[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 49 (Thursday, April 8, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3999-S4001]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            THE 1-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE LIBERATION OF IRAQ

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a moment about the 
historic day tomorrow, which is the 1-year anniversary of the 
liberation of Iraq, and the experience which Senator McCain and Senator 
Chambliss and Senator Cochran and I just had with a few others in 
meeting the Ambassador-designate from Iraq, Ambassador-designate Rend 
Al-Rahim.
  She has been a leader in the movement for women's rights in Iraq, and 
has been designated by the Iraqi Governing Council to represent her 
country here in the United States at this historic time. In listening 
to her message, it simply should remind all of us of the importance of 
what we, as Americans, have been doing in support of freedom for the 
Iraqi people.
  I wish to share a few of the comments which she made to us, and a bit 
of the response to that. First, she is a remarkable woman in her own 
right; she, as I said, has been fighting for Iraqi rights for a long 
time. It is no surprise that someone with her background and 
qualifications has been selected to represent her country in the United 
States.
  Her first remarks were to thank the United States for helping to free 
the Iraqi people and making an opportunity available to them to govern 
themselves. She said that the main

[[Page S4000]]

word in Iraq today is the word ``democracy,'' that is what the Iraqi 
people are talking about, and they are going to be ready and, indeed, 
demand that when June 30 comes, they will be able to take control of 
the political affairs of their country.
  This is something they have been waiting for a long time to 
accomplish, and they are very grateful to the United States for making 
this opportunity available to them. She made the point that democracy 
died in Iraq 35 years ago; that under the repressive regime of Saddam 
Hussein there was no freedom of expression, no ability to debate, 
political parties ceased to exist; he would not permit anyone to 
question him. But today she talked about the 150 new newspapers that 
have cropped up, debating all sorts of issues in the country, and the 
opportunity for people to present their views on free television.
  She said throughout the country of Iraq today there is free and 
robust debate about the political future of their country; that 
political parties have grown, and the ability of Iraqis to govern 
themselves, in her view, is not in doubt.
  She made the point the security problems the United States and 
coalition and Iraqi forces are facing today, while grave and serious, 
are not representative of any kind of popular uprising in the country 
as a whole; that in her view they represent a very thin slice of the 
Iraqi population, and Americans should not view this as the view of the 
Iraqi people in general. Indeed, the opposite would be the case; that 
most Iraqis support the presence of the United States, appreciate what 
we are trying to accomplish with the help of the Iraqi people there, 
and that this relatively small group of disaffected people does not 
represent the view of the Iraqi people as a whole.
  In fact, her quotation, almost exactly--and she repeated it three 
times--was that the vast, vast, vast majority of the Iraqi people 
reject this point of view and support the presence of the United States 
and assistance to the people.
  It was a remarkable performance by the Ambassador-designate who told 
us about the condition in which they found the Embassy when they came 
in and simply reminded us that we have a lot to do in supporting this 
new government and helping it to be a viable force, not just in the 
country of Iraq itself but in representing itself to the rest of the 
world, and most especially in the United States.
  I was also moved by the strong statement made by my colleague from 
Arizona, Senator McCain, who had talked about his experience in Iraq 
and his experiences elsewhere in admonishing all of us to remember that 
there is no alternative to victory in this war on terror, and 
especially in the front we are conducting in Iraq today. Defeat is not 
an option. The consequences of defeat for the United States and the 
West and our position in the war on terror would be catastrophic. Our 
credibility would be lost, and that credibility is our primary asset in 
dealing with terrorism around the world.
  Our ability to affect the future with respect to the terrorist threat 
would be diminished significantly if we were not to persevere and 
complete our job in Iraq. This means, as Senator McCain pointed out, we 
will have to acknowledge the hard reality that it will not be easy, and 
it will not be cheap. There will be casualties, and it is going to take 
a long time.
  Remember President Bush first told us that when this war commenced, 
and in his State of the Union speech, pointing out that it would be a 
long, difficult struggle and that the American people would have to be 
prepared to persevere. The American people have persevered.

