[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 101 (Thursday, July 10, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H6587-H6588]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               GROWING CONCERNS ABOUT U.S. POLICY IN IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, over the past few days and weeks, an 
increasing number of my constituents have contacted me to express 
serious questions and growing concerns about U.S. policy in Iraq. I, 
too, have questions, and I share their concerns.
  For example, in the months since U.S. forces invaded Iraq, overthrew 
Saddam Hussein and his government, and gained control of the country, 
no weapons of mass destruction have been found, despite repeated 
assertions by

[[Page H6588]]

the Bush administration before the war that Iraq possessed large 
stockpiles of these weapons; not weapons programs, which is the 
terminology the administration now chooses to use, but weapons 
themselves.
  On August 26, 2002, Vice President Cheney said, ``Simply stated, 
there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass 
destruction.''
  Have we made any progress at all in finding those weapons? Have the 
dozens of Iraqi scientists interviewed by American intelligence 
officials provided any useful information? Is the administration still 
confident that weapons stockpiles will be found?
  It is not enough to say, well, other people thought Iraq had weapons, 
too, because neither the Clinton administration nor the United Nations 
launched a war based on their suspicions. The Bush administration did, 
and the burden of proof rests on their shoulders.
  The White House has recently admitted that a piece of evidence used 
in the State of the Union no less as proof of Iraq's nuclear weapons 
program is not credible. I am referring to the assertion that Iraq had 
attempted to purchase yellow cake uranium from Africa. The 
administration now says that the proof of that claim was not strong 
enough to merit inclusion in a Presidential speech.

                              {time}  1930

  But, Mr. Speaker, the intelligence community knew at the time of the 
State of the Union that the Africa uranium story was not credible, 
which leaves us with two possibilities: either the administration knew 
the claim was bogus and chose to make it anyway, or critical 
intelligence information did not make it into the hands of the 
President or the dozens of people who wrote, reviewed, edited, or 
commented on the State of the Union.
  Both of these possibilities are deeply disturbing.
  This is not some small matter, as some would have us believe. The 
majority leader of this House the other day dismissed questions about 
the uranium issue, saying it is ``very easy to pick one little flaw 
here and one little flaw there.''
  One little flaw? I could not disagree more. The specter of an Iraqi 
nuclear attack was cited as an important and compelling reason the 
United States launched a preemptive, nearly unilateral invasion that 
has led to the deaths of over 200 American soldiers.
  On the path on war, the Congress and the American people deserve 
fact, not selective spin. We may have honest disagreements about how to 
respond to the threats posed by other countries, but we must have a 
credible assessment of what those threats really are.
  More and more, it looks like we did not get that credible assessment.
  And if the buildup to the war was flawed, its aftermath looks even 
worse.
  Mr. Speaker, U.S. soldiers are being constantly attacked; dozens have 
been killed since the President was flown onto the USS Abraham Lincoln 
and declared the war to be over.
  It is becoming disturbingly clear that the administration did not 
have a coherent, workable plan in place to deal with the realities of 
post-war Iraq. Basic infrastructure, the economy, political and civil 
society, are all in bad shape. Worse, attacks against American soldiers 
appear to be growing in both intensity and coordination. And President 
Bush's response to these attacks? ``Bring 'em on.''
  Well, I must say that I was deeply, deeply disturbed by such a 
cavalier comment. It does not take any courage for a President or a 
Member of Congress to say such a thing. We are not out there on the 
front lines, standing nervous guard in the searing heat, unable to 
distinguish friend from foe, with lousy food and no idea of when a 
reunion with loved ones will come.
  These are some of the concerns that I share with a growing number of 
Americans.
  One of my constituents from Worcester, Massachusetts, wrote, 
``Americans were made to feel that their lives were in immediate 
danger; yet months later, no weapons have been found. Americans do 
care. I did not take to the streets in protest during the war, because 
I wanted to believe that our government had substantial proof that it 
was vital for our security. I love my country, because I am allowed to 
ask these questions. Silence and apathy can also be dangerous to 
national security.''
  I believe it is time to get the United Nations and the international 
community more fully involved in the reconstruction process. We cannot 
do this by ourselves or with a small hand-picked group of others.
  Mr. Speaker there is a lot at stake here. We need to get this right. 
We need to know the truth, and all of us, Democrats, Republicans, and 
Independents have a responsibility to pursue that truth. We have a 
responsibility to continue to ask tough questions and demand straight 
answers.
  Thorough, bipartisan, and public investigations are in order. And I 
strongly support the creation of a select bipartisan commission to 
conduct those investigations and make the results known to the American 
people.
  One final thing, Mr. Speaker. Never, ever again should we rush to 
war. This House had 1 day of debate on Iraq in October. One day. 
Congress did not ask the right questions. Congress did not demand the 
right proof. Our lack of thoughtful debate reflected very poorly on 
this institution; and today, Mr. Speaker, sadly, we are paying that 
price.

                          ____________________