[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 62 (Thursday, May 6, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4969-S4973]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                 Sudan

  Mr. President, I rise to speak about the situation in Sudan. Before I 
do, often citizens, opinion leaders, and people who are viewed with 
some respect by the American people have, unfortunately, the 
opportunity or the obligation to say: Never again. We said ``never 
again'' after the Holocaust. We said ``never again'' after the 
slaughter of 800,000 innocent people in Rwanda, and we have said 
``never again'' on a number of occasions where acts of genocide have 
taken place.
  We are seeing a situation in the Sudan where I do not want us as a 
nation or as individuals to look back and say some years from now, 
after these innocent people are being ethnically cleansed and victims 
of a genocidal plan of orchestrated atrocities, that we would say never 
again without us attempting to do what we can to stop what is happening 
in the Sudan as we speak.
  Our thoughts and prayers are with the brave Americans serving in Iraq 
and with the Iraqi people we have liberated, but at the same time the 
situation in Sudan is dire and it is getting worse.
  I applaud Senator Brownback and Senator Feingold for introducing a 
resolution on this situation, and I am proud to consponsor it. I would 
like to take a few moments to describe what the world faces today in 
Sudan.
  The region of Darfur, in western Sudan, is one of the most strife-
ridden places on Earth. The largely Arab Sudanese government has teamed 
with the janjaweed, a group of allied militias, to crush an insurgency 
in Darfur. This is not the same as the conflict between the Sudanese 
government and the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement in the south, 
but rather a separate, brutal conflict. The methods that the government 
and the janjaweed have employed to put down the insurgents are nothing 
short of horrific. they are not only targeting rebels, but civilians as 
well.
  Reports emerging from Darfur indicate that the government and the 
militias are killing civilians, engaging in widespread rape, abducting 
children and adults, looting civilian property, deliberately destroying 
homes and water sources, and forcing villagers into government-run 
concentration camps. The government continues to block access to the 
region for international humanitarian organizations and ceasefire 
monitors.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to the words of a student from the 
town of Jorboke. He told Human Rights Watch:

       I was at the well with my animals, about half a kilometer 
     from the village, when the planes came. . . . The Antonovs 
     came first, they were very high, like small birds, and they 
     dropped eight bombs around Jorboke. We have two wells and 
     both were hit, the others landed outside the village. . . . 
     The MiGs came about fifteen minutes later and they bombed two 
     of the houses in the village. I heard later that the 
     janjaweed came and looted and burned the rest of the village, 
     but I had left by then; my family put me on a camel to come 
     out to Chad.

  A recent article in the New York Times reported an Antonov pilot 
ordering a ground commander: ``Any village you pass through you must 
burn. That way, when the villagers come back they'll have a surprise 
waiting for them.''
  My colleagues heard correctly. The government of Sudan is actually 
using Russian made Antonov bombers and MiG fighters to kill the 
civilian population. They are not simply attacking military targets but 
are focusing on civilian targets such as water wells, granaries, 
houses, and crops.

