Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 108 (Monday, July 21, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 108 (Monday, July 21, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7216-H7222]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

IRAQ WATCH

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Harris). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Hoeffel) is recognized for half the time remaining before midnight as
the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Speaker, for 6 or 7 weeks a number of us have been
coming to the floor to talk about our role in Iraq. We are calling
ourselves the Iraq Watch, and we are back tonight. We are back with
some of the challenges regarding Iraq fresh in the news. And I am
joined by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) coming as
well as part of our four Iraq Watchers, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel). I believe
there will be others joining us as well this evening.
We are dedicated to the propositions of asking questions, seeking
answers about what is happening in Iraq, trying to suggest policy
changes that would improve the situation and certainly reporting back
information to the American people.
Two of us voted in favor of the military authority sought by the
President last fall, myself included. Two of us did not. All of us, of
course, were told, as were the American people and Members of Congress,
we were told with great certainty that Saddam Hussein had weapons of
mass destruction and was trying mightily to develop more. And there is
no question that in the past Hussein had such weapons. He used them in
murderous ways against his own civilians and against innocent Iranian
civilians in the past. None of that is in any doubt.
But it is becoming more and more clear as time goes by that last
fall there were those in the White House and in senior levels of the
administration and the President himself who, in my opinion,
exaggerated the threat of the weapons of mass destruction in order to
win support in Congress and in the country for the invasion of Iraq.
It is now known that our intelligence agencies were reporting to the
White House and to the Pentagon with significant uncertainty and with
serious doubts about certain aspects of the weapons of mass destruction
program in Iraq; notably, the September, 2002, Defense Intelligence
Agency report and the October, 2002, National Intelligence Estimate,
both of which have been discussed in the news. I have reviewed parts of
both of those which are classified documents in the custody of the
intelligence agency.
It is interesting to note that the administration itself
declassified some of the National Intelligence Estimate last week to
try to prove their point that there was a legitimate threat from Iraq,
and most analysts have concluded that that release of that information
actually pointed out once again how many doubts and how much lack of
certainty was being expressed by our intelligence professionals, but
that information being used by the White House and the Pentagon
civilian leadership with no uncertainty, with nothing but certainty in
terms of trying to sell their case.

{time} 2215

So let me just make a couple of quick points before yielding time to
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Because of the recent disclosures regarding the intelligence
gathering by our professionals and the use that that intelligence was
used for by the administration, I am joining others in calling for the
creation of an independent commission, something the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has talked about for weeks here on the
floor, an independent commission, a nonpartisan or bipartisan
commission, that would be above politics, to investigate both the
accuracy of the gathering of intelligence regarding weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq and the uses of that intelligence by the
administration.
We clearly won an important military victory in Iraq due to the
brave and courageous fighting of our young men and young women in
uniform, but I do not think that our military mission is complete until
we have a full

[[Page H7217]]

