Congressional Record, Volume 150 Issue 86 (Monday, June 21, 2004)

[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 86 (Monday, June 21, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H4622-H4628]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

IRAQ WATCH

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, it was approximately a year ago, in fact I
think it was better than a year ago now, that myself, a number of my
colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Strickland), and, of course, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie) took to the floor to express our concerns about what was
transpiring in the Middle East, with a special focus on Iraq. We have
done that on a rather regular basis over the course of the past year,
and we have come to call this hour the ``Iraq Watch,'' where we have a
discussion among ourselves for the benefit of those that are viewing
our conversation through C-SPAN.

[[Page H4623]]

At the very beginning, we expressed our concern that American
credibility was at stake, as well, of course, as providing an
opportunity to observe the competence of this White House in terms of
its conduct of the war in Iraq. And, tragically, unfortunately, many of
our concerns have materialized.
I think every American remembers rather clearly the multiple
statements, not just from the President and the Vice President, but
from every single official representing the administration, whether
from the Department of Defense, the Department of State, clearly from
the White House, wherein they articulated the rationale for the
military intervention in Iraq based on two particular concerns. One, of
course, was expressed by the President and others when he continued to
state that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and
that a nuclear weapons program was underway and that at any time we
could be faced with the vision of a mushroom cloud somewhere in the
world, specifically in the United States.
Well, I think there is a consensus among the American people and
among Members of this institution, as well as a number of members of
the administration that that particular basis for the military
intervention in Iraq, the concern about weapons of mass destruction,
did not materialize, and that the intelligence was faulty.
It was the former United Nations' inspector, David Kay, who received
plaudits and kudos and respect, and deservedly so, from Members on both
sides of the aisle, when he was designated by this administration to
travel to Iraq and to develop a cadre of experts to assist him in the
discovery of where those weapons of mass destruction were located.
I am sure many Americans remember the Secretary of Defense, Donald
Rumsfeld, indicating that we knew where those weapons were; that they
were around the Tikrit area and outside of Baghdad. Well, of course,
again, that intelligence did not produce the location, and the
statement of Mr. Kay later was that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons
of mass destruction. In fact, he did not have a nuclear weapons
program.
In testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, he
made a statement that was emblazoned on the front page of Newsweek
Magazine, which has been repeated again and again, and that statement
was: ``We were all wrong.'' ``We were all wrong.'' There was also a
statement from a newspaper published in Great Britain that I think is
worth repeating, and it is a statement made by David Kay. ``The former
chief inspector warned yesterday that the United States is in grave
danger of destroying its credibility at home and abroad if it doesn't
own up to the mistakes it's made in Iraq.''

