[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 107 (Friday, July 18, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7166-H7168]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              ANTI-AMERICANISM ACCORDING TO NEWT GINGRICH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday this House of 
Representatives passed legislation to authorize funding for the 
Department of State, for the conduct of U.S. foreign policy, and to 
provide direction and guidance in the area of foreign policy. We are 
fortunate indeed to have hundreds of men and women working for the 
State Department here and around the world who have dedicated their 
lives to public service and are committed to serving our country at 
home and abroad.
  These public servants had been recently subjected to outrageous and 
unwarranted attacks by the former Speaker of this House, Newt Gingrich. 
In a scurrilous article in the current issue of Foreign Policy, 
entitled Rogue State Department, and in an earlier speech he gave 
before the American Enterprise Institute, Mr. Gingrich accuses the men 
and women of the State Department of nothing less than undermining the 
status and respect of the United States around the world.
  In his article, Mr. Gingrich asserts that the cause of rising anti-
American sentiment around the world is that the men and women of the 
State Department have ``abdicated values and principles in favor of 
accommodation and passivity.'' He accuses them of propping up 
dictators, coddling the corrupt and ignoring secret police abuse around 
the world. This from the man who was Speaker of this House, led this 
body in a three to one vote against President Clinton's Bosnia policy, 
a policy that started the process leading to the overthrow of the war 
criminal Mr. Milosevic.
  Mr. Gingrich's article piggybacks on an earlier speech he gave before 
the American Enterprise Institute here in Washington in which he 
claimed the State Department was engaging in a quote ``deliberate and 
systematic effort to undermine President Bush's foreign policy.'' These 
are extremely serious charges. Before making such serious charges, one 
would think that a person who wanted to be taken seriously would 
provide some credible evidence. He does not.
  Let us start with the fact that it is the President of the United 
States, not the foreign service or any other career civil servants, who 
selects the top policy-makers at the Department of State, beginning 
with the Secretary of State. Indeed, the top jobs in State Department 
are awarded to political appointees of the President, starting with 
Secretary of State Colin Powell. They are the captains of the ship. 
They set the vision, they establish the policies and they give the 
orders.
  If Mr. Gingrich believes what he writes, that the State Department is 
a culture that props up dictators, coddles the corrupt and ignores 
secret police, then his complaint is with President Bush who appointed 
the political team at the Department and who are charged with ensuring 
that the policies of the President are carried out.
  The fact of the matter is Mr. Gingrich provides not one single 
example in his article of where the career foreign service or other 
civil servants of the Department of State have refused to carry out the 
policies established by the Secretary of State and the President.
  What does he refer to as exhibit A in his capital case against the 
men and women of our State Department? He points to an internal 
analysis done by the Bureau of Intelligence and Research. That is the 
bureau within the Department of State responsible for analyzing 
intelligence information we collect and analyzing that information, and 
he suggests that the Bureau of Intelligence and Research and that that 
information, that some of the information collected, that our post-war 
challenges in Iraq are more daunting than President Bush's sunny 
rhetoric suggests.
  Specifically, in a portion of his article entitled Out of Sync, he 
contrasts statements made in a speech given by President Bush to 
statements made in an internal, confidential assessment by the Bureau 
of Intelligence and Research. In a speech in Dearborn, Michigan, the 
President stated, ``I have confidence in the future of a free Iraq. The 
Iraqi people are fully capable of self-government.'' The internal State 
Department analysis reportedly stated that ``Liberal democracy would be 
difficult to achieve in Iraq,'' and that ``electoral democracy were to 
emerge, could well be subject to exploitation by anti-American 
elements.''
  One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the 
statements made in the INR memo are reasonable conclusions. The facts 
on the ground in Iraq have demonstrated clearly that liberal democracy 
would be difficult to achieve in Iraq, not impossible, but certainly 
difficult. It is a challenge ahead.
  It is also obvious that elections in Iraq could be exploited by anti-
American Islamic fundamentalist forces.