  Jan England, the UN Under-Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs 
describes the situation in Darfur as a ``scorched-earth'' policy of 
ethnic cleansing in Darfur, and Andrew Natsios, Administrator of USAID 
described it last week as ``the worst humanitarian disaster in the 
world right now.'' The cost to the local population has been enormous. 
In the last year alone, possibly up to 30,000 people have been killed 
and another million people have been displaced. Many of the displaced 
are farmers, who have been unable to plant their crops. Famine looms.
  As we stand here today, a nominal cease fire is in place, but there 
is little evidence that the government and its allied militias are 
honoring the agreement. Refugees continue to pour across the border 
into Chad, fleeing for their lives.
  If any of this sounds familiar, it should. Just weeks ago we 
commemorated the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide. Just weeks 
ago we wrung our hands and said, ``If only we knew what was to come, we 
would have acted.'' We should have acted. But the international 
community remained silent and idle, and 800,000 Rwandans lost their 
lives, under the most horrible circumstances.
  This cannot happen again. We do not yet face a Rwanda-type situation 
in Sudan, and must ensure that we never do. The situation in Darfur 
offends America's values, and threatens our interests. The continued 
flight of refugees into Chad, the tenuous peace between Eritrea and 
Ethiopia, as well as the ongoing conflicts in Somalia could further 
escalate if we allow Sudan to go up in flames.
  Now is the time to act to stop the killing in Sudan before it becomes 
genocide. I am encouraged that President Bush has spoken out against 
atrocities in Sudan, and that the State Department and USAID have been 
very engaged. But we must do more. As the rainy season approaches and 
threatens to hinder the delivery of aid and medicine, we are running 
out of time.
  The United States must first make clear to the Government of Sudan 
that its behavior and the actions of its allied militias are totally 
unacceptable. If the government believes that it will get a free pass 
in Darfur in exchange for brokering peace with rebels in the south of 
the country, it is sorely mistaken, as the administration has rightly 
made clear. We must maintain all sanctions related to human rights 
violations until real progress is made in Darfur, and consider other 
ways we can increase pressure on the government.
  The international community must also join with us in pressuring the 
regime. The situation in Darfur should be no more acceptable to 
responsible European and African governments than it is to the American 
people. The United Nations Security Council must condemn, in the 
strongest terms, the gross abuses of international humanitarian law and 
human rights in Darfur. It should further demand that the Sudanese 
government immediately disarm and disband its militias, allow full and 
unhindered access to Darfur by humanitarian agencies and ceasefire 
monitors, and allow all displaced persons safe passage back to their 
homes. The Secretary General should report back to the Security Council 
within weeks, noting the degree to which the Government of Sudan is 
complying with these demands. At that point, if necessary, the Security 
Council should consider stronger action under Chapter VII authority.
  In the meantime, we must examine whether and what size international 
contingent it would take to stop this disaster. If troops are required, 
we should figure out how to get troops, possibly African troops, on the 
ground. If we need financial and logistical support, the United States 
and others should provide it.
  Some will say that this is going too far, that we face other, more 
important crises around the world. Dealing with ethnic strife is never 
easy, and it is all the more tempting to turn our heads when Sudan 
seems a far-off, obscure place in Africa. Yet 10 years ago, we looked 
the other way when the public was unaware of the war between the Hutu 
and the Tutsi in Rwanda. In 1998, President Clinton apologized for our 
lack of action. I do not want to stand on the Senate floor 10 years 
from now and remark about the hundreds of thousands of innocent 
Sudanese who perished under our watch.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the critical 
importance of moving ahead on many of the pending nominations for the 
ambassadorial and foreign affairs post, and to speak to

[[Page S4970]]

John Negroponte, who has become a good friend, someone whom I admire 
tremendously.
  I do commend the Senator from Arizona for his statement on the Sudan. 
I opened this morning earlier today with the resolution at the time it 
was approved. The Sudan is a country I am in every year, and throughout 
the southern Sudan. I have had the opportunity to be there at least 
once a year for the last 6 years. Again, the atrocities that are going 
on in Sudan must be condemned, and the Senate is speaking loudly, 
through the voice of Senator McCain and so many others over the course 
of today. I commend the leaders, both of the sponsors of the bill, and 
the bipartisan support for that resolution.
  I mentioned the ambassadorial and foreign affairs posts because we 
need to pay attention not just to the future of Ambassador Negroponte, 
but also the many others today because we do have a whole range of 
qualified individuals who are going to be in very important posts--
except there is one little block, and the block ends up being a huge 
one, right here in the Senate. They are ready. They have been fully 
vetted and approved, with strong support of the Foreign Relations 
Committee. There have been bipartisan votes. There have been unanimous 
votes. It is now time to act on a whole range of these ambassadorial 
posts.
  Chairman Lugar, on the Senate floor just a few hours ago, eloquently 
noted that foreign governments take notice when the American Embassy 
post remains vacant. They basically look at the post and they see back 
in America that nominees have been put forward, but the fact the Senate 
has not said yes, which we ultimately will do, sends a strong signal to 
those countries as if the United States doesn't put the emphasis or 
care quite as much about that country. It might be interpreted as a 
feeling of declining interest in that country. We should not allow it 
to happen. Really, we must not allow that to happen. It takes action 
here in the Senate.
  I am very hopeful we can open up this whole gate that is blocking so 
many of these nominees. We absolutely must have strong diplomatic 
representation and support for our policies in order to fight global 
terror, to defeat global terror, to further our economic interests 
around the world, to advance our interests and bring freedom and 
democracy to the millions of people who yearn for it. Like our 
military, our diplomatic corps is a part of a national security team.
  I know most of my colleagues, indeed, all of my colleagues would not 
deny our military the leadership they need in the time of war. I ask my 
colleagues to remember the similar and very important role that our 
ambassadors play. That important role is advancing our national 
security and foreign policy interests. Our embassy teams serve on the 
front line of the United States of America. Our Foreign Service 
officers and embassy personnel literally put their lives at risk each 
and every day.
  It was just in 1998, in Tanzania, in Kenya, that a number of our 
embassy staff were killed in the al-Qaida attack. They paid the 
ultimate price for freedom.
  The Constitution gives us responsibility, it gives us a critical role 
in the appointment of ambassadors. But the advise and consent power is 
not only a right of this body but it is a responsibility of this body. 
As I have said many times before, I take that responsibility very 
seriously. In this time of war, America needs to have full diplomatic 
representation abroad. We are at war. We need to be represented fully 
abroad.