{time} 2015

And while there has been some acknowledgment that the weapons of mass
destruction that purportedly existed in Iraq are not there, there never
has been a definitive statement coming from the White House that would
support the conclusion reached by Mr. Kay.
In fact, the Vice President, Mr. Cheney, stated that the weapons of
mass destruction might still be found in Iraq; and Mr. Kay's response
was, ``What worries me about Cheney's statement is I think people will
hold out for a hail Mary pass, delay the inevitable, looking back at
what went wrong and believe we have enough evidence now to say that the
intelligence process and the policy process,'' I repeat that, ``the
policy process that used that information did not work at the level of
effectiveness that we require in the age that we live in.''
Well, I think all Americans, or most Americans, know that there are
no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Of course the other most prominent rationale for the military
intervention in Iraq was a purported relationship between Saddam
Hussein and the terrorist organization that we all know so well, al
Qaeda.
In fact, in a letter sent to the Speaker of the House and the
President of the Senate just prior to the invasion of Iraq and signed
by the President, the President puts forth in what I would submit is
rather clear and unequivocal terms that, ``I determine,'' this is
President Bush, ``that reliance on the United States of further
diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to enforcement of all
relevant National Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
acting pursuant to the Constitution and the public law,'' which this
Congress passed authorizing that military intervention, ``is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take the
necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist
organizations, including those nations,'' the clear implication being
the nation of Iraq, ``organizations or persons who planned, authorized,
committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, the date of our national tragedy.''
Well, recently a report was issued by the so-called 9/11 Commission,
which was the subject of much debate and discussion over the course of
this past weekend. I think it is important to explore in some detail
that report and have a conversation about those allegations that were
used by this White House as a rationale for the invasion of Iraq.
Let me read from the pertinent section of the report. The report
reviews the activities of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, and now I am
quoting from the report: ``A small group of al Qaeda operatives
subsequently traveled to Iran and Hezbollah camps in Lebanon for
training in explosives, intelligence, and security. Bin Laden
reportedly showed particular interest in Hezbollah's truck bombing
tactics in Lebanon in 1983 that killed 241 United States Marines. We
have seen strong, by indirect, evidence that his organization did in
fact play some,'' as yet unknown, ``role in the Kobar attack.''
Let me repeat that again for emphasis. Osama bin Laden went to Iran,
went to Iran and Hezbollah camps in Lebanon, in Lebanon.
Now, again reading from the report, ``bin Laden also explored
possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan,'' in Sudan,
``despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime.'' Bin Laden in
fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.
The Sudanese to protect their own ties with Iraq reportedly persuaded
bin Laden to cease the support and arrange for contacts between Iraq
and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three
visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994. This is some 3
years after the first gulf war. Bin Laden is said to have requested
space to establish training camps as well as assistance in procuring
weapons but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports
that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden
had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in
a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have
adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We
have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks
against the United States.
Those two senior Iraqi operatives were captured. One was captured
last July. He was a al Anni who reportedly had a meeting with Muhammed
Atta in the Czech Republic, in Prague, back in April 2001. Much has
been made of that particular encounter. Both the CIA and the FBI
concluded that that meeting never occurred. Yet we continue to hear it,
particularly from the Vice President. He cannot let go, it would
appear.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Would my colleague yield for just about a 5-
second question?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Of course.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I have heard the gentleman's arguments. I hope
my good and dear friend from Massachusetts will stick around for my
response to what he has said.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to hearing his
response. I would be happy to engage.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. We are good buddies.
Mr. DELAHUNT. We are dear friends.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I would like the gentleman to hear my
response.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I look forward to that. If I am not here in the
Chamber, that does not mean that I am not

[[Page H4624]]

