. What you 
     did not have was the moral authority. Despite what you have 
     maintained during the first 46/48ths of your life, the 
     decision was yours, but your power was merely mechanical.


                               dry bones

       Like your false-ringing speech, the dry bones of your 
     authority had none of the moral flesh and blood that might 
     otherwise have invigorated even a senseless policy. The 
     animation that you have failed to lend to this enterprise was 
     left to the soldiers in the field, who with the greatest 
     discipline and selflessness would have taken on the task 
     that, generations ago, you refused. I wonder if your view of 
     them has really changed. In your philosophy they must have 
     been pawns then, and they must be pawns now: The only thing 
     that has been altered is your position.
       Though it is fair to say that I differ with your policy, if 
     our soldiers had gone into combat I would have been behind 
     them 100 percent, and I hope that, despite the orders in 
     Somalia, you would have been too. This is a lesson that you 
     might have learned earlier but did not, the truth of which 
     you now embrace only because you have become president of the 
     United States. You are the man who will march only if he is 
     commander in chief. Yours, Mr. President, has been a very 
     expensive education. And, unfortunately, every man, woman, 
     and child in this country is destined to pay the bill for 
     your training not because it is so costly but because it is 
     so achingly incomplete.

                          ____________________