  The nomination of John Negroponte is pending today, and hopefully 
shortly, we will be voting on his nomination. I have had the 
opportunity to visit with him recently and to grow to know him over the 
last several years. I think there is no individual more qualified to 
take on that difficult task--and we all know it is going to be 
difficult--as Ambassador to Iraq. Ambassador Negroponte has served this 
country for over three decades. He is one of the most qualified 
diplomats to ever serve this Nation. He has been confirmed by this body 
seven times before.
  On June 30, as we all know, the Coalition Provisional Authority turns 
over Iraqi sovereignty to the Iraqi people. We have seen it play out in 
the last several days, the last several weeks. It is a difficult time 
in Iraq. It is perhaps the most critical moment in the fight to bring 
freedom to that war-torn nation.
  As we all know, Ambassador Negroponte will be charged with 
implementing those policies in Iraq. He will be responsible for leading 
and protecting a team of over 1,700 embassy personnel.
  It is a critical time of conflict in Iraq and indeed throughout the 
Middle East. It is in this critical time that we need Ambassador 
Negroponte at his post as soon as possible. The future of Iraq depends 
on our ability to make good decisions right now.
  As Chairman Lugar pointed out, we have a number of other nominations, 
30 nominations pending on other important posts, right now pending 
throughout Europe, throughout the Middle East, in Africa and throughout 
the world. I hope with the final confirmation today of Ambassador 
Negroponte we can open up what would be a floodgate to these other 30 
nominations.
  It is not the time to make political statements on either side of the 
aisle as an excuse for holding up these nominations. The risks are too 
great at this moment in history. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
approve Ambassador Negroponte shortly, and all of the other pending 
nominations as soon as possible.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the issue of the 
confirmation of the nomination of John D. Negroponte to be ambassador 
to Iraq.
  I serve on the Foreign Relations Committee. During my short time in 
this esteemed body, I have had the opportunity to listen to, to engage 
in conversation, and to question Ambassador Negroponte on a number of 
occasions. He is an extraordinary man to whom this Nation owes a debt 
of gratitude for his service in the past and whose confirmation should 
swiftly be approved so he can continue with the distinguished career he 
has in Government.
  His Government career started in 1960 at the age of 21 when he 
entered the Foreign Service. He has 37 years of experience at the 
Department of State. He has clearly played a leadership role in 
American foreign affairs. That leadership is needed today and certainly 
he can bring that skilled leadership to the challenges he will face as 
Ambassador to Iraq.
  He has served on four continents at the highest levels. Of course, he 
is serving as Ambassador presently to the U.N., Permanent 
Representative of the United States to the United Nations. He served 
this country five times in ambassadorial positions, including 
Ambassador to the Philippines, Ambassador to Mexico, Ambassador to 
Honduras in 1977, in 1979 as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for 
Oceans and Fishery Affairs, with the rank of Ambassador. His service to 
this country covers an extraordinarily wide spectrum of regions and 
functions. He has received numerous commendations, including two 
President's Meritorious Service Awards, an honorary doctorate from 
Adamson University in the Philippines, the Homeric Award from the Chian 
Federation, and on and on.
  He truly is an extraordinary man. He brings the right vision for what 
America needs in Iraq. His vision of the role of ambassador is 
different from what we have now with Ambassador Bremer. Whereas the CPA 
today is the ultimate political authority in Iraq, the Embassy will be 
in a supportive, as opposed to a commanding, role. He understands and 
believes a U.S. mission will support democratization and rule of law, 
economic reconstruction and security and counterterrorism.
  He believes the U.N. role does not come at the expense of United 
States influence or interests but, rather, the efforts will be 
coordinated and complementary. That is what we need in an ambassador. 
That is the nomination we have before the Senate. I hope there is

