[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 24, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H555-H561]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAQ WATCH
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bishop of Utah). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Hoeffel) is recognized for half the remaining time, approximately
27 minutes, as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be back on the House floor
with my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and
the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and I think others will
join us, for another installment of Iraq Watch. We have been coming to
the floor one evening a week since, I believe, last May to talk about
our policies in Iraq, to raise questions about the policies when we do
not understand those policies, to suggest alternatives, to try to get
information before the Members of the Congress and the members of the
general public about what is happening in Iraq.
Before turning to my colleagues for this week's installment of Iraq
Watch, let me review a little bit what has been happening, and the last
few weeks have been tough weeks for President Bush regarding his
policies in Iraq. We know that the chief CIA weapons inspector, Dr.
David Kay, returned from Iraq and said that stockpiles of weapons of
mass destruction do not exist. He could not find weapons of mass
destruction themselves. He doubts that such stockpiles existed before
we went to war. He doubts they existed in 2002 or 2003. This, of
course, is completely contrary to the White House assertions in the
fall of 2002 and in the spring of 2003 that these weapons of mass
destruction existed.
The President continued to advocate his case and, in my judgment,
hype the
[[Page H556]]
situation regarding weapons of mass destruction in the State of the
Union Address where he talked about weapons of mass destruction-related
program activities. I am still trying to figure out exactly what is a
weapons of mass destruction-related program activity, but I can tell my
colleagues what it is not. It is not a weapon of mass destruction,
because we have not found those in Iraq, according to our chief CIA
weapons inspector David Kay.
Then, in his Face The Nation interview recently, the President talked
about Dr. Kay's report and said that Dr. Kay came home and, number 1,
made an interim report and, number 2, suggested that things were worse
in Iraq than we thought.
Well, in fact, may I say to my colleagues, Dr. Kay came back from
Iraq not to make an interim report, but to quit. He said he has had
enough. He is frustrated. He says he is not getting the support that he
thinks the Iraq Study Group should get in order to focus on the search
for weapons of mass destruction. He believes those weapons do not
exist. And far from saying things were worse over there than he
thought, he said we could not find the things that we were told we
would find.
Then, the President finally appointed a commission to study the
intelligence regarding Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction. And I
am glad that he appointed such a commission, but he made two big
mistakes, in my judgment. One, he limited the time, or maybe I should
say he expanded the time so that the Commission will not complete its
work until well after this fall's election. Secondly, he limited the
scope of the Commission. He asked them to look into the accuracy of the
intelligence gathering. And I agree that accuracy must be reviewed, but
he did not ask the Commission to review the use of that intelligence by
the White House itself.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. HOEFFEL. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. On
that exact point, if we were just reciting a litany of errors made in
the sense of an honest misreading after a genuine inquiry, that would
be one thing, but the really shocking evidence to the contrary is now
coming out. In fact, we even see reports about where was the press? Why
was this taking place? And it turns out the source for much of this
information, not just for those in the intelligence agencies, but from
those reporting on it, was coming from the same sources.
The general public listening to us might say, well, that is all well
and good for you folks in the Congress to be mentioning these things
now, to be commenting on it now, but we had no access to that. We were
not privy to that kind of inquiry on the basis of a position in the
Congress where we could actually ask in depth in closed briefings and
hearings as to what the source of this information was. Yet we find now
in the Washington Post just 2 days ago a report taken from the London
Telegraph on commentary from Ahmad Chalabi. That name has been on this
floor previously. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has
examined Mr. Chalabi's career in detail. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), I believe, has done the same.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, if I may interrupt the gentleman for a
moment, I am proud of the fact that last April in one of our very first
Iraq Watches, I identified Mr. Chalabi in the words that my grandfather
would have used as a four flusher. I have to explain what a four
flusher is. A four flusher is a man whose word you cannot accept, and
if it was good enough for my grandfather, it is good enough for me.
{time} 2310
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, let me explain what Mr. Chalabi
admitted to. He is now on the Governing Council. This is the body upon
which the United States is presently relying. This is the body upon
which the United States is presently conducting policy in terms of
their being able to take over on June 30, this arbitrary date that has
been set by the Bush administration.
He now lays claim to the following. He was accused of peddling phony
tips about Iraq's weapons, the very thing that the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) has been speaking of. Again quoting from the
Washington Post, he shrugged off charges that he had deliberately
misled U.S. intelligence, We are heroes in error.
He told the Telegraph in an interview Wednesday in Baghdad, As far as
we are concerned, we have been entirely successful. Our objective has
been achieved. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in
Baghdad. What was said before is not important.
Quoting it now from the Washington Post, not even to the families of
all the killed and wounded?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, not even for
the American taxpayers that are putting out some $167 billion to date.
That is absolutely outrageous.