watching it on C-SPAN. But I can assure the gentleman we will be back
here tomorrow night to respond to his response and correct any
unintentional mistakes that he makes in the course of his response.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
This may be a breakthrough tonight. We have, through the 15 months that
we have been handling the Iraq Watch duties on the floor, talked about
how we would love to be joined by our Republican colleagues in a good-
faith discussion about what is happening in Iraq, to discuss the pros
and the cons and to question one another, talk to one another about
what is working and what is not working. I do not want to put anybody
on the spot, but I would be delighted to have a discussion right now. I
am sure the gentleman from Massachusetts would yield and I would yield
time to anybody who wanted to ask a question or challenge what we might
have said.
Mr. DELAHUNT. We can make it a 2-hour conversation. I think that
would be informative and hopefully educational.
Mr. HOEFFEL. This is not a challenge. It is an invitation.
In any event, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for talking
about the whole question of whether or not the connection exists
between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, a connection that the Vice
President has repeatedly invoked. At one point the President himself
tried to straighten out the Vice President and said, wait a minute,
there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Yet the Vice
President has continued to make this accusation, even in the face of
the 9/11 Commission staff report that suggests that there was no
working relationship, no collaborative relationship between Saddam
Hussein and al Qaeda.
There is no doubt that the inability of the coalition to secure Iraq
is a tremendous impediment to everything that we are trying to achieve.
I certainly share the goals of President Bush in establishing a
peaceful and stable Iraq with a representative government, hopefully a
flourishing democracy; but that fine goal and all the yardsticks
leading up to it cannot be achieved without security. We are going to
have no success with reconstruction, we will not have a legitimate
turnover of sovereignty on June 30 without security. We cannot have
elections without security.
I wanted to do something I have not done before during Iraq Watch,
which we started in, I think it was, April 2003. I wanted to read a few
words that were spoken at a rally in Los Angeles on June 5 by a young
man named Dante Zappala. Dante's brother, Sergeant Sherwood Baker, a
member of the Pennsylvania National Guard, was killed in Iraq on April
26, 2004. I have met with Sherwood's parents, Celeste and Al Zappala.
They gave me a copy of their other son's comments regarding Sherwood
Baker's death. These are the words of Dante Zappala. I will have them
entered into the Record. They are way too long to read tonight. I
wanted to read the first paragraph and part of the last paragraph of
these remarks. On June 5, Dante Zappala said of his brother Sherwood
Baker:
``The tragedy that touches so many people in so many corners of the
world, the tragedy of war, the tragedy of violence and sudden death,
touched me on April 26 when my brother, Sergeant Sherwood Baker, was
killed in an explosion in Baghdad. I speak today with my voice and with
the voice of the countless others who have suffered personal loss as a
result of this war, those many people with no microphone in front of
them, those many people with no one to listen to their pain. As big
brothers do, Sherwood protected me, he carried me, and he taught me.''
Dante went on to express his frustrations with our policy in Iraq and
then he ended his statement with the following:
``We do not benefit from the deaths of our soldiers, nor do we
benefit from the deaths of the Iraqi people. To honor Sherwood, I have
vowed to follow his path, to lift my head and go to work. Our duty is
to spread truth. Our duty is to combat the lies, the
misrepresentations, the fear, the mongering and the people who mean to
ruin our belief in this country. I have made a promise to my brother
and that is to do as he would do, to not be angry about my
circumstances, to not let bitterness overcome my heart, but to proceed
with hope.

{time} 2030

``Today and in the days ahead, do not let your anger carry you. Allow
your desire to make change carry you. Allow the compassion towards
humanity to carry you. Ride your commitment to peace. Share your soul
with your country. Share your values with the world. Make it your
job.''
Mr. Speaker, I find these words remarkable. A family devastated by
the loss of a son and brother, and yet this brother, speaking in Los
Angeles, calling upon the better sides of our nature, calling upon all
of us to put anger and frustration aside and to talk about compassion
toward humanity.
The pain that so many American families have suffered as a result of
this war is immense. The sacrifices that the armed services have made,
the men and women, the loss of life has been tragic. I am sure it is
true to say that they were proud to serve and in virtually all cases
proud to honor their country, were there because they wanted to be
there, and made a magnificent sacrifice to try to bring peace and
stability to Iraq. What angers me, and I try to be inspired by Danta
Zappala and not resort to anger, but what angers me, though, is the
continuous reputations, he referenced them in his statement, the
continued attempts to connect the Saddam Hussein regime with 9-11, a
connection that is bogus, a connection that the gentleman just said was
not made by the CIA, denied by the FBI, and yet the Vice President
continues to want to use that nonexistent connection as a justification
for taking us to war with half truths and with deceptions.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, again, I think it is absolutely critical
to understand that there is no one that is unhappy with the removal of
Saddam Hussein from power. But the question that we are posing here
tonight is the allegation that there was a collaborative relationship
between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein Iraqi regime. And what we are
talking about is the credibility of the White House, the President,
and, therefore, the United States.
As I said earlier, we discovered what happened when it came to the
issue of weapons of mass destruction, and here we are again, even after
the report by the 9-11 Commission, even after a statement by David Kay,
not only relating to the issue of weapons of mass destruction, but the
relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague has
read anything that Lee Hamilton, the Democrat co-chairman of the 9-11
Commission, had to say on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer on June 16,
just last week, 2004. Let me read what Lee Hamilton said: ``We have
solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda
going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and al
Qaeda discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since
``Operation Enduring Freedom,'' we have solid evidence of the presence
in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
And then Chairman Kean of the committee, along with Chairman Hamilton,
said that there definitely were a number of contacts. Chairman Kean
called these contacts shadowy, and the administration agrees with them.
These were contacts between a deadly terrorist organization that was
seeking support in a country that the administration knew had supported
other terrorist operations.
So to say that nothing was going on, I mean they did not meet to have
tea and crumpets. They did not meet just to have an ice cream sundae.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this continuing
conversation this evening. Again, the report refers to contacts that
were made back in 1994. If we talk about contacts, it was the Bush
administration, the Bush One administration, that had contacts with
Saddam Hussein that dated back from 1982 when he was removed from the
terrorist list, when there was an embassy installed in Baghdad, when we