                              {time}  1730

  That does not mean we should not support elections. Of course we 
should. But we should be clear-eyed about the possible consequences.
  The important point here is not so much that Mr. Gingrich is blind to 
the obvious accuracy of these assessments that were made in the Bureau 
of Intelligence and Research. The issue is

[[Page H7167]]

whether we want our policymakers to receive objective and independent 
analysis about the situation in Iraq, or anywhere else in the world, or 
do we want our nonpartisan experts to tailor, to fit their analyses to 
the political and ideological platform of the President, whether that 
President be a Republican or whether that President be a Democrat.
  Mr. Gingrich would like the professional analysts to manipulate the 
facts to fit the policy, rather than have a policy informed by the 
facts. He would have the taxpayers support a cadre of professional yes 
men and women to make sure that their internal and confidential 
analyses of the facts were in sync with the President's policy. Anyone 
else, any other conclusions, he apparently considers a traitor to the 
cause.
  What is amazing, what is amazing is that Mr. Gingrich would choose 
this moment to make this criticism. We are now learning more each day 
about how intelligence officials felt pressured to manipulate their 
assessments about the alleged links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein 
and how their refutation of the claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear 
material from Niger was ignored by the White House. Indeed, the State 
Department's analysts in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, the 
very officials that Mr. Gingrich condemns in his article, determined 
last year that the report about Iraq importing nuclear material from 
Niger was not credible.
  The President admitted recently that claims about Iraq seeking 
nuclear material from Africa should never have been included in his 
State of the Union speech this year. However, by Newt Gingrich's logic, 
the fact that the Bureau of Intelligence and Research reached a 
contrary finding that conflicted with the President's statement in the 
State of the Union address would be evidence that the State Department 
seeks to undermine Bush foreign policy.
  It is a sad, sad day for our country when Mr. Gingrich would attack 
accurate and truthful statements made by career State Department 
officials as part of a systematic effort to undermine foreign policy. 
We should be working hard to create a bigger, a better firewall between 
intelligence analysts and the policymakers rather than weaken that 
wall, as proposed by Mr. Gingrich.
  Let us consider another example: In a speech in Cincinnati last 
October, the President stated, and I quote, ``Iraq has attempted to 
purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for 
gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear 
weapons.''
  We now know that intelligence analysts in the State Department, as 
well as experts at the Department of Energy, concluded that the tubes' 
characteristics made it much more likely they were suited for artillery 
rockets. British intelligence and subsequently a team of American, 
British, and German experts convened by the International Atomic Energy 
Agency, with 120 years of cumulative experience, agreed that the 
thickness of the aluminum tube walls made them unsuitable for uranium 
enrichment purposes. And yet again, by Mr. Gingrich's logic, the 
experts at the State Department would be viewed as undermining U.S. 
foreign policy for reaching any conclusions at odds with what the 
President says.
  The fact that certain intelligence assessments from INR, or any other 
government agency for that matter, may be out of sync with the 
President's policy does not mean, does not mean that those intelligence 
analysts are engaged in some kind of deliberate and systematic effort 
to undermine our foreign policy. The President may always choose to 
ignore or disagree with the independent assessments of experts, but it 
is folly and shortsighted to suggest that he should not have the 
benefit of those independent assessments.
  The intelligence analysts at INR and elsewhere in the government have 
a duty to provide the Secretary of State and ultimately the President 
with their best assessment and their best judgment. It would be 
irresponsible for them to do otherwise when the lives of American men 
and women are at stake; and it is outrageous that Mr. Gingrich would 
have nonpartisan public servants betray their mission, violate their 
integrity and pander to the politicians.
  Mr. Gingrich titles his article the ``Rogue State Department.'' I 
suggest he focus his gaze across the Potomac. There at the Pentagon 
certain political appointees of President Bush have systematically 
undermined the independence and professionalism of our intelligence 
services. There, in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, they created a so-
called Office of Special Plans, a rump group set up to manipulate the 
intelligence to fit the policy. This truly was a rogue operation, and 
apparently Mr. Gingrich, who sits on the Defense Advisory Board, 
believes that operation should become the model for the State 
Department and other intelligence agencies.
  Another remarkable part about the Gingrich foreign policy article is 
the extent to which he believes that anti-American sentiment abroad is 
the result of inadequate PR, inadequate public relations, and 
inadequate spin control, rather than the substance of the policies 
themselves. He states, and I quote, ``One can hardly overstate how 
poorly the United States communicates its message and values to the 
world. Large majorities in France, Germany, and South Korea oppose the 
United States' perspective on Iraq, not to mention the 95 percent 
disapproval rate in Turkey.''
  In other words, he sees these disapproval ratings as the result of 
our failure to explain our actions, rather than stemming from the 
actions themselves. Yes, says Mr. Gingrich, if only we had a better PR 
machine to explain to France, to Germany, South Korea, Turkey and 
others around the world our theory of preemptive wars, our theory of 
the nuclear first-use doctrine, and our claims that Iraq's WMD posed an 
imminent threat, then they would be enthusiastic supporters of our Iraq 
policy.