What I learned this evening, and I find it particularly disturbing,
is that Mr. Chalabi was present in this chamber during the State of the
Union that was delivered by President Bush back in January and sat with
other members of the Iraqi Governing Council in the box where the First
Lady was sitting. This is absolutely unacceptable.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat then for those who may be
tuning in and trying to get the context here. Let me repeat exactly
what Mr. Chalabi said, our champion in Baghdad, the person upon whom is
the principal resource apparently for the intelligence that was
delivered to the President, delivered to the Congress, and apparently
delivered to reporters who were all supposed to be checking sources.
Part of the thing that we need to remind ourselves and remind the
public of is that we are dependent upon the professional integrity of
journalists as well. We are dependent upon it. We are certainly the
object of it often enough. We are dependent on them checking their
sources to make sure that they are reliable. Let me repeat what he
said.
The reason I want to do that is that this is as cynical and sinister
a pronouncement as I have heard in my political lifetime. I am quoting
Mr. Chalabi, as reported in the Washington Post, We are heroes in
error. As far as we are concerned, we have been entirely successful.
Our objective has been achieved. That tyrant Saddam is gone, and the
Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I would just like to, if I may, pick up on that point
with Mr. Chalabi.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) described Mr. Chalabi
in very unflattering terms, but I think a more apt description of Mr.
Chalabi is that he is a convicted felon. When he fled Iraq he ended up
in London for a period of time and then went ahead and conducted
business, banking business, financial services, in the kingdom of
Jordan. There he was charged with embezzlement and a series of other
crimes that would constitute in our jurisprudence a felony. He was
tried and convicted and was sentenced to 22 years by a Jordanian court.
I am sure he would contest that. I am sure that he would proclaim his
innocence, but that is a fact, a reality. That is not just simply an
unflattering description of an individual.
When the king of Jordan came and visited with Members of the House
Committee on International Relations, and I forget if the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) was there, but I posed to the king, who
has been an erstwhile ally of the United States and his father before
him in the region for decades and has cooperated with the United States
in terms of the war against terrorism, I asked the king if he had been
consulted by the United States Government because I was aware that Mr.
Chalabi had been convicted of a serious crime, an embezzlement of some
hundreds of millions of dollars. He said, with certain equanimity, No,
I was not.
I did not pursue it because I did not want to cause the king any
embarrassment, but it was clear to me and others at that meeting that
he clearly was displeased, and to think that we turned our back on an
ally, who according to newspaper reports, and the truth always outs,
was encouraging defectors to provide intelligence that he should have
known was false, was false.
If I can pursue for just one more moment, this is dated February 19
and is
[[Page H557]]
from the Daily Telegraph in London, a British newspaper obviously. U.S.
officials said last week that one of the most celebrated pieces of
false intelligence, the claim that Saddam Hussein had a mobile
biological weapons laboratory, had come from a major in the Iraqi
intelligence service, made available by the INC.
Those watching us tonight should understand that the INC is an
anachronism for the Iraqi National Congress which is the creation of
Ahmed Chalabi.
U.S. officials at first found the information credible, and the
defector even passed a lie detector test, but in later interviews it
became apparent he was stretching the truth and had been coached by the
INC.
This is a report from a respected British newspaper that segues
exactly the reporting that was done in the Washington Post. This is
outrageous and to think that this gentleman was in this institution
while sitting in the First Lady's box during the State of the Union,
meanwhile we had voted, and many in this chamber on both sides of the
aisle had voted a difficult vote, cast an extremely hard vote in terms
of war and peace based upon false intelligence? Then we are carrying
the burden, not just of the war but of the reconstruction.
We are the only Nation, that I am aware of, that when we appropriated
the moneys for Iraq did not insist that it be paid back at any point in
time. All of the other donors insisted on some sort of a loan
arrangement and we did not, and if we really want to pour salt on the
wound, this is from the Houston Chronicle, and it is dated February 21.
The headline is the United States still paying the source of the
tainted intelligence. That is a Knight Ridder outlet. Indulge me for a
moment while I read this to my colleagues.
{time} 2320
``The Department of Defense is continuing to pay millions of dollars
for information from the former Iraqi opposition group that produced
some of the exaggerated and fabricated intelligence President Bush used
to argue his case for war.''
We are paying now. Today.
``The Pentagon has set aside between $3 million and $4 million this
year for the information collection program of the Iraqi National
Congress led by Ahmed Chalabi, said two senior U.S. officials and a
U.S. defense official. They spoke on condition of anonymity because
intelligence programs are classified.''
Mr. HOEFFEL. If the gentleman will yield, as bad as the situation is
that the gentleman from Massachusetts has just described, it could be
even worse, the impact of this faulty intelligence on this country.
Think back on the military strategy that our Armed Forces used. We all
understand that our Armed Forces fought bravely, with great courage.
But remember that they rushed to Baghdad because they believed that
weapons of mass destruction were there, in large measure because of the
representations made by Chalabi and others, and the very false and
misleading information that the gentleman from Massachusetts has
identified tonight.