[[Page H4625]]

provided him with intelligence, when we provided him with the
ingredients for weapons of mass destruction, when we transferred to
him, when we transferred to him, dual-use technologies.
I have a chart behind me that would establish without any doubt
whatsoever, it is a CRS report, that in the 1980s, we had multiple
contacts, and we should not be surprised that in 1990, it was
discovered that he had a nuclear weapons program because it was the
then-Bush administration and its predecessor that provided the
components to do exactly that. The contacts that the gentleman from
Indiana refers to occurred in 1994, and it was as a result of a request
from the government of Sudan, where Osama bin Laden was living. The
Iraqi official that visited Saddam Hussein heard what he had to say,
returned to Iraq, and there was no further contact.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I continue to yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, since we are going back in
history, let me just say that we had the attack on the World Trade
Center the first time in 1993; in 1996 we had the Khobar Towers; in
1998, we had embassy attacks in Nairobi; in 2000, we had the USS Cole,
all during the previous administration. And during that time when Osama
bin laden was in the Sudan, there were 13 known-terrorist training
camps under his control, and the CIA reported those to the previous
administration, and nothing was done about it.
So when we start talking about this administration's being asleep at
the switch, the fact is that President Bush, when he took over, decided
to do something about it because there were contacts between al Qaeda
and Saddam Hussein. Uday Hussein had one of the leaders of al Qaeda
just last year in Baghdad for medical treatment. They had a very close
relationship.
So my question to my colleagues is this: Why did the previous
administration not, when they knew there were 13 terrorist training
camps in the Sudan, they knew that Osama bin Laden was there, they knew
that the CIA had talked about it and said let us go in and get him, and
they did not do a doggone thing after all these attacks on U.S.
installations?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I will give the gentleman a nonanswer
answer. The nonanswer is we could pose another question, which is why
did the first President Bush not go in and eliminate Saddam Hussein
when he had that information as well? And that is an interesting
historical issue, but it is one that is not pertinent to why I came
here tonight, and I would like to address that issue.
I think the issue is that Congress has a responsibility to fulfill
now, which is to hold the administration accountable if, in fact, it
created a false impression in the American people. And this is an
interesting academic issue, whether it was contacts or collaboration or
something more, but the bottom line is the President enjoyed some
popular support for this war based on two pillars: the first pillar
being his assertion that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and
that has now by and large been shown to be a falsehood; and the second
pillar was that Saddam Hussein was responsible for killing over 2,000
Americans on September 11.
And that was the impression that this President created. In fact, in
a poll taken in September, 2003, 69 percent of Americans said they
believed Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks.
Here is the question I have, and then I will answer it: Where did 69
percent of the American people get the impression that Saddam Hussein
was personally involved in the attacks of September 11? Did they get it
from just reading The New York Times? I do not think so. Did they get
it just watching Dan Rather? I do not think so. Did they get it from
reading the penny press at home? I do not think so. They got it from
President George Bush, who did everything possible to create the
impression that Iraq was associated with the attack, an ally, in the
attack of September 11.
Why do I say that? Because that is the language President Bush used.
On May 1, 2003, he said: ``The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance
in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of al Qaeda and
cut off a source of terrorist funding.''
The interesting thing that I challenge anyone to show me, the
September 11 Commission reached what appears to me to be a factual
conclusion. It appears to me to be the most rational conclusion I think
we can make on the evidence we have. They said: ``We have no credible
evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the
United States.'' That is what they said. I believe that is most likely
to be true.
When did President George Bush ever say we have no credible evidence
that al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States? When the
President of the United States was urging another war, a preemptive
attack on another country, without significant international
assistance, and when he would believe that if a misimpression was
created by the American public, it could lead to the wrong conclusion,
did this President come forward and say the truth, which was there may
have been some contacts, some discussions, between al Qaeda and Saddam
Hussein's agents, they were way back in 1994, there was no active
collaboration that took place, but I want to make sure the American
people understand this one central tenet, because I want to make sure
there is no confusion here: As far as we know, Saddam Hussein was not
behind the attacks on September 11, and I do not want anybody starting
a war based on this false impression.
Did the President of the United States ever level with the American
people and say that? No, he did not. This was an impression that he
knew he was creating. If the Members would go see the movie the ``Flim-
Flam Man,'' starring George C. Scott, it was about a great guy who
understood how to create impressions to get people to take action. And
there was an impression created that Iraq was responsible for the
deaths of over 2,000 Americans. And it is most unfortunate.
The reason we have come here tonight is to talk about the fact that
it is unhealthy for a democracy, for a President to create false
impressions that end in war, and this President created two massive
false impressions. One that this demonic monster, Saddam Hussein, who
we all agree on a bipartisan basis is a demonic monster, had weapons of
mass destruction and that we were threatened with a mushroom cloud; and
the second, he allowed 69 percent of the Americans to believe that
Saddam was the one who attacked us, and that is an undemocratic action,
and it is wrong, and he ought to be held accountable for it.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I could, because I want to respond to
my friend from Indiana, because I know that he holds in high regard
David Kay, who was selected by the administration to go to Iraq and
review the various assertions and the concerns that they had about
weapons of mass destruction as well as a relationship between Saddam
Hussein and al Qaeda, and this is a statement that appeared today in
fact in The Boston Globe and it quotes David Kay: ``'At various times
al Qaeda people came through Baghdad and in some cases resided there,'
said David Kay, former head of the CIA's Iraq survey group, which
searched for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism,
'but we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with al
Qaeda or, for that matter, any real links at all.' ''