accounting of the weapons of mass destruction, both regarding their
location and the custody of those weapons so that if they still exist
we know they are in safe hands, and also a full accounting regarding
the intelligence associated with those weapons of mass destruction.
Having won the military victory, we surely will not win the peace
unless we seek and receive more international help in Iraq for the
post-conflict phase of the challenges there, so I am giving my support
to those that are calling for a United Nations Security Council
resolution. We are seeking approval from this administration and urging
President Bush to go to the United Nations Security Council to seek an
over-arching resolution that would sanction NATO peacekeeping and
United Nations reconstruction and humanitarian aid so that we can
provide proper security in Iraq, which is obviously a huge problem, as
now 38 American soldiers have been assassinated in attacks and ambushes
since the President declared victory on May 1, 38 Americans in uniform
assassinated by guerilla tactics in Iraq. Clearly we have not secured
that country, and we will not be able to deal with the reconstruction
and humanitarian challenges, first, without security, and, secondly,
without more international help.
Let me stop at this point before I get too carried away, because
there is so much to talk about and so much has happened since the time
we were on the floor a week ago; so much has come out in the press and
in public discussion.
Let me at this point yield to my good friend, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a senior member of the House Committee on
International Relations.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
would just reinforce his words regarding the need for an independent
commission, because, unfortunately, there are or have been accusations
about political sniping occurring, when it is the purpose of many of us
simply to pose questions that not just our constituents, but many
Americans have, regarding the use of intelligence, whether in fact it
was selective, the quality of the intelligence. But I think it is very
important tonight to stress to the viewers that this is simply too
important to be a partisan issue.
The reality is that many prominent, well-respected Republicans share
our concern. This past weekend, Senator Lugar of Indiana, who chairs
the Foreign Relations Committee in the Senate, Senator Chuck Hagel from
Nebraska, as well as the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations
Committee, Senator Joe Biden, all expressed their concern about the
need for the White House, for the President, to start telling the
American people the reality of how long the American presence will be
required in Iraq.
The three Senators indicated that they had reached a consensus that
some 5 years was a reasonable period of time. I hope they are right.
But I fear that it will even be longer, given the experience that we
have had in the Balkans, given the experience we have had in the Korean
Peninsula, and given the estimates that we have heard from others. But
this is not a Democratic issue, a large D Democratic issue; it is not a
Republican issue. It is an issue that affects each and every American,
because it is about American credibility.
In some respects, it is more than simply our policy vis-a-vis Iraq,
because the credibility and the competence of the President of the
United States, no matter what party is in the White House, is essential
to peace in this world. I do not think, as some pundits say on TV, that
in a serious issue such as this there should not exist a ``no spin
zone.'' It is simply too important.
When I first suggested an independent commission, I pointed out the
fine work that was conducted under the cochairmanship of the former
Senator from New Hampshire, a Republican, Senator Warren Rudman, and
the former Senator from Colorado, Gary Hart, and there were many well-
respected, highly experienced Americans who were part of that
commission, and they had an excellent staff.
Tragically, the quality of their work could not be disputed, because
they filed a report back in February of 2001 that described in
frighteningly prescient terms what would occur if America did not take
seriously the threat of terrorism. They, for all intents and purposes,
predicted the tragedy that occurred some 9 months later on September
11, 2001.
I feel confident that the kind of people that served on that
commission would be willing, if asked by the President, to come to
answer all of the questions that are currently being posed; and they
could do it in a way that was transparent, that was open to the
American people to hear, to see, and to reach their own decisions.
I notice we are joined by our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Emanuel). He looks like he wants to have something to say.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, as all of our colleagues here have
noticed, this is our sixth week down here discussing what is going on
in Iraq, what is happening to our troops, what has happened to the
occupation, what has happened to the reconstruction.
A lot has been focused on the President's credibility. I have
repeated before from this podium, as we have done this Iraq Watch, that
although it is the President's credibility, it is very much America's
credibility that is on the line, and that this inquiry would be so
important as we face what is now becoming a consensus in the
intelligence and security arena, an ever-present threat in North Korea.

Former Secretary of Defense Perry, a well-respected Secretary of
Defense, on North Korea, our policy there, I think his words were
clear. He fears war by end of the year. Unless we clear up the notion
of America's credibility locked into and tied to the President's
credibility, we will not be able to muster the international support
for the choices we will make as we deal with that nuclear threat.
Just recently Iran, another member of the ``axis of evil,'' has
prepared a missile with capability to hit American troops. There, too,
we will need international cooperation and consensus.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Could I interrupt on that point, because it does follow
an item that I read today in the New York Times. The President, while
meeting with the Italian Prime Minister, accused both Syria and Iran of
continuing to harbor and assist terrorists; and he warned those two
nations that they would ``face consequences.'' I do not know what that
means, but I am definitely concerned when I hear that language.
By the way, I think it should be noted, because I know our friend
from Chicago has made the point again and again about the cost of the
war and the need for international assistance, he did not discuss,
according to the Time's piece, Italian troops coming to Iraq to assist
and replace American troops. I would have hoped that he would have done
that.
But while we are talking about Syria, in the words of the President,
I do not know if you are aware, but recently an Under Secretary of
State by the name of John Bolton was to testify before the House
Committee on International Relations, which the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) and I serve on.
There was a report in the Miami Herald, and let me read certain
excerpts from that report, because we are talking about credibility,
the credibility of the President of the United States and the
credibility of the administration.
Mr. EMANUEL. That is the testimony that was withdrawn, if I am not
mistaken?
Mr. DELAHUNT. It was withdrawn because of the CIA insistence that it
was exaggerated testimony. This gentleman, who is a leading neo-
conservative, or a leading hawk, within the administration, also said
back in May of 2002 that Cuba had a bio-weapons program that was being
developed. At that point in time, neither Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary
Powell, nor General Gary Speer, in charge of the Southern Command,
would support that statement. They talked about capabilities.
But just for one moment, if my friends will indulge me, because I
think this is important, because we are talking about Syria, because
the President of the United States said today they will face
consequences, I hope he is getting sound intelligence.
But this is what the Miami Herald said last Tuesday. I am just going
to read some excerpts: ``In a new dispute over interpreting
intelligence data, the