Our troops did not protect their flanks. They figured the most
important thing they had to do was get to Baghdad and stop any
potential use of these weapons of mass destruction against the American
troops or the British troops or against the Iraqi citizens; that the
key was to get there as quickly as possible. And in that rush, which
they successfully did, very bravely and courageously, they left their
flanks exposed. The insurgency started, and we began to lose soldiers
right away because they were not taking their time, they were not
protecting themselves. They thought they had to rush in.
I think you can put onto the heads of these folks that gave us bad
information the loss of life, the loss of American life by our brave
soldiers whose leaders thought they had to adopt one strategy based
upon incorrect information, when it would have been a little safer for
our troops to protect the flanks, move more carefully and cautiously,
which I am sure they would have done if they were not worried about
these weapons of mass destruction that did not exist.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to
yield, the question now then becomes, unless I missed something, this
Chalabi is a hired gun. This Chalabi is a creature of the
administration. He has no executive authority here. He has no voting
power. He does not make recommendations to the President of the United
States as an adviser, other than as a hired hand. Where was the
verification? This man has a vested interest in getting this country
into war in Iraq.
What bothers me, what distresses me is that what he was saying fits
very conveniently into the ideology and the philosophy and the foreign
policy desires of some of the people who have been most adamant in
advocating war with Iraq before the weapons of mass destruction
principle was laid down as the foundation for war with Iraq.
It is not as if it is a conspiracy. It is not as if it is a hidden
plot. It is not as if it is some diabolical machination taking place in
secret. Matter of fact, we have had dialogue. I have had dialogue and
discussion personally with those who advocated this, like Mr. Perle,
Mr. Kristol, Mr. Boot, Mr. Woolsey, who himself was head of the CIA.
They published their articles. They have their books written. They have
had this position for some time.
So it is not as if this is something that I have suddenly discovered
or others have suddenly discovered and now are shocked. I am not. What
shocks me is that people would take ostensible information or
intelligence and assume it to be true without checking it out
thoroughly, precisely because it fit what they would like it to be.
I know when somebody is telling me something I want to hear,
something I would like to be true, something I hope is going to take
place, I know that a little bell goes off, a little tremor takes place
in me saying, wait a minute, let us make sure that I am not being told
something because I want to hear it, because I would like to believe
it, because I want it to be so, particularly when the consequences are
going to be those of life and death.
When you are making a recommendation and have the authority,
particularly as President of the United States, as the Commander in
Chief, have the capacity and the authority to act on that
recommendation and to make it in turn to the people of this country,
then it is incumbent upon you, more than perhaps any other person in
this Nation, to be absolutely sure you know what you are talking about,
what your sources are and how reliable they are, not just because
someone has told you what you want to hear, but because you know it to
be factual and the implications to be clear in terms of war and peace.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman has heard the term
before, but when we speak of a blind man in a room with deaf mutes,
this is an apt description of absolutely what has occurred in this
particular case involving this particular individual by the name of
Chalabi, Ahmed Chalabi, a convicted felon.
But let me give another possible motive. And again, this is simply a
news story that I am reading to my colleagues and to those that are
watching here this evening, because I think it is very important that
the American people start to understand the dimensions and the
magnitude of what occurred here and the absolute need for a thorough
transparent presentation of all the facts over an extended period of
time to the American people.
This is not about politics. No, it is not. This is about the national
security of the United States and how we are viewed by the rest of the
world. Our credibility is at risk here. If we perceive another
situation that is fraught with peril for our people, and we present
intelligence to the rest of the world, who is going to believe us?
Let me suggest another motive. This is from Newsday, a New York
paper, and it is dated February 15. ``U.S. authorities in Iraq have
awarded more than $400 million in contracts to a start-up company that
has extensive family and, according to court documents, business ties
with Ahmed Chalabi, the Pentagon favorite on the Iraqi Governing
Council. The chief architect of the umbrella organization of the
resistance, the Iraqi National Congress, Chalabi is viewed by many
Iraqis as the hand-picked choice to rule Iraq.''
[[Page H558]]
What a disaster that would be. And while we know there are very
sensitive negotiations and discussions going on currently between
elements in Iraq and between the United Nations, clearly Secretary
General Kofi Annan has sent a special representative. He is in the
process of reviewing it to make recommendations as to how power is
transitioned to the Iraqi people. Yet here we are discussing on the
floor of the House tonight the potential of having this particular
individual as the hand-picked representative of American interests
assuming a role in a future Iraqi Government that clearly, clearly most
in the region, my earlier reference to my conversation with King
Hussein from Jordan, will find particularly offensive. Clearly there is
no support from the Iraqi people.