[[Page S4971]]

a resounding voice of support from this body. It sends out the right 
message to the world as to the kind of individual we want working with 
the government of Iraq after the transfer of sovereignty on June 30.
  I am thrilled Ambassador Negroponte is willing to continue his 
service, a difficult service. He brings the right skills to the task. 
The skills certainly are needed.
  These are challenging times in Iraq. There is no question about that. 
In those times of challenge, oftentimes in this great free land of 
ours, folks have different opinions and different perspectives. Those 
are often played out in the Senate or in the House Chamber on the other 
side of this magnificent Capitol Building.

  With dissent come tough, probing questions that make our Nation 
stronger, make it freer, and democracy more durable. I have great 
respect for those who dissent, to offer a different perspective than 
me. Certainly the challenge in Iraq, the war in Iraq is evoking a great 
deal of concern in different perspectives. There is a lot of 20/20 
hindsight. It is easier to be a critic. But dissent is not a validation 
of one's position. On the contrary, one can be just as easily wrong in 
their dissent as they may be right.
  I will say while American lives are on the line, those who dissent 
must choose the moments to determine whether their dissent will help 
make this Nation stronger or freer or if it will undermine the very 
foundation of what holds us together.
  I said it before and I will say it again, these days we are observing 
a mixture of Monday-morning quarterbacking, in some cases, political 
opportunism, exaggeration, which threatens to deprive us of perspective 
and resolve when we need it the most.
  There are challenges in Iraq. We are all reeling over the photographs 
we saw of the treatment of some prisoners in an Iraqi prison. It is not 
what America is about. We rejected that. The President rejected it. The 
military has rejected it and will hold those responsible.
  At the same time, as we speak today, men and women are still in 
uniform fighting for freedom, fighting against terrorism. This 
President, our President, did not ask for a war on terror. September 11 
happened. We have come to understand that no longer could we escape 
terrorism, that our shores did not protect us, that we had to be 
vigilant. We had to resolve and take the battle to the enemy. We have 
done that.
  War is never pretty. War is never something clean and concise. At 
times, bad things happen. Lives are lost. But in this case, we should 
never forget the underlying purpose. The underlying purpose is America 
is in a war on terrorism.
  There are people who hate us because we enjoy freedom, because we 
respect freedom, because of who we are, because of what democracy is 
all about. There are folks who will go to great ends to make sure 
democracy never takes hold in Iraq, who will do everything they can to 
destabilize what we are trying to accomplish, to make it not happen.
  But Americans have understood--even if we disagreed on the original 
purpose of going in, et cetera--that when our men and women in uniform 
are in battle, we stand with them.
  I have grown fond of Teddy Roosevelt, for many reasons, because of 
this, one of my favorite quotations:

       It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out 
     how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could 
     have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is 
     actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat 
     and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short 
     again and again, because there is no effort without error or 
     shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great 
     devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause. . . .
       Let me reiterate the worthiness of the cause we have 
     undertaken.