  We are at a crossroads now. There are some among us who are raising 
questions. That, in and of itself, in a democracy is not only fine but 
critically important. The question is the tone of the criticism and the 
effect that it can have both on the morale of the Iraqi people and our 
own troops fighting there, as well as the message it conveys to the 
enemy terrorists. If the criticism is constructive and goes to 
questions of how we should be doing what we are doing, it could be very 
beneficial.
  If, on the other hand, it suggests political motives for the 
President and the administration, suggests there is no support for the 
position we are taking, and suggests what little support there might be 
will erode to the point that we will not be able to sustain our 
position, then people begin to wonder. The people of Iraq who are still 
not secure, who are still fearful there are those among them who would 
cause them harm if they only had a chance, including the old Baathists, 
are going to be less secure and bold going forth with their new 
government and less willing to continue to support the United States.
  Our allies, the same message. Our troops would wonder, Is this a 
fight worth fighting; their families wondering, Is it worth my son or 
daughter dying? Of course, the message to the terrorists, If we wait 
these people out, these Americans have shown that they are willing to 
only fight for so long, and then they will cut and run if we make life 
difficult enough for them.
  This is a message we cannot afford to send. It is important the tone 
of the debate, the content of debate, the motives ascribed to leaders 
in this country all take into account the way the message is portrayed 
elsewhere, the way it will be played on Arab television, for example. 
These are not small matters. These are matters of fine-tuning a debate 
in the United States so that it will not adversely affect the way we 
can conduct the war on terror generally, and on operations in Iraq 
specifically.
  I think sometimes we fail to take into account how our words are 
listened to all over the world. I know as a Senator, it is still hard 
for me to appreciate, knowing who I am and where I came from, that when 
I speak, my words may have pretty significant consequences to an awful 
lot of people. It is hard for me to remember that. I don't look at 
myself any differently than I did when I was a lawyer 20 years ago. But 
we in the United States tend to forget that others view us very 
closely, and everything we do they pay a lot of attention. So the words 
we speak in this Chamber and in other forums are going to be parsed 
very carefully by others around the world for meaning.
  When those words suggest either there is a lack of support in this 
country for the policies being pursued, that were overwhelmingly 
supported by the Members of this body, the House of Representatives 
and, of course, the administration, when there is a suggestion that 
there is a lack of support for that policy or that support is eroding, 
and if terrorists continue to ply their trade they can undercut us to 
the point we will cut and run, when the words are interpreted in that 
way, then they undercut not just our policy but the people who are 
fighting for us in that region, and the people on whose behalf we are 
trying to help secure freedom.
  That is why it is so important for us to conduct this debate in a 
civil and measured and responsible way. I urge all of my colleagues to 
try to approach the subject in that fashion. I criticize no one for 
raising questions or even for criticizing the President or the 
administration. It is perfectly appropriate in our country to do that. 
There is certainly no right or wrong in exactly how we are approaching 
each of these issues. The decisions are made in the fog of war. Many of 
them are somewhat gray.

  I would only ask my colleagues, as we conduct this debate, that we 
consider the tone so it doesn't have an adverse effect on the actual 
war on terrorism itself.
  As my colleague, Senator McCain, said, defeat is not an option. It is 
impossible, given our military power, for us to lose the war in Iraq, 
but it would be possible to lose that war at home if we don't conduct 
ourselves in the same fashion and same spirit we ask our troops to 
conduct themselves when they are fighting for us abroad. That is an 
important responsibility we take on.
  When I listened to the words of the Ambassador-designate today about 
looking at the future of her country with such optimism and such 
courage and such hope, it rekindled in me the desire to come and talk 
about the fact that we have to do our part. Our troops are doing their 
part. We have to do our part as well. We need to make wise decisions. 
We need to support the troops. We need to support the administration

[[Page S4001]]

to the absolute extent we can. Our partisanship should stop at the 
shores, as it historically has.
  I know in an election year it is going to be difficult for us to 
discipline ourselves in that way, but we have to do so because of the 
stakes involved.
  I find after 1 year of the liberation of the Iraqi people, great 
cause for hope.
  We should not minimize the difficulties that lie ahead. I think we 
need to be extraordinarily candid about the problems we will continue 
to confront. But at the end of the day, if we persevere as we know we 
can, if we have the same resolve and strength of character our young 
men and women do who are there fighting right now--and you only have to 
talk to a few to be imbued with their spirit--then I have no doubt the 
United States will stay strong, our great ally Great Britain will do 
the same, as well as other members of the coalition that have assisted 
us so strongly; and in persevering and staying the course, we will be 
able, No. 1, to turn over political control of Iraq on June 30 to the 
Iraqi Governing Council and, No. 2, we will be able to stay for as long 
as it takes to help secure that country.
  Just as we have had the opportunity to govern ourselves, the Iraqi 
people will have the same opportunity. That will, in turn, show others 
in the region how they too can govern themselves democratically, they 
can live in an environment of freedom, and that is infectious and 
probably would do more than any other single thing to ensure that 
region of the world can enjoy peace, and that peace can even come to 
the troubled relationship between the Palestinians and Israelis. It is 
something to be hoped for. It all depends on our ability right now to 
persevere, stay the course, and to maintain the hope and optimism we 
had when we began this operation.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the order before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is on the motion to recommit S. 
1637.
  Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak out of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________