{time} 2330
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if I may ask the gentleman from
Massachusetts, who did the hand picking? Who did the hand picking? He
did not pick himself. Is there someone in the administration, are there
a group of people in the administration?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Of course there are people in the administration.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Perhaps the gentleman can enlighten me by answering
that question.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me read from the original story that I discussed;
we are still paying for the tainted intelligence. The American
taxpayers are going to foot the bill for Ahmed Chalabi to come to the
United States and sit in the First Lady's box. Let me read this: ``The
decision not to shut off funding for the information-gathering effort
could become another liability for Bush as the Presidential campaign
heats up, and suggests that some within the administration are intent
on securing a key role for Chalabi in Iraq's political future.''
Chalabi, who built close ties to officials in Vice President Cheney's
office, and among top Pentagon officials, is on the Iraqi Governing
Council, a body of 25 Iraqis installed by the United States, to help
administer the country following the ouster of Saddam Hussein in April.
So here we are. We received false information, as the gentleman
indicated in response to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel)
yielding. He said the Americans are in Baghdad, we got what we want,
and he is continuing to get paid. And according to reports from British
newspapers, business associates of his just secured more than $400
million of American taxpayer resources for contracts awarded by the
CPA, by Paul Bremer.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a picture or any film
of Mr. Chalabi when he was not smiling and when he did not have the
smuggest look on his face and when he did not have the demeanor of
someone who had pulled off a coup, when he did not have a patronizing
attitude towards those doing the interview. I can understand why. He
has played us for saps and suckers, and the result is we have dead and
wounded, grievously wounded. The result is the sacking of the Treasury
of the United States, and the result is that we have had people whose
ideological bent in the administration was such that they wanted to go
to war using each other, Chalabi using them, them using Chalabi, in the
most cynical fashion, the result of which we now see before us.
He said, and I remind Members and those listening to us, what was
said before is not important. That which became the justification for
what we did is not important. He got what he wanted. Those who wanted
to have war with Iraq got what they wanted. They are not paying the
price. They are not the ones who have to suffer for the rest of their
lives either by having grievous wounds or by having the irretrievable
loss of someone that they love as a result of this.
The question for us and the question that we have to ask not just
ourselves but the American people are going to have to ask, is, is this
going to be allowed? Is this going to be something that we are going to
pass off? The fact that the Newsweek cover that the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) referred to in his remarks just previously
could have a headline, ``How Dick Cheney Sold the War,'' the crass
indifference of a headline like that in terms of its implications, as
if you sell a war, not that you are driven into it, not that necessity
forced you to come to that sorry and reluctant conclusion, but rather
how you sold the war.
Nothing, I think, could be a commentary more persuasive to me of how
this has been manipulated, how this has been maneuvered in a way that
discredits this administration, discredits Mr. Cheney in that role. He
has yet to come to grips with it, and the White House and the
administration as a whole has yet to come to grips with it, because if
my information is correct and the information given to The Washington
Post is correct, and this is something that one would have the
opportunity to see whether it is correct unless it has changed since
its publication on February 22 was that the Web site for the White
House, the White House official Web site cites the same false
information today. It has not changed since March. I quote from the Web
site of the White House as of February 22: ``The United Nations and
U.S. intelligence sources have known for some time that Saddam Hussein
has materials to produce chemical and biological weapons, but has not
accounted for them: 26,000 liters of anthrax, enough to kill several
million people; 38,000 liters of botulism toxin; 500 tons of sarin
mustard and VX nerve agents; and 30,000 munitions capable of delivering
chemical agents.'' And finally: ``He recently sought significant
quantities of uranium in Africa, according to the British Government.''
These are the same lies and the same fabrications, the same
prevarications, the same falsehoods, the same misleading directions
that took us into this war and continue to be repeated in the face of
the knowledge that we know them not to be true.
How could it be that these continue to be repeated? Is it any wonder
that Mr. Chalabi laughs at us? Is it any wonder that he adopts a smug
disposition when we continue to support him, we continue to pay him, we
continue to support the policies that he espoused, and he is able to
say what was said before is not important because obviously there are
no penalties attached to it?
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, we have talked quite a bit tonight about
Ahmed Chalabi, and rightly so; but he is not apparently the only
favorite of the American government involved in positioning themselves
for leadership in Iraq.
In today's Roll Call, one of the Hill newspapers, a fascinating
front-page story titled ``Iraqi Money Flows'' detailing how four
different Iraqis seeking power in Iraq are paying over $100,000 a month
for lobbying costs and public relations costs here in the U.S. capital.
It is a million-dollar-plus annual industry.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, where does the money come from?
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I do not have a clue. Ahmed Chalabi and
three others listed in the article are paying up to a combined $100,000
a month.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Chalabi and his cohorts are
paying this kind of money, what is the principal source of income that
we have already enunciated for Mr. Chalabi and his friends?
Mr. HOEFFEL. The principal source I know of is U.S. Government.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. In other words, the U.S. taxpayers are paying this
guy to in turn pay lobbyists in Washington to advocate his position and
influence Members of Congress.