  This morning, like many of my colleagues, I awoke to an article in 
Roll Call in which one of the Members of the Democratic minority in the 
House has decided that comments he made in private should be trotted 
out to be heard by the entire world.
  His comments were that the war in Iraq is ``unwinnable.'' In private 
conversation those words are troublesome enough, but his willingness to 
allow those comments to be put in the public domain for partisan 
political purposes is not only outrageous but it is indecent.
  Over the course of the last several days, we all have been horrified 
by the images of prisoners being tortured in Iraqi prisons. They are 
shameful, they are reprehensible, and they should make all of us who 
are fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters say this is not what 
America is about. And we have said that. There are not enough apologies 
today to be given to the Iraqi people for that, but we have done that.
  But today, as American blood is shed in the cause of freedom and 
liberty across the world, a Member of Congress' utterances of a war as 
``unwinnable'' does not just demoralize American soldiers, I fear it 
emboldens America's enemies.
  Imagine being on a sports team that is losing badly to their opponent 
and hearing one of the leaders of the winning team all of a sudden say 
the game is unwinnable for them, even though they control almost every 
aspect of the game.
  To those thugs and monsters who killed with Saddam and now kill 
without Saddam, the ``unwinnable'' jersey on their back has just been 
put on ours by a Member of Congress. I find that so troublesome.
  Every day in Iraq, and in most of the country in Iraq, things are 
going on in which people are getting their lives together. Their 
schools are operating and their hospitals are operating. The city is 
operating, with a city council. Twenty-some million people are going 
about their lives. There are areas in which there is conflict, but the 
country is operating, is moving forward. Oil production is back to the 
way it was, just about at prewar levels.
  There are 130,000 American soldiers there, and they are doing great 
things. When you talk to them, when you talk to the folks who come 
back, they tell you morale is high. They believe in the mission. When 
an elected Member of the Congress stands up and says, ``I don't believe 
in the mission. We can't win the mission,'' something is wrong--not 
with the mission, not with those who are putting their lives on the 
line, who believe in the mission. Something is wrong with uttering that 
kind of statement.

  Shameful. Outrageous. It demands the collective condemnation of all 
of us that we should give comfort to the enemy because of those seeking 
to score partisan political points.
  There is an election coming up on November 2. We all know that. There 
is no way to avoid it. But because of that, it does not mean we put 
good common sense behind us. It does not mean that everything that goes 
on gets caught up in a political perspective and a political battle to 
make points for those who are for or those who are against.
  There is one thing about this country that I have always believed and 
I have always seen: that in times of difficulty, America comes 
together. I think what has been so uplifting about what we have seen in 
regard to the situation in Iraq is that, though there may be debate 
over the nature of the policy, there may be debate over a range of 
issues, there has been little or no debate about what our young men and 
women are doing in Iraq and how well they are doing it and how proud we 
all are of their courage, of their fortitude, of their commitment. To 
undermine that in any way, to talk about it being unwinnable, is 
something that I find difficult or impossible to fathom.
  It is time this awful language of defeatism in our Nation's Capitol 
comes to an end. It is time America comes together, as we do in times 
of war, to stand with our men and women on the front line, to stand 
with those who are willing to give the ultimate sacrifice--and many 
have--and to say to them: We appreciate what you are doing. We 
appreciate your commitment. We appreciate your service. We appreciate 
your courage. And we know that America will prevail. We know that 
justice will prevail. We have faith. We have faith in what you are 
doing and your ability to get it done. Shame on those who would say 
otherwise.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S4972]]