[[Page H7218]]

CIA and other agencies objected vigorously to a Bush administration
assessment of the threat of Syria's weapons of mass destruction that
was to be presented Tuesday on Capitol Hill. After the objections, the
planned testimony by Under Secretary of State John Bolton, a leading
administration hawk, was delayed until September. The CIA and other
intelligence agencies said the assessment was exaggerated. Bolton's
planned remarks caused a revolt among intelligence experts, who said
they thought they inflated the progress Syria had made in its weapons
programs, said a U.S. official who is not from the CIA but was involved
in the dispute. The CIA's objections and comments alone ran to 40
pages.''
Mr. EMANUEL. One of the things that the bipartisan commission would
look at, in my view, the reason the President said it was important
that we had to go to war now, we could not wait another 2 weeks for
maybe a possible U.N. resolution to get other countries and persuade
them, was the imminent capability, I think he said in one speech, that
Saddam Hussein and Iraq had the capability in 45 minutes of deploying a
weapon of mass destruction.

{time} 2230

The two criteria, this was done in a New Republic article that I
thought was excellent, two essential pieces of the State of the Union
backing up the nuclear threat of Iraq that the President delivered
here: One was the infamous 16 words about the Niger memo which clearly
proved there was no attempt, well, it proved that that documentation to
that ``approach to Niger'' was inaccurate.
Second was the famous tube acquisition. In both cases the CIA said
both, A, the tubes were not for nuclear capability because they were
both coated with chemicals; and second, the acquisition of Niger for
uranium or the yellow cake material, this memo was inaccurate, that
this event did not occur.
In fact, today on the NBC Nightly News they showed three separate
stories about the forgery and how anybody at any point could have
easily, just by checking on Google, realized it was not correct because
the name at the bottom by the government official of Niger was not
accurate. The dates were not accurate. Just looking at it, anybody, not
even with intelligence background, could have seen that.
So the two pieces of essential evidence supporting the fact that
Iraq was on the threshold of nuclear capability did not meet the
standard of both our intelligence community and, in fact, one can say
it does not meet even a laughing standard out there in the
international community. Hopefully, this will require an investigation
of whatever body was formulated of eminent Americans would get to what
happened, how did the President put it in his speech, who put it in his
speech, who convinced and weighed in on the intelligence community?
I have worked on a few State of the Unions in my time, and I can see
this back and forth, and I can see exactly if the White House wants
something, and time and again you pressure an agency, time and again
you have somebody pushing back, the ultimate compromise that squeezes
out of the pressure is, we will say the British said it. So the CIA and
the intelligence community who is resisting does not need to own this.
It was desire and a need for a political purpose to have that in the
speech, to give the speech some immediacy, some urgency to the moment.
That may have happened, may not have happened, but until we have an
independent investigation or inquiry or whatever body looks at this, we
will always have questions about America's credibility that will then,
I think, hamper, not limit, whether Syria is or is not. Syria, we know
they are harboring terrorists; whether they are developing weapons of
mass destruction we do not know.
We need in the international community, it is clear, given we have
21 units stationed around the world of which I think 16 or 18 are in
Iraq, America's military capability, not that they could not muster and
respond to another situation, they could, but we are clearly spread
very thin; and to convince the world community of the importance of
what we see in Iraq, of what we see in North Korea, that North Korea
being very relevant today, we cannot afford to have a credibility gap
about the President's word, we cannot, as Americans, regardless of your
political background.
So I say I would hope that this body of eminent Americans would look
at the two points that substantiate the claim that Iraq was on the
threshold, not on the threshold, had the ability, that is what the
speech and the words say, in 45 minutes could launch a weapon of mass
destruction. The nuclear pieces of that clearly did not pass the basic
smell test.
Mr. HOEFFEL. You know what the real crime of this is, the really bad
impact of this credibility gap that we are talking about that has been
developed because of the exaggeration of the threat of weapons of mass
destruction is in an age of terror, which we are certainly in, you can
argue very persuasively that there will be times when a nation must act
preemptively if faced with an imminent threat to protect itself.
We are not dealing, as we all know, with a traditional enemy where
you see the ships amassing in the harbor or the armies amassing on the
border; that if you are faced with an imminent threat from a terror
source you may have to act preemptively, but you must have intelligence
that you can rely upon.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me ask a question. According to this new doctrine
articulated by President Bush, what are the new criteria for a
preemptive strike? I have asked that question of experts. I have asked
that question of administration representatives. I have asked those
questions of people on the street. I do not know what those criteria
are.
Are they clear and present danger? What is the amount of evidence
that is enough to launch a military strike against a nation? Do we have
evidence that Saddam Hussein was prepared to attack the United States
either through Iraqi military forces or through the use of terrorist
organizations?