  And how would he do this? How would he put together this 
transformation? What is his solution?
  Bring in ``professional help.'' I kid you not. It is on page 46 of 
this article. To address the anti-American sentiments around the world, 
we need not, according to Mr. Gingrich, reconsider any of our policies. 
We need not consider working in partnership with other nations to 
resolve international challenges. Rather, we should ``bring in business 
advisory groups drawn from internationally sophisticated corporations 
to advise the State Department on how to improve U.S. communication 
strategies.''
  Apparently, the world, according to Newt, is just one big game of 
spin control. Yes, bring in the big boys from Madison Avenue and the 
executives from multi-national corporations to explain our foreign 
policy and the world will love us.
  Just as amazing is whom Mr. Gingrich chooses to blame for what he 
perceives as a failed public relations game. It is not Secretary of 
Defense Donald Rumsfeld, whose incendiary remarks unnecessarily 
inflamed European sentiment against us. It is not the President and his 
White House spokesmen who command the bully pulpit and wield the 
megaphone. No, according to Mr. Gingrich, the culprits are the men and 
women in the bowels of the State Department. Yes, they, according to 
Mr. Gingrich, are the ones who are responsible for the raging anti-
American sentiment around the world.
  You know, these outrageous accusations leveled by Mr. Gingrich might 
be dismissed as the wild rantings of a former Member of Congress who, 
as a private citizen, is free to express his views without being held 
accountable to anybody but himself. But he has not surrendered all his 
public responsibilities. He currently serves on the Defense Policy 
Advisory Board, which is chartered to provide the Secretary of Defense, 
the Deputy Secretary of Defense with advice on a range of national 
security matters.
  The caption accompanying Mr. Gingrich's article on foreign policy 
references his position on the board, and it is in light of the 
responsibilities of that position that we should judge his statements. 
The President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State 
cannot allow Mr. Gingrich's McCarthy-like attacks against the 
professionalism and integrity of the men and women of the State 
Department to stand. To do so would send a terrible message at this 
very critical time.
  First, as our Nation faces serious challenges abroad, our foreign 
policy

[[Page H7168]]

must be guided by the best informed intelligence and analysis our 
diplomats and intelligence officers can provide. To suppress that 
information could jeopardize the success of our policies and endanger 
the lives of our citizens.
  Second, it would be folly for our national security leaders to see 
American problems abroad simply as PR issues to be addressed through an 
aggressive ad and spin control campaign. We cannot afford to block out 
the insights and the analyses and the assessments of our regional and 
country experts in the State Department and elsewhere in the United 
States Government.
  Mr. Gingrich has openly and loudly attacked the integrity of the men 
and women in the State Department. Moreover, he has advocated positions 
that would weaken our ability to confront the challenges we face 
abroad. Allowing him to remain on the Defense Policy Advisory Board 
would send a terrible signal. It would send a message to the men and 
women who work every day to protect our national security and advance 
our interests abroad that his statements are acceptable to this White 
House and this administration.
  Mr. Gingrich should do the right thing now and resign from the board. 
If he does not resign, the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the 
Secretary of State should hold him accountable for his statements, and 
they should demand his resignation from the board. The Bush 
administration can either stand by the statements of Mr. Gingrich or 
they can make it clear that those statements are unacceptable.
  Mr. President, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, where do you 
stand?

                          ____________________