[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 131 (Tuesday, September 23, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11782-S11783]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         FAILED POLICY IN IRAQ

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I heard many of my colleagues today 
discussing my remarks on this administration's go-it-alone policy in 
Iraq. This administration and my colleagues across the aisle are trying 
to deflect attention away from the administration's failed policy in 
Iraq. For the sake of our troops, it is time for this administration to 
speak honestly about its failures in Iraq. Many Americans share my 
views, and I regret that the President considers them uncivil and not 
in the national interest. The

[[Page S11783]]

real action that was not in the American interest was the decision to 
go to war unilaterally without the support of our allies and without a 
plan to win the peace.
  There is no question that the White House sees political advantage in 
the war. You can see it in Karl Rove's speeches to Republican 
strategists. Just this morning, the New York Times reports that ``the 
White House goal is to show substantial improvement in Iraq before next 
fall's reelection campaign.'' You can see it in the way they attack the 
patriotism of those who question them.
  There are valid questions and deep concerns about the 
administration's rush to war in Iraq--in its rationale, whether there 
is a plan for winning the peace, how the money is being spent, and when 
our troops can come home with honor. Our troops, their families, and 
the American people deserve answers--not more politics as usual.
  The administration has no plan for Iraq, and it shows. American 
service men and women are paying with their lives. The President's trip 
to the United Nations this week is now the most important journey of 
his administration but it didn't have to be this way.

  The situation in Iraq is out of control, and American troops are 
paying the price every day with their lives. We have now lost more 
troops since the President declared an end to major combat than during 
the war itself. The administration says it has an international 
coalition, but it is paper-thin. America has 85 percent of all the 
coalition troops on the ground, and we are taking 85 percent of the 
casualties. This administration is muddling through day-by-day, while 
the lives of our soldiers are at risk and their families worry here at 
home. The administration has been unwilling so far to make the 
compromises needed at the United Nations to obtain the support our 
troops need to ease their burden and bring stability and peace to Iraq. 
The American people want to know from President Bush, when can their 
sons and daughters, their husbands and wives, their fathers and 
mothers, return from Iraq with dignity, having fulfilled their mission?
  The White House may be saying things are going well and we should 
stay the course. But the American people know that major changes in 
policy are essential. We need a plan from the administration--a real 
plan--before we write an $87 billion blank check to pay for this 
administration's hollow policy in Iraq. Terrorist are sabotaging the 
reconstruction efforts, lashing out in every way they can. U.S. 
casualties continue to rise. The headquarters of the United Nations was 
devastated by a truck bomb that specifically targeted and killed the 
U.N.'s highly respected chief representative in Baghdad. Nothing is 
sacred. A key Shiite cleric was assassinated in the bombing of a 
mosque. Even the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad was bombed, in an ominous 
message to other Middle East nations that cooperate with the U.S. 
Terrorists are said to be streaming into Iraq to take advantage of the 
new breeding ground that our failed policy has given them.
  President Bush has asked Congress to provide $87 billion more in the 
coming year to set it right in Iraq, but it is essentially a blank 
check. He says he will internationalize the conflict, but he doesn't 
want to share power on the ground. The administration had a brilliant 
plan to fight the war, but no plan to win the peace. It had a brilliant 
plan to overthrow a government, but no plan to deliver on the promise 
of democracy. The American people are confused about why we fought this 
war, and what our strategy is for winning the peace.
  Last fall, the President said that Iraq was developing nuclear 
weapons. The, he said Iraq has an active weapons of mass destruction 
program. This spring, the administration claimed that Iraq was linked 
to al-Qaida. None of these are true. No one doubts that Saddam Hussein 
was an evil dictator, but what was the imminent threat to our national 
security? The administration's rationale was built on a quicksand of 
false assumptions. In terms of how we will win the peace, the 
administration also seems confused. The Secretary of State has argued 
that additional time is needed to establish a new government in Iraq. A 
few weeks ago, he said, ``it will be some time before any new 
government could take over the responsibilities inherent in being in 
charge of security.'' But Secretary Rumsfeld, in an effort to assure 
that we are not getting bogged down, says that things are ``moving at a 
very rapid pace in Iraq.''
  Which is it?
  These and other facts lead the American people to question whether 
the administration has an effective plan to share the security burden 
with the international community, reduce the burden on our troops, and 
deliver on the promise of democracy. The American people deserve 
answers.
  How will the administration obtain a broader international mandate--
through the United Nations--to bring in other countries' troops and 
provide a greater role for the United Nations in the political 
development and reconstruction of Iraq? How many additional troops are 
needed to prevent the sabotage undermining the reconstruction? What 
nations will supply troops? What is the estimate of the duration of the 
U.S. military occupation and the likely levels of U.S. and foreign 
troops required for security? What is the estimate of the total cost of 
security and reconstruction, including the likely amount of 
international contributions?
  What is the schedule for restoring electricity, water, and other 
basic services to the Iraqi people? What is the long-term schedule for 
the withdrawal of foreign and American armed forces?
  The administration must answer these questions and provide a credible 
long-term plan for Iraq. We can't afford to continue our failed 
strategy of making it up day-by-day as we go along, when our soldiers 
are paying for it with their lives. We all hope the window to peace 
will stay open. If it closes, history will have no mercy--it will say 
this is how we went to war against Iraq, for the wrong reason, and lost 
the war on terrorism. That is the precipice we not stand on. The 
administration needs to show the American people and the world a 
plausible plan to correct this colossal failure in our policy.
  In addressing the United Nations, the President should have taken 
responsibility for his administration's mistakes in going to war 
without the broad support of the international community. We need to 
involve the United Nations in a meaningful way in the transition in 
Iraq. Our policy cannot be all take and no give. The President should 
work with the United Nations as long as it takes to get an agreement to 
help our troops and bring stability to Iraq. Our troops are doing their 
jobs in Baghdad; now President Bush must do his in New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Wisconsin.

                          ____________________