Mr. DELAHUNT. To influence Members of Congress and influence the
administration.
{time} 2340
Mr. HOEFFEL. Before we get too carried away with Chalabi, let me just
make the point that is in the Roll Call article. There were three
others doing this. One of them is the favorite of the CIA to be the new
Iraqi leader and a third the favorite of the State Department to be the
new Iraqi leader. The gentleman from Massachusetts is right, the
Defense Department has long wanted Chalabi to be the new leader of the
Iraqi Government.
Mr. DELAHUNT. The convicted felon.
Mr. HOEFFEL. The favorite of the State Department is Adnan Pachachi,
who is another member of the current interim government in Iraq as
Chalabi is. And, according to Roll Call, the favorite of the CIA is
Ayad Allawi, also a member of the Iraqi Governing Council.
[[Page H559]]
We have got a three-headed monster here. The administration itself
cannot agree on who should be the next leader of the Iraqi Government.
There are three different agencies pushing three different people.
Mr. DELAHUNT. We would hope that that would be the Iraqi people,
because if we preach democracy, hopefully we will abide by the decision
that the Iraqi people in an election reach on their own. That is a
message that I think, and I think we speak for many Members on both
sides of the aisle here, that yes, the absolute sine qua non, the
essential ingredient to a democracy is to give voice to all of the
people, not some selected individuals hand-picked by Dick Cheney, by
the CIA, or by anybody else to run the country for the Iraqis, because
if that happens, the American taxpayer is going to end up with a much
larger bill than we have already assumed.
Mr. HOEFFEL. The gentleman from Massachusetts is making a lot of
sense here, but the situation is made that much worse by the fact we
are not just trying to hand-pick the next leader from Washington, but
the Bush administration has three different favorites, one from the
Defense Department, one from the State Department, one from the CIA.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield, not having seen the
article, does the article go on to elucidate for us who these
individuals are who are doing the lobbying? Are there firms here? Are
there American firms who are going to come to Members of Congress and
advocate on behalf of these individuals our appointees?
Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes. All the firms are identified, the monthly
retainers. It is an interesting article. It is a million-dollar
industry.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would the gentleman consider submitting that article
for the Record so that those who want to read the article in the
Congressional Record subsequent to our discussion tonight will know all
of the details?
Mr. HOEFFEL. I will be delighted to do it.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I will ask to have the article that the
gentleman from Pennsylvania is referring to entered into the Record as
part of our deliberation.
[From Roll Call, Feb. 24, 2004]
Iraqi Money Flows
(By Brody Mullins)
Several well-heeled Iraqis who hope to play central roles
in Iraq's emerging government have launched lobbying
campaigns in Washington to influence the Bush administration
and Congress as they work to shape a permanent government in
Iraq.
The group of Iraqis, which include three members of the
U.S.-created Iraqi Governing Council, are spending as much as
$100,000 per month on lobbying firms and public relations
agents to press U.S. officials to create a modern, democratic
government that is not dominated by Islamic conservatives.
``It's like they are running for president,'' said one U.S.
official of the competing public relations efforts in
Washington.
The three Iraqis began their public relations efforts in
Washington more than a decade after another Iraqi member of
the Iraqi Governing Council--Ahmed Chalabi--began cultivating
close ties to now-Vice President Cheney and other key
administration officials.
According to forms filed with the Justice Department, Ayad
Allawi, a member and former president of the Iraqi Governing
Council, has begun an expensive lobbying and public relations
effort to press U.S. officials to build a modern democratic
government that builds on Iraq's existing foundations.
Allawi has already paid more than $300,000 to Washington
from Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP to help open
doors on Capital Hill and at the White House.
Allawi also hired a former U.S. ambassador to coordinate
his Washington effort and a New York advertising firm that
once worked for the Beatles to manage his image in the United
States.
The public relations effort, which could top $1 million
this year, is funded by Mashal Nawab, an Iraqi-born physician
who is a ``close friend and admirer'' of Allawi, according to
the Justice Department forms.
Adnan Pachachi, another member and former president of
Iraq's interim government, has also signed up a Washington
public relations firm to help him get his message across to
the Bush administration and Congress.
F. Wallace Hayes, working on a pro bono basis for now, will
write press releases for the 70-year-old Pachachi that
``promote democracy in Iraq,'' according to the Justice
Department forms.
Meanwhile, Baqir Jabor, an Iraqi exile appointed by the
United States to run Iraq's housing and construction
department, has asked former Rep. Bob Livingston (R-La.) and
his influential Washington lobbying firm to help arrange a
series of meetings with the Bush administration during his
upcoming visit to the United States.
Officials at Livingston Group said Jabor is not a formal
client of the firm. Other details of Livingston's work with
Jabor are not yet available because Jabor first asked
Livingston for help only last month.
The new public relations campaigns in Washington come as
the Bush administration struggles to complete an interim
constitution for Iraq by the end of the month in order to
turn control of the government over to Iraq this year.