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, we are here this afternoon debating the 
nomination for the position of Ambassador to Iraq, the nomination of 
Ambassador-nominee Negroponte, a career diplomat who probably has as 
long and good a record in the United States as any person who has 
served in our Foreign Service.
  He started in 1960 representing the United States. He has had an 
amazing array of important posts, including being Ambassador to the 
Philippines and Honduras and Mexico, and serving in a variety of other 
international organizations.
  I hope, at the conclusion of our debate today, the Senate will, in 
fact, confirm the nomination of Ambassador-designate Negroponte.
  We need the very best in Iraq. It is a challenging situation. There 
is no doubt about that. We need somebody of his caliber there. I am 
delighted the President has found it possible to find such a good 
person to be the first ambassador to this newly freed country. I hope, 
as I said, we will be able to confirm him quickly and that he will be 
able to assume his post.
  I think a lot of the Members have found this as an opportunity to 
discuss the larger issue of the war in Iraq and how it is going and 
particularly in light of the events of the recent days regarding the 
revelations of the treatment of certain prisoners in Iraq. I think it 
is appropriate we all reflect on that, but I also think it is important 
we keep it in perspective.
  I just gave a radio interview in which the questioner asked questions 
that suggested maybe the wheels were coming off the wagon, that the 
entire effort might not be worth it; that one of our colleagues in the 
House had indicated that maybe we are losing the war and we ought to 
recognize that right now.
  I want to focus a little bit on that because, as we have a new 
ambassador about to assume the position there, he might rightly ask the 
question, What am I getting into here if we are about to lose a war? 
And the question is, Are we? And, of course, the answer is, No, we are 
not. I think it would be well for Americans to stop and think before 
they talk in those terms because the mere discussion of the issue in 
those terms gives solace and encouragement to our opponents.
  Unlike a war that we fought in the past--you could choose your 
examples--this war on terrorism includes components that have a lot to 
do with psychology, with what the enemy believes he can accomplish 
using asymmetric force against far superior forces of the allied 
coalition. Therefore, it is important what the enemy reads into what we 
are saying about the war ourselves. That is why, in effect, the floor 
of the Senate and the media are other fronts in the war.
  When we ask what we can do to help our troops, one thing we can do is 
think clearly about this and speak in a constructive, positive way, 
which is not to say we should never express disagreement with each 
other or with the administration or offer constructive suggestions 
about what to do better. All of that is fair game in a democracy and 
makes us what we are and makes for a better conduct of any kind of 
operation, including a military one. But there is a way to do it that 
does not give encouragement to the enemy.
  When you begin to suggest that because of what a very small handful 
of Americans did to some Iraqi prisoners, that it somehow suggests we 
are losing the war, we have gone way off track. I realize most people 
are not saying that. I hope they don't. That is the kind of expression 
that will be the beginning of the end of our effort to conduct the 
hearts and minds part of this war on terror which is almost in some 
respects as big a part of it as is the military conquest we were so 
successful in achieving in Iraq.
  How should we be conducting ourselves? We are part of this war 
effort. We are not carrying a gun. But people listen to what we have to 
say. The terrorists take away from what we say either encouragement or 
discouragement.
  I return to the memo we intercepted from a fellow by the name of 
Zarqawi. He was sending a memo to his fellow terrorists connected with 
al-Qaida saying: We have a real problem here. The Americans are winning 
in Iraq. They are defeating our brothers, and we need more allies. We 
need people to pour into Iraq to assist us. I fear we are losing the 
battle because we can't get enough help and the Americans are too 
tough. They are winning the country over, and before long they are 
going to have a new government set up here and we will have lost this 
effort.
  That was this terrorist's assessment of the situation. I like that 
assessment. What it shows is the planning and execution of our military 
effort and the followup of the military effort after we took Baghdad 
and had conquered the country, that that has largely succeeded. For 
most of the country we know it has.
  We have two pockets of significant resistance with which we are 
dealing. There the tension is between going in and doing collateral 
damage or trying to negotiate, which is what we are being urged to do 
by people on the ground, Iraqis who, after all, are making a point that 
they might have some idea about how to do this since they know the 
folks involved and it is their country. They are going to have to take 
care of this in the future. So we are paying attention to what they 
suggest. We are trying to walk a careful line in dealing with these two 
situations.
  But by and large, the point is, the country has been pacified. There 
has been so much constructive accomplished there in terms of getting 
the country's infrastructure back to work, getting oil production 
going, getting the schools and hospitals back up to speed, all of the 
other aspects that have begun to return the country to normalcy, that 
we tend to forget all of the good and tend to forget that the security 
of the country has largely been obtained when we see on the nightly 
news only one thing and that is the latest explosion that killed either 
an American soldier, perhaps, or innocent Iraqis, because a lot of the 
people who are being killed are Iraqis themselves. That is the bad 
news.