Mr. EMANUEL. One of things that has surprised me, I come from the
view there is no doubt if you look at the past of Saddam Hussein's
actions. He has used chemical weapons on his own citizens. He has used
them in the war on Iraq. He has engaged in a series of attempts to
repress a regime.
Why would the administration conjure up a threat? Why would you in
the State of the Union, in which you are on the threshold of war,
decide to go with evidence that was not good enough for the Secretary
of State to use a week later, that in October it was taken out of your
speech by the various intelligence agencies?
To me, this is still one of the great mysteries. What was it that
decided we were going to go on the flimsy evidence of this Niger memo
that anybody within 1 minute of sitting down, as clearly on tonight's
story on NBC News, they realized if you just looked at it and they
looked at people that looked at it independent of our intelligence
community.
MR. DELAHUNT. I would like to ask the question, if I could, to the
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), can you or can the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Inslee) articulate clearly and definitively for us
and for the Americans, for us, those of us who were watching it, what
are the standards, what are the criteria under the Bush doctrine of
preemption?
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Naturally, you turn to me when you ask for that.
Mr. HOEFFEL. That will show you to come late for Iraq Watch.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I was letting you get warmed up.
Mr. EMANUEL. This was his senior high school thesis.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The question that you pose and was answered
rhetorically with another series of questions, really observations by
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), I think bear answering. I
think there is an answer and it is an unfortunate answer. It has
nothing to do with plots and conspiracies, but it has everything to do
with a philosophy and an attitude and an ideology which has been
expressed again and again by some of the people that have been
mentioned here earlier this evening.
If you take a look at the spectrum of essays and books and articles
written by those who were now in charge of policy in the
administration, Mr. Krystol's book on the mission in Iraq,

[[Page H7219]]

our mission in Iraq, Mr. Perle, Mr. Booth, some of the think tanks here
in Washington, these nonprofit, untaxable think tanks that operate
thanks to the tax loopholes that we have which allow them to operate
and comment and infest themselves in halls of government. There are
more than one set of interest groups in this town, let me state, and
some of them are in charge of this policy.
So the answer, I am sorry to say, in my judgment is this has been a
clearly articulated policy of people now associated with the
administrations who were determined to start a war in Iraq, to include
Syria and Iran, because of the policies that they feel this country
should be not only espousing but pursuing in terms of world domination
beginning in the Middle East.
So it is clear, even with the publishing of the documentation now
over the weekend, that the bombing that took place for perhaps a year
or more before the actual launching of the attack on Baghdad was
following a pattern to try to knock out selected targets in Iraq before
the formal hostilities in terms of an attack actually started.
So I think I am forced to conclude, and this is why I think the idea
of having an independent investigation committee is so important, I am
forced to conclude that there was a pattern already being articulated
publicly and in writing to set this Nation on a course of imperial
attack beginning with Iraq.
Mr. HOEFFEL. We wanted to hear from the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Inslee), but it looks like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Emanuel) has 60 seconds here.
Mr. EMANUEL. I wanted to make two closing comments on my side on
this point.
One, I think we have a serious problem with North Korea. There is no
doubt North Korea is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, and
unless America's word and its credibility can be trusted, our ability
to muster the international community's outrage and capability to
handle this will be questioned. Unfortunately, the President's State of
the Union has called the question of our credibility and our ability to
muster in the international community when it says this was an
immediate threat.
I think the American people, unfortunately, because of this now, are
exhausted in dealing with the international crisis which we will have
to do.
Secondly, what I want to report and talk about in this group is
dealing with the cost. We are paying $1 billion a week for the
occupation of Iraq. There was a story two nights ago, four nights ago
on the nightly news of how our troops are now organizing soccer teams
in Iraq and sports in Iraq for the young.