In the past few days, it has become clear that the United
States will fail to meet both deadlines.
Over the weekend, the Kurds in northern Iraq--which
comprise 20 percent of the country--rejected key parts of the
constitution. Meanwhile, Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator
in Iraq, acknowledged last week that it is unlikely that Iraq
will be able to hold an election for at least another year.
By hiring lobbyists in Washington, the Iraqi leaders hope
to one day play a central role in the emerging government.
The Iraqis who have hired lobbyists are each former exiles
who want the United States to create a democratically elected
government.
Iraq's Shiites make up as much as 60 percent of the country
and are better organized than their political and ethnic
rivals, the Kurds and the Sunnis.
The leader of Iraq's Shiite conservatives, Grand Ayatollah
Ali al-Sistani, hopes to schedule quick elections, knowing
that he and his allies would dominate the government if
elections are held soon.
Allawi, Jabor and Pachachi share another rival in Chalabi.
But unlike the Iraqi newcomers to Washington, Chalabi has
worked for years in Washington cultivating friendships with
key players like Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.
Since 1986, Shea & Gardner has represented Chalabi and his
Iraqi National Congress in Washington for about $10,000 a
month. One of the partners at Shea & Gardner is James
Woolsey, the former CIA director.
Chalabi also gets help from Francis Brooke, a political
consultant, and Riva Levinson of BKSH & Associates, the
Washington firm founded by Charles Black, a long-time ally of
President Bush.
Those contacts have paid off: At this year's State of the
Union address, Chalabi sat in the VIP box with first lady
Laura Bush.
Chalabi also was one of the few Iraqis permitted to meet
face to face with Saddam Hussein in his cell in the hours
after his capture in late December.
Chalabi has long been considered the favorite of Defense
Department officials to lead Iraq's new government.
However, his star appears to be fading as Pentagon
officials question some of the military intelligence he
provided before the war and as Iraqis increasingly view
Chalabi as a pawn for the United States.
Meanwhile, the State Department is thought to favor
Pachachi, while the CIA backs Allawi. His main opponent in
Washington is thought to be Chalabi, a distant relative.
Though Chalabi and Allawi both oppose an Iraqi government
run by Islamics, they split over the structure of a new
secular government.
Chalabi would like to rid the country of anything to do
with Hussein's Baath Party, while Chalabi--a member of the
Baath Party before it was hijacked by Hussein in the 1970s--
believes the new government should be built upon the existing
foundations.
``There are options available to make use of the civil
structures that are available in Iraq rather than throwing
everything out,'' said R. Paul Stimers of Allawi's lobbying
firm, Preston Gates.
Allawi, a neuroscientist by training, survived a vicious
assassination attempt in the late 1970s when Hussein allies
tried to axe him to death in his sleep. He later became a
source of important--and sometimes suspect--intelligence
information to the CIA.
After the war, he was appointed to the interim Iraqi
Governing Council and tapped to take charge of security for
the country.
In Washington, Allawia and his British benefactor last fall
hired Patrick Theros, a former U.S. ambassador to Qatar, to
build his base of support among key Members of Congress and
the Bush administration.
Theros runs a consulting firm, Theros & Theros, with his
wife and son out of their home in a leafy section of
Northwest Washington.
With a total monthly budget that began at $122,000, Allawi
brought on New York public relations agency Brown Lloyd James
Ltd.--a firm that once represented the Beatles--for $12,500 a
month.
For lobbying work, Allawi tapped Washington lobbying shop
Preston Gates for $100,000 a month, though the firm has since
lowered its monthly retainer to less than $50,000.
According to contracts filed with the Justice Department,
the firms will help Allawi ``gain U.S. government support for
his policy suggestions for Iraq'' by ``explain[ing] his views
on the security and political situation in Iraq.''
Theros, who is making about $10,000 a month from Allawi,
plans to attend ``public forums, seminars, events and
meetings which represent an opportunity'' to express Allawi's
ideas.
Allawi's lobbying effort was expected to end this spring
when the United States was
[[Page H560]]
expected to hand control over the government to Iraq.
But with the prospects of meeting that deadline dim, the
lobbying and public relations campaign is expected to
continue.
Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman will yield, I think I can answer his
question at least in part here. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania just
indicated, there are rival camps now that presumably the American
taxpayer is supporting in their lobbying efforts in terms of securing
more resources and more tax dollars from Congress and the
administration. But it would appear that Mr. Chalabi has an advantage.
According to the Roll Call edition of today, it reports that unlike the
Iraqi newcomers to Washington, Chalabi has worked for years in
Washington cultivating friendships with key players like Cheney, like
Vice President Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, all
gentlemen that we have heard from during the course of the debate that
many in the majority party have described as so-called
neoconservatives.