  Notwithstanding the news that we get all of the time, the terrorists 
are saying: We are about to be beat here because the Americans and the 
other allies have been able to marshal the military power to subdue our 
brothers. Without new reinforcements, we are likely to lose this 
battle.
  That is a nice assessment. It gives us encouragement that if we 
continue on this path, we will prevail. We have a strategy laid out to 
turn authority over to the Iraqis to govern themselves on June 30 and 
proceed to have elections in the country next January. Hopefully, we 
will continue to consolidate the security and so on. We are aware of 
those things.
  Therefore, it is especially distressing when people who are important 
people in America, perhaps elected officials, speak out on television 
and suggest that, because of these most recent events, somehow we can't 
win this battle; We can't win this war; We can't continue to 
consolidate the gains we have made, continue to provide security, 
continue to help in the reconstruction of the country, and continue on 
the path of turning it over to the Iraqis so they can freely govern 
themselves.
  Let's take each of those points. First, no one in America condones or 
in any way expresses anything but disgust for what we have seen on 
television and what we have been reading about. It is un-American to 
treat people the way these Iraqi prisoners were treated. It doesn't 
make any difference what they might have done. Americans don't do that.
  The President today, in meeting with King Abdullah, publicly said he 
was sorry for this. He was also sorry that a lot of people in the world 
would take this incident as manifesting what Americans and America are 
all about. He said that bothers him, and it obviously bothers all of us 
because we know that is not what we are about. The question is, This 
aberration, as it has been described, should that in any way suggest to 
us that we can't win this conflict? I fail to see a connection.
  I understand that among a lot of Arabs and, frankly, the rest of the 
world, including in the United States, people are appalled. But anyone 
with an open mind who has any understanding of the United States and of 
Americans understands that this is not

[[Page S4973]]

the way Americans act and, in point of fact, that we have a system 
which encourages reporting of such incidents and which immediately 
ensures that the perpetrators will be dealt with in an appropriate way.
  It is my understanding--and we will find out a lot more about this as 
time goes on--that the day after the report of the incident the inquiry 
began which resulted in military action, court-martial action being 
taken against several of these perpetrators, and subsequent to that, 
action has been taken against several people and that there are some 
that are still pending to be resolved. It is also my understanding that 
within the same month of January, a command had already been set up to 
investigate whether this was endemic or widespread, whether it really 
was an aberration and, to the extent that it demonstrated that there 
were flaws in our system that permitted this to occur, that they be 
fixed, and that things have been implemented to ensure this will not 
happen again.

  I suspect as we are briefed on all of this we will learn a lot more 
of the detail, and we might be more comfortable with the way the 
military has handled this. This is what America is all about.
  There is some fault, not only for the people who actually did what we 
have seen but also for the way it was handled. What I regret is that 
many in the political world have tended to focus on this. I would hope 
that opponents of the President would not seize upon this to try to 
gain partisan advantage. It is something that reflects on the entire 
country. It is not a Democratic or Republican kind of issue.
  There have already been calls for the resignation of Secretary 
Rumsfeld. This, obviously, would not help the President politically, 
but is it appropriate? The Secretary will be presenting open testimony 
tomorrow before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He will tell his 
story. Until he does, I think it would be wise for people to withhold 
their judgment. Since we have not even been briefed on the issue--and 
that is one thing people complain about--would we have a right to call 
for somebody's resignation before we have even heard what they had to 
say or been briefed? Is that an American way to do things or is it an 
expression of partisanship?
  I suggest to the extent it might be the latter, people should hold 
their fire and wait until the facts come in, and we can discuss this in 
a nonpartisan and a constructive way rather than a way that might be 
misread by our enemies, because the more this kind of criticism occurs, 
the more the enemy may take from it that America is divided and we no 
longer have the commitment or the will to see this conflict to an end; 
that therefore if they continue to try to nip away at us the way they 
have been, they will be able to drive us out, and they will have the 
country left to them to resume the kind of rule that Saddam Hussein 
exerted in that country for decades.