We have cut programs here dealing with Title IX which is under
attack in this country.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I can tell my friend that there are sports programs
that are being cut in my district back home in south shore Cape Cod.
Mr. EMANUEL. I would like to say to all of my colleagues that there
is not a Member in this body who does not have playgrounds in their
district that are badly in need of repair. We are literally for sports
teams.
Now, I am for the reconstruction of Iraq. I have no problem. I just
find it interesting that our military, who are never going to be
involved in a mamsy-pamsy activity of nation building are out
organizing soccer leagues and soccer clubs in Iraq, and yet playgrounds
in America go dilapidated. Swings do not get fixed. Youth clubs are not
organized in the United States. Title IX is under attack here in
America. And we are paying a billion dollars a week in Iraq.
I have said this before on the floor. We have a plan for 20,000
units of housing in Iraq. The President's budget has only 5,000 units
of affordable housing here in the United States planned. We have 13
million Iraqis; we are thinking about providing universal health care
to half the population. We have 45 million Americans without health
insurance who work full time in this country.
I have no problem, Americans have been since World War II and prior
to that, one of the most generous people in the world, yet, if you
offer them a smaller vision here at home for themselves and their
children, their generosity will come into question.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I think we all agree with the gentleman, but at the
same time you are not factoring in the $250 million a week that we are
paying to occupy Afghanistan and provide security and stability here.
So would you please aggregate the sum from now on?
Mr. EMANUEL. The aggregate sum would be $4.2 million a month.
Mr. DELAHUNT. This is not for reconstruction efforts.
Mr. EMANUEL. This is just for occupation efforts and our troops
overseas. And that totals well over $50 billion a year for our foreign
efforts. I want to say this, members of our body, Democrats, have a
Rebuild America account for investment in highways, bridges,
investments in sewers and water treatment. All that would lead to
greater economic development. It costs $50 billion.
Now, I have adequately indicated to the sponsors of that legislation
that when we come up to authorizing the supplemental for Iraq and
Afghanistan, that we should attach the Rebuild America to the Iraqi
reconstruction project. If we are going to pay $50 billion for Iraq
over a year, I have got $50 billion I think we can find investments
here in the United States. And there is not a Member in this body whose
district does not need economic investment in the areas of a new road,
new mass transit, new water treatment facilities.
Again, the occupation of Iraq is essential now that we are there.
But we cannot deinvest and deconstruct America in the word of
reconstructing Iraq.
Mr. HOEFFEL. We are also aware of the gentleman's American parity
act which we are all cosponsors of.
Mr. EMANUEL. Which would require that we invest the United States
equal to the goals we are setting in Iraq, whether it is in the area of
health care, education, in the area of road reconstruction.
In America, our highway fund will be cut by over $6 billion, yet in
Iraq we are building over 3,000 miles of road which would connect New
York to California.

{time} 2245

Mr. DELAHUNT. I dare say that if we expended the amounts of resources
that we will be expending in Iraq for security and for reconstruction
that we could have a prescription drug benefit plan, not just for
seniors in this country, but for just about every American. My friend
from Washington is here.
Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I am glad to join my colleagues because I
feel this message needs to be repeated, that Congress is going to get
to the bottom of this intelligence fiasco, and the best way to do that
is through a bipartisan public commission to really find out what
happened with the American people not getting the straight scoop about
Iraq before this war started.
I have heard certain people in the administration think that this is
just going to kind of go away; it is going to kind of drift off and
Americans will watch reality TV and forget this. I think the
administration is very wrong on this; and we need them to embrace this
idea of a bipartisan, led by a Republican, perhaps Warren Rudman, some
esteemed Republican figure, to lead this bipartisan commission.
I have got four points why this is so important, and the first two
come back to the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Delahunt) question,
which is what should be the standard for starting the preemptive war. I
would suggest two, at least two.
Number one, that the administration will not start a war unless the
truth will convince the American people it is the proper thing to do,
not the fudged intelligence, not the exaggerated intelligence, not the
selective intelligence, but the whole intelligence. What clearly
happened here is that this administration did not have confidence
enough in their argument about freeing Iraqis, which might be a
legitimate reason for a war, there are people who believe that, but
they did not have confidence in that so they had to exaggerate
intelligence and use selective intelligence and not tell us the whole
thing. That is the first fundamental standard we have to meet before a
preemptive war.