The Roll Call article goes on to indicate that since 1986, Shea &
Gardner has represented Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress in
Washington for $10,000 a month. So Mr. Chalabi certainly was an
individual of some affluence. Clearly that was the impression that the
Jordanians had when they convicted him of embezzling some 300 million
American dollars from a significant financial institution in Jordan.
But that was $10,000 a month. For your edification, for those of the
viewing audience, they should be aware that one of the partners at Shea
& Gardner is James Woolsey, the former CIA Director who has been an
outspoken advocate for military intervention in Iraq.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield, I want to make sure I
understood really, because I have had some conversations with Mr.
Woolsey. They were affable. I considered them informative and
straightforward. I just want to make sure. You mean when he was talking
to me about these issues, he was part of a firm that was being paid
$10,000 a month by one of the individuals, by Chalabi himself?
Mr. DELAHUNT. By Chalabi himself.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That was never revealed to me. I must say, and I
want it on the record, that I resent that. If I knew that at least,
that is okay. I am an adult. I am perfectly capable of differentiating
between someone's sincerely held views and business associations they
might have. If somebody represents to me that, look, I just want to
tell you that we have a business relationship with this person, but I
hope you will grant me that I am speaking to you, giving you my best
and sincerest personal judgment regardless of my connection, I can
accept that, and I would have, surely, because I like to think that I
am a person, I hope, of some integrity, and I would do the same. If I
have strong views about something, I will certainly tell people the
whys and wherefores of it. But as a Member of Congress and having had
conversations with Mr. Woolsey concerning some of these issues, not to
have that kind of information, I think, is a subterfuge.
I am sorry to say it. It pains me. It pains me to say that. What you
just said to me is, in fact, shocking. If people want to be cynical
about it or think that I am just making some rhetorical flourish, they
can think so, but it is not. I do not conduct my affairs that way. I do
not deal with other people that way. I feel personally offended, to
tell you the truth, that such a thing could take place. I had no idea
that there was that kind of relationship, because I think that might
have colored what was said to me.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I would hope, and yet it would appear to be a remote
possibility, given all that we know, that Mr. Woolsey was unaware of
the representation possibly by another partner.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Woolsey has
appeared on television numerous times as a commentator. He has been
introduced as the former head of the CIA. I have seen him often making
commentary and being asked for his perspective, and never once have I
heard on any of those television shows, never once, unless I missed it,
maybe I tuned in in the middle, maybe there is something that I missed,
but I do not believe ever once on any of those shows that any of those
hosts ever indicated that he is being paid by a member of the Governing
Council, or that his firm is being paid by a member of the Governing
Council, and that therefore, at the very least, on the basis of full
disclosure that we should know that so that you can take that into
account if you think that is pertinent with respect to what he is
saying.
I wonder if the hosts of some of these television shows and radio
shows and even those newspaper columnists who are quoting Mr. Woolsey
are aware or whether they have made the inquiry as to whether or not
such a situation exists. What bothers me as a Member of Congress, does
this mean that I have to ask every single person that speaks to me,
every single person with whom I have a conversation for a list of
particulars as to what their associations are before I engage in a
conversation or can expect on my part to receive information that is
the best judgment of this person rather than the paid retorts and paid-
for positions of someone who is in the hire of somebody else?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I share your disappointment. I really do. I find it so
incredulous that I will presume that there is some responsible answer
why that disclosure was never made.
{time} 2350
Maybe this is a question of inaccurate reporting, but this is what
appeared today in the Roll Call magazine that is distributed throughout
the Capitol building.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield again to
me, the newspaper article, again, I am presuming that it is accurate.
Does it indicate that this is a current relationship?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me read it again, and let me go on because there is
more information.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I realize I am taking time up here, but
I am genuinely upset and shocked by this because I feel personally
used. I mean, some of these conversations took place on official trips
of the United States Government.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Again, I am reading for the gentleman's benefit and for
those who are viewing our conversation here this evening: ``Since 1986
Shea & Gardner has represented Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress
in Washington for about $10,000 a month. One of the partners at Shea &
Gardner is James Woolsey, the former CIA director.
``Chalabi also gets help from Francis Brooke, a political consultant,
and Riva Levinson, the Washington firm founded by Charles Black, a
long-time ally of President Bush.
``These contacts have paid off: at this year's State of the Union
address, Chalabi sat in the VIP box with the first lady, Laura Bush.
Chalabi was also one of the few Iraqis permitted to meet face to face
with Saddam Hussein in his cell in the hours after his capture in late
December.
``Chalabi has long been considered the favorite of the Defense
Department officials to lead Iraq's new government.''
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, there is something else troubling about
this. The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) is correct and he is
right to be personally offended by the lack of disclosure. And it is
also clear from this article that a lot of money is being spent to
influence the gentleman from Hawaii and me and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and every other Member of Congress, and we
have a right to know who is being paid to influence us and what the
subject matter is.