  We cannot allow that to happen. I think there is a legitimate 
question about when the people in the policymaking part of the 
Government--and that includes the Assistant Secretary, Secretary of 
Defense, National Security Council, the President, and Vice President--
became aware of things like the existence of photographs and other 
things which, if made public, would certainly significantly detract 
from our effort. These policymakers would clearly have understood that 
is the kind of thing that can undo countless hours of good work by 
thousands of military and non-military personnel in the country. Just 
one incident like this can undo all of the good that literally hundreds 
of people do.
  We have all seen the acts of kindness as well as bravery by our 
troops. We have seen soldiers helping kids in school--saving a little 
child in one case and a woman in another case--from being in the line 
of fire, one of whom had been wounded. There are countless Americans 
acting unselfishly and, frankly, selflessly, putting themselves in 
danger to help Iraqi people. That is a message that obviously needs to 
be conveyed, but all of that is, in a sense, forgotten the minute you 
have an incident like this, especially with the photographs showing 
this.
  I can understand how someone who committed these atrocities, 
unthinkingly, would have no idea about how this might affect the entire 
war effort when it becomes known, but people higher up certainly would 
have that sense. It was important that they get this information so 
they could then decide what to do with it. Undoubtedly, in America, 
ordinarily, we understand that the best way to deal with bad news like 
this is to deal with it in an open, honest fashion. I suspect that had 
we been able to do that, a lot of the outcry here might have been 
averted. That might have been included in briefing Members of Congress. 
But if the Secretary of Defense didn't even know of the existence of 
the photographs, it is kind of hard to brief Congress about it.
  I suggest that the bottom line on this point is that we find out what 
the facts are by asking the people directly. Let's stop condemning them 
publicly and calling for their resignation and stop assuming facts we 
don't know.
  During a radio interview that I just had, the questioner asked me 
about a certain situation. I said: I don't know that to be true. Do 
you? He said: No, but that is what we have heard. Let's see what the 
truth is, and we can act in a calm, compassionate, and firm way with 
those who did wrong.
  My final point is that in the fog of war a lot goes wrong. Individual 
people make bad judgments. Americans are just as prone to that as 
anybody else. There is a lot of pressure and emotions run high, and it 
is certainly possible for people to do wrong. One of the candidates for 
President this year talked about atrocities he committed, or saw 
committed, in another war in our history. It happens. It is not right, 
and people should be called to account for it when it happens.

  But let's remember, too, that everything in war is not coming up 
roses every day, and that there will be days of bad news. If you stop 
to think about World War II, for example, or about Korea, or any other 
wars we have fought in, you can find some very bleak days, days when 
Americans were being pushed off the Korean peninsula, days when we were 
being pushed off Omaha Beach, or times when we were making no progress 
and were taking thousands of casualties on the Pacific islands. Our own 
prisoners were horribly mistreated, and there must have been a sense 
that this may not be worth the effort.
  Americans understood the stakes and we persevered. In war there are 
going to be times that are bad. We understood that. Sometimes they are 
caused by enemy action and sometimes by mistakes we ourselves might 
have made. This is one of those times when we have a real problem 
because of mistakes that Americans made. But we have the capacity as a 
Nation to correct those mistakes if we will do that in a constructive 
way. That is the key. But if we do it in a partisan way, in a 
destructive way, we will only play into the hands of our enemies, who 
are looking for that kind of signal so they can succeed in their 
effort.
  As we conclude debate on the nomination of a critical position at 
this time in our history, the ambassadorship to Iraq, it is good to 
reflect on these issues. The Ambassador will have a very difficult job. 
I hope as we consider his nomination and how to support him when he 
assumes this role, we will all agree it is important to do so in a 
constructive way, always giving him our best judgment, but not 
undercutting him with premature judgments or actions that might be 
construed as political and might be misunderstood by our enemy.
  If we conduct ourselves in that way, I am confident that, despite the 
fact there will be days we feel very challenged in this country and, as 
the President said, things we are very sorry for, nonetheless, because 
of the kind of people and Nation we are and the values and principles 
for which we are fighting, we will in the end prevail, and we will 
prevail not only to the benefit of Americans and our national security, 
but for the cause of freedom of people throughout this world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak regarding the 
nomination of Mr. Negroponte to be the Ambassador to Iraq.