[[Page H7220]]

The second fundamental standard we ought to insist on on a bipartisan
basis is that we do the intelligence first and then we make the
decision whether or not to go to war. We do not make the decision to go
to war and then ask everybody to give the intelligence that fits that
preconceived notion. The neutral evaluation of the scenario that
occurred here is that some folks in this administration made an early
decision to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and yes, there may be some
legitimate reasons to do that; and some Americans believe even with no
security threat to the United States, but we cannot start a preemp war
on that basis, and that is what this bipartisan commission ought to
say.
I will just say two other points.
I think some folks are so hung up on this uranium yellow cake they
do not realize this is just the tip of the iceberg. This is the
smallest tip of the iceberg of this selective intelligence failure.
I heard today a gentleman point out four things that I do not recall
the President telling us. The two highest al Qaeda operatives, officers
if you will, in our custody in Guantanamo before the war started, told
us that they had no relationship with Saddam Hussein. I do not recall
the President standing in the State of the Union and telling us that
the two highest al Qaeda operatives said they had nothing to do with
Saddam Hussein. Maybe I missed that, but I do not recall that.
I do not recall him telling us that a retired national security
fellow named Beers has said that looking at the intelligence he could
not find any evidence of an ongoing relationship between al Qaeda and
Saddam Hussein.
I do not recall him telling us that the Central Intelligence Agency
told The Washington Post that, although there might have been some
communication, there was no outstanding relationship between these
entities. I do not recall any of these facts.
What I recall is the administration trying to paint a picture, an
implicit assumption of Americans that Saddam Hussein was behind
September 11, and all this intelligence was excluded from public
information and that was just wrong. This President said, and it is
almost a quote, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has some of the
most lethal weapons systems devised by man. It is almost a direct
quote.
When we peel back these intelligence reports, we know there are lots
of doubts about these issues.
Mr. DELAHUNT. My colleague is aware under the administration of his
father, back in the late 1980s and almost to the inception of the 1990
war, invasion by Iraq against Kuwait, that that administration was
actually transferring dual technologies to Iraq and that it was under
the Reagan-Bush administration that Saddam Hussein was taken off the
terrorist list; that in 1986 it was the Reagan-Bush administration that
installed an embassy in Baghdad; and that during the course of that
war, during the course of that war, it was the Defense Intelligence
Agency that was providing the Iraqi Army with intelligence; and that it
was that administration that provided billions of dollars of
agricultural credits to Iraq; and it was that administration that when
this Congress, the Congress, a Democratic Congress back in 1989 and
1990 passed legislation which would have imposed sanctions on the
Saddam Hussein regime for using chemical weapons against their own
people, blocked the passage of those sanctions. Is my colleague aware
of that?

Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I am certainly aware of it.
I tell my colleague what perhaps I was not aware of, and I was
stunned when I heard our Secretary of Defense say this the other day. I
was stunned. He said that we went to war not based on new intelligence,
but by a new impression we had after September 11. We all had the new
mindset after September 11. It is clear about that, but the impression
this administration gave to the American people, consciously I believe,
is that there is a new round of intelligence that necessitated this
preemptive attack. Our Secretary of Defense came and told us there was
no new intelligence that did not exist through the whole decade of the
1990s to justify the preemptive war. I was stunned when I heard that,
when we heard the administration for 4 months tell us that there was
all this imminent threat that was going to occur.
I will mention another thing, perhaps unsolicited advice to this
administration. They are on the cusp of making some bad decisions. I do
not like to use the word ``cover-up'' because it is too weighted with
emotion; but they are not helping figure out what happened here, and
there is great danger. I will give my colleagues an example.
Ambassador Wilson, the ambassador who blew the whistle on the
uranium yellow cake, the forgery that ended up in the State of the
Union speech, I just heard on NBC News tonight, his wife, her sort-of
security clearance was jeopardized at the CIA because somebody sort of
outed her, if you will, about her CIA contact which essentially could
devastate her career. That kind of shenanigans is not going to be
helpful to this administration. That is why we need a clear, publicly
oriented, bipartisan review, above the table, nobody playing games with
this. This is what America needs.
Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, I would like to add one thing. In all
this, we forgot that it only, I think, was like 8 weeks ago Deputy
Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz announced that the reason they made an
argument about weapons of mass destruction was that way they could get
consensus within the bureaucracy. They told us that it was somewhat
imminent or the new intelligence is or the look of new intelligence.
This was a string to thread the beads together, but it was not
exactly something new. It was not something exactly imminent. In fact,
it was quite clear, based now if you can kind of peel back some of the
pieces and disparate information you get from the newspapers, other
magazines, journalists, that there were a lot of questions about the
relevance of some of the information they were using to justify the war
or the need for the immediacy and the urgency which gets to the
question.
In an era of terrorism, there is a logic to preemption, which really
is a dressed up code for self-defense; but if that urgency is not
there, if the facts he used to establish that urgency are not there,
then the justification for preemption, known in normal parlance as
self-defense, is then stripped away. Then we have a threat, and the
question is do we have war or do we have containment? Isolated military
strikes? That is then a legitimate question to postulate, but the
information necessary to have that was withheld from the public debate
and from this hall.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I have mentioned it down here before.
I said that we are going to bring the hammer of truth down on the anvil
of inquiry, and this is resonating across the country; and we have
mentioned here before that in this Iraq Watch that we are doing we have
to do it after hours, during Special Orders, because we are not having
the opportunity to do this. The press galleries, I will say again, are
empty here this evening. We cannot have anybody from these big networks
that are trying to make sure that they do not cross the Federal
Communications Commission. They all want to be able to consolidate even
more, own even more of what message gets out there. The press is not
covering the outrage that is taking place across this country with
respect to the points that the gentleman from Illinois is raising.
If my colleagues will go to moveon.org, we will find that there are
over 300,000 people right now across this country who have indicated
that they want an independent commission to look into all the
questions, all the inquiry that is being raised in these sessions that
we are having in this Iraq Watch, 300,000 people and growing. That does
not get the coverage. It is the kind of grassroots movement, the net-
roots if you will, that is taking place all across this country, that
says we are not going to take it, our democracy is not going to be
taken away from us by some self-appointed elitists who have an anti-
imperialist attitude about what the United States is going to be or not
be and that we are going to be informed about it later and that the
sons and daughters of those elitists will never have to pay the price
in blood and treasure that it takes to impose that imperialist vision
on the world.

[[Page H7221]]

I will tell my colleagues that all across this country men and women
are realizing they do not have to take it. They can do something about
it. They are letting us know about it. Our colleagues have been reading
on the floor of this House in some of the shorter special sessions
message letters. They are reading communications that are coming in
from the moveon.org petition drive from all over the country, in every
State, in every nook and corner of this country, people who do not want
to be lied to.
You can fool people. There is no doubt you can fool people, but you
cannot keep it up and you cannot get away with it forever. People do
not mind facing up to hard truths. Like Ronald Reagan said, facts are
stubborn things. People do not mind facing up to it. They do not want
to be lied to, they do not want to be finessed, they do not want to be
fooled, and they do not want to be played with; and we need to bring
this truth forward, and that is why we better have this commission or
let me tell my colleagues, this administration and the elitists that
support it are going to pay a fearful price.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I want to tell my colleague something
that might surprise him. You have heard of Pat Buchanan?
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I certainly have.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Very conservative Republican.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. No question of it.
Mr. DELAHUNT. A commentator I am sure that many of those that are
viewing are aware of. This is what he had to say in an op-ed piece that
was printed today.
In ruthless candor, these are his words, President Bush does not
have the surplus of resources, military, strategic, financial,
political, to hold the empire. As some of us predicted a decade ago,
the compulsive interventionism of the Bushites might lead to imperial
overstretch. Something has to give. It is going to be the empire. From
here on it begins to recede. Either President Bush starts discarding
imperial responsibilities we cannot carry and bringing the troops home
or his successor will.
That is not me. That is Patrick Buchanan.
Mr. HOEFFEL. What I think we need, before I get back to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Inslee), who has only had one bite at the apple
night and is going to get another one, we have got to have straight
talk about what is happening now and a clear reality and acknowledgment
of what is happening now. Let me give one example.
We have a new U.S. commander in Iraq, General John Abizaid, I hope I
said his name right, who has acknowledged that we are facing a
guerrilla opposition, which I think is an obvious reality that we all
know. What he has described as ``a classical guerrilla-type campaign''
is being waged against our armed services in stark contrast to what the
Secretary of Defense has refused to acknowledge. Donald Rumsfeld has
refused to acknowledge that we have got an organized resistance or a
guerrilla resistance; and as Trudy Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer
in her commentary said, ``You can't fight a war unless you recognize
the enemy.''
Even on the military side of this conflict, until this new commander
has told us the truth, General Abizaid, the civilian leadership of the
Department of Defense has not faced the reality. What has happened, as
we all know, is since the military victory was announced on May 1 by
the President on the ship off San Diego, the American forces have been
subjected to repeated ambushes and attacks.