But the fact that this article also demonstrates that the Bush
administration is pushing three different people to be the next leader
of the Iraq government leads to the following question: What does come
next in the larger governance question? We know that Paul Bremer has
been advocating on behalf of the Bush administration this concept of
caucuses, that when the Bush administration leaves Iraq on June 30, at
least the civil authority is pulled out, that Paul Bremer has been
pushing for caucuses to take the place of direct elections and somehow
lead to a representative form of self-government for Iraq.
The problem is none of the Iraqis like that idea. The head of the
majority
[[Page H561]]
Shiite Muslims do not like that idea. The Kurds do not like that idea.
That is not going to happen. What is going to take the place of the
American-appointed 25-member group of what most Iraqis think are
American puppets, the Iraqi Governing Council, what is going to take
their place, particularly if the Bush administration has three
different favorites to lead the next government? What comes next? We
have got an arbitrary deadline set by the President of June 30 to
withdraw the civilian authority, a date that seems more based upon the
upcoming election than any ability of the Iraqi people to actually
conduct a self-government.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman suggesting that there is
no exit strategy?
Mr. HOEFFEL. I could not have said it better. There is clearly no
exit strategy. In fact, there are three different strategies, if the
Roll Call article is correct, about who is supposed to lead the next
government, and all of this is supposed to come to fruition by June 30.
Iraq Watch has to come to fruition in 5 minutes tonight. I want to
give my two colleagues an opportunity to make any closing comments.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say in that regard
that this is my 30th year in public service. I have made friendships
and conducted business, legislative business, and evolved personal
relationships over those 30 years with a great number of individuals. I
have particularly valued those who are sometimes disparagingly referred
to as special interests or lobbyists as if that is seen by many people
as a derogatory term or a term of denigration. And I do not see it that
way. I want to make it clear in terms of my expressed disappointment
with regard to this revelation about Mr. Woolsey; and now I guess I am
going to have to wonder about everybody else too that I have a
conversation with, I am not trying to keep people from making a living.
It does not bother me any. As I say, I have friends who lobby on
behalf of what are called special interests. We all have special
interests. We are a multiplicity of special interests. One has only to
read the Federalist Papers to understand that. In fact, it can be seen
as the bulwark of a democratic republic because we do have factions and
many interests competing with one another for attention and for
approbation. There is no question about that. The only question to be
answered in that is do we know that, do we know who they are and what
they are and why they are and so on so we can discern what the
difference is?
I have no problem with people who are our friends, personal and
otherwise, making their positions known to me or to anyone else in the
Congress or anywhere else in public office. What bothers me is when
positions are represented to us and we do not know that someone, in
fact, is a paid representative, particularly on issues of war and
peace, life and death. The folks know and the Speaker knows that I am a
member of the Committee on Armed Services and those are the kinds of
things we vote on every day, and I think every member there, regardless
of party, takes seriously, deadly seriously, I might say without any
sense of irony attached to it, take seriously their responsibility.
But we are dependent in the Congress on getting good information. The
President of the United States is dependent upon getting good
information and making solid judgments based on that information.
Anybody who fails to give the best possible information with the
fullest knowledge behind it and the resources is undermining the
Constitution of the United States and failing their responsibilities as
a citizen. In this regard, then, I feel ill used in this process by Mr.
Woolsey, and I feel very definitely that the press and the Congress
need to make inquiries of everybody who comes before us presenting that
information and perspective to us upon which we have to act in matters
of life and death. Everybody has to have the fullest inquiry made of
them as to what their sources of income are and what their sources of
information are, whether they are tainted.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, if I can add to the gentleman's comments,
specifically about what appeared to be the distortions of information
in Iraq. I am not speaking of Mr. Woolsey. I am speaking of the Iraqi
Governing Council representatives, Mr. Chalabi and others. I do not
want to see them benefit any more than they already have from their
relationships if they have misled this country and this government, and
I hope that Congress can figure out a way to deny those individuals, if
we can show they intentionally misled us, from any further contract
with the U.S. Government, benefit from the U.S. Government, promotion
by the U.S. Government. If we have been intentionally misled, if we had
gone to war in part under their false comments and under false
pretenses, and particularly, as I believe happened, there have been
additional American deaths because of that faulty information, we need
to cut off those relationships and prohibit any further financial
relationships with these malfeasors.
I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
think what he is saying is what we need is something that does not
exist here in Washington at this moment in our history. And that is
openness and transparency and accountability, and it is not happening.
To think that, and I do not know whether it was the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) or the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie) that mentioned it, they continued to benefit and with an
attitude that arrogance is not a suitable adjective. It is far beyond
arrogance. And it is time to lay everything out on the table or the
American people will lose confidence, not only in the President but in
the Congress.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Can we conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that, at
least for the three of us I think I can speak, there will be openness
and transparency and accountability on this floor.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their comments.
Iraq Watch will be back next week.
____________________