[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 11, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H2783-H2784]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     GROWING CONCERN ABOUT ALARMING LANGUAGE USED TO DEMEAN THOSE 
                  QUESTIONING AMERICAN POLICY IN IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page H2784]]

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans 
throughout this country share my growing concern about the alarming 
language being used to demean anyone raising questions about American 
policy in Iraq. But we have been there before.
  We have endured the excesses and the shame of the Palmer Raids, of 
McCarthyism, of J. Edgar Hoover, and Nixon's Enemies List. It is a sad, 
but historical, fact that in these times of national crisis and stress, 
some resort to challenging not merely the ideas of our fellow citizens, 
but their character, their integrity, and even their patriotism.
  Some would prefer that we ignore such blasphemy, that we treat such 
exaggerated rhetoric with the indifference it deserves. I respectfully 
disagree. I believe that we have learned a sad lesson from history of 
this and other countries that ignoring vicious political slurs 
encourages further abuse and undermines free speech and open debate.
  We have substantial disagreements about the wisdom of our course in 
Iraq. Those who disagree with our policies include highly decorated 
veterans, intelligence experts, some of our closest allies and millions 
of our constituents, a growing number every day.
  And yet, when a widely respected Member of the House, an honored 
veteran who has been a staunch supporter of the defense community 
through 30 years of congressional service, offered a somber analysis 
about the misdirection of our Iraqi effort, he was denounced by other 
Members as conducting ``a calculated and a craven political stunt.''
  Now, the author of that statement has a tendency towards loose 
language and personal invective, and most people do not take his words 
too seriously. I do, because he is the majority leader.
  He was speaking about our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha.) He called him ``craven.'' The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), craven?
  Craven is a strong word. It means gutless. It means spineless. It 
means cowardly, weak, fearful. It is a word that should never be used 
by a Member of Congress to describe another, and could never be used to 
describe the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

                              {time}  2015

  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) joined the Marine Corps 
during the Korean War. He volunteered to serve in Vietnam, while those 
who accuse him managed to avoid military service. He is the first 
combat Vietnam veteran elected to Congress. He retired from the Marine 
Corps Reserves in 1990 and has been awarded the Navy Distinguished 
Service Medal and the USO's Spirit of Hope Award for his many services 
to the men and women in the military.
  To even suggest that his impassioned and difficult statement about 
the course of the war in Iraq was a ``political stunt'' is to insult a 
distinguished veteran and Congressman, and I denounce it in the 
strongest terms.
  But the voices of hysteria did not stop there.
  Now we are told that those expressions of concern about the 
misdirection of the Iraqi campaign demonstrated that ``the national 
Democratic Party declared its surrender on the war on terror.'' 
Democrats were accused of giving ``aid and comfort to the enemy,'' 
according to another Republican Member who never served in combat.
  Let every American understand the meaning of these words: It does not 
matter who you are, if you have worn the uniform of your country, if 
you have risked your life in combat; to those who use these words on 
the floor of the House, it does not matter. Challenge the policies of 
the Bush administration and House Republicans in Iraq, and you are 
``giving aid comfort to the enemy.'' You are surrendering to terrorism.
  In other words, you are a traitor. That is what these Republican 
Members would suggest about Members of Congress.
  Well, according to the latest poll, 60 percent of the American public 
think the situation in Iraq is out of control. Have we become a Nation 
of traitors in the eyes of the Republican leaders of this institution?
  Mr. Speaker, this disgraceful, demeaning, and insulting rhetoric has 
no place in the Congress, it has no place in America, and it should be 
denounced by every Member of this House, regardless of party and 
regardless of one's position on Iraq. The day we lose our ability to 
voice our heartfelt views without having our patriotism demeaned is a 
dangerous day for democracy.
  Some may argue that these are just the voices of an extreme, though 
powerful few. Some say it is just partisan politics. That is not the 
case. We have been here before.
  Two years ago, the patriotism of Senator Max Cleland was challenged, 
a man who served in Vietnam and left three of his limbs there; a man 
who served honorably as the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs and as a 
United States Senator. Apparently he did not lose enough limbs to prove 
his patriotism to those who attacked him, those who sought multiple 
deferments in the same war that cost Max Cleland his limbs. Those 
attacks cost him an election, too.
  This year, the vicious attacks are leveled, as we knew that they 
would be, against Senator John Kerry, who volunteered in Vietnam while 
others used their connections and deferments to avoid service. Senator 
Kerry earned three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star, but 
now his patriotism is also challenged. Evidently, Senator Kerry's 
wounds were not deep enough for some of his critics.
  And now, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) is the target 
of this disgraceful, venal slander.
  It is time to stop.
  Americans deserve, and they want, an honest discussion on the issues, 
not a vicious assault on the integrity and the patriotism of 
distinguished men who carry their wounds of war.

                          ____________________