{time} 2300

Some 35 Americans have been assassinated since that day. And 10 have
occurred since the President said the other day ``Bring it on.'' Since
the President said, ``We have enough force to protect our forces in
Iraq, so ``bring it on,'' ten more Americans have been assassinated.
Last week, Minnesota Public Radio quoted Mary Kewatt, the aunt of a
soldier killed in Iraq, who said ``President Bush made a comment a week
ago, and he said `bring it on.' Well, they brought it on, and now my
nephew is dead.'' The lack of straight talk and too much arrogance and
too much bragging is bringing on this credibility gap.
And so I do not have a credibility gap, Madam Speaker, I am going to
honor my commitment to hear from the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Inslee) one more time.
Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, one thing that I think is important to
say about this commission that we are urging is that it is not a
commission to debate the Iraq war or the reasons for the war or the
propriety of the war. I represent constituents who have divided opinion
about that today. Some of my constituents believe that a removal of
Saddam Hussein was justified even if he had toothpicks and that is all
he had. Some of my constituents believe that was a legitimate exercise
of military force by the United States.
Now, I do not agree with that, but some of my constituents feel like
that sincerely. But those same constituents tell me that they did not
appreciate being kept in the dark about the reams of intelligence which
suggested that the President concluded that there was no doubt about
Iraq's having these weapons, when, in fact, there was massive doubt;
that he had no doubt there was a connection with al-Qaeda, when, in
fact, there was massive doubt; that he made the decision after he had
the intelligence; when, in fact, he made the decision before he had the
intelligence. Those same people who believed the war may have been
justified do not appreciate that because they recognize this is a
threat to democracy.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I want to ask a question, because I
think that was an excellent point. But there is such a thing, as the
gentleman knows, but maybe the viewers do not, as a National
Intelligence Estimate, and that is all of the information on a
particular crisis that is drawn from all of the agencies that possess
intelligence in the United States Government. That was done, and it was
concluded in October of 2002.
Now, the President's State of the Union address was on January 28 of
2003, some 3 or 4 months later. Within that National Intelligence
Estimate it has been reported, and we have no reason to disbelieve it,
that there was significant expressions of doubt; that particularly the
Department of State insisted on a footnote which said we have serious
reservations about the credibility of this, and they were referring
specifically to the securing of uranium from that west African country
of Niger.
So let me ask this question of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Emanuel), who served in the previous White House. Did President Clinton
read the National Intelligence Estimates when he was faced with crises?
Mr. EMANUEL. Well, Madam Speaker, first of all, the National
Intelligence Estimate is based on the National Security Intelligence
Entities, the Defense Intelligence Entities, the CIA, and I think, if I
am not mistaken, FBI contributes to that. So there are four separate
entities that get funneled through to the National Security Council
that then present that document.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Did President Clinton read it?
Mr. EMANUEL. There is no doubt he read those that were presented, and
especially on the doorstep of war.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Then tell me how this President can have any doubt.
Mr. EMANUEL. In fact, I think it was mentioned, and I want to say one
thing to our colleague from Washington, that not only did the President
not read it, or it has been reported he did not read it, but I think it
has also been reported, though I want to have enough doubt, a question
mark about what I am going to say, that, in fact, the National Security
Adviser said she did not read the whole report. I think that is also in
that same story.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I find that unbelievable.
Mr. EMANUEL. Well, one would think on the doorstep of war one would
read that. But I want to stress one thing about what our colleague from
Washington mentioned. He said the President was certain about his
opinion about the imminent danger of Iraq and Saddam Hussein, but the
people around him in the agencies and departments had their questions.
Yet the President was certain.
Again, I want to underscore this is not to relitigate why we went to
war, this is to litigate how we got to war.

[[Page H7222]]

Not the Iraqi war. We are not going to relitigate that. We are in, and
so we have to support our men and women. It is how that happened so
this mistake does not happen again.

____________________