{time} 2045

He was referencing the statement by the Vice President. Again,
``Cheney's speech is evidence-free,'' Kay said. ``It is an assertion,
but does not say why we should believe this now.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Hoeffel).
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I wanted to thank our friend from Indiana for jumping into this
discussion. We have been looking for some bipartisan debate back and
forth; and the gentleman, if nothing else, has the courage of his
convictions; and we welcome him here tonight.
I wanted to respond to a couple things the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Burton) said. I think he said that

[[Page H4626]]

we were suggesting George Bush has been asleep at the switch in Iraq.
That is not at all what we have been suggesting here. President Bush
has been anything but asleep at the switch. He has been very aggressive
regarding Iraq.
Mr. DELAHUNT. If I may reclaim my time, the reality is that this
administration, a week after the inauguration, according to a very fine
Republican by the name of Paul O'Neill, former Secretary of the
Treasury, had an extensive discussion about Iraq at the first meeting
of the National Security Council and why it should be targeted.
I have a long list of quotes from administration officials and others
that were there that can provide firsthand evidence. What I found
particularly disturbing, however, according to Paul O'Neill, a good,
fine, conservative Republican who was the CEO of a fine American
corporation called Alcoa, was that on February 27, months before 9/11,
at a National Security Council meeting, there was a map laid out; and
there was a discussion among the principals about how the oil fields in
Iraq would be divvied up between nations and between various
corporations. I commend to my friend, and I know he must have a copy of
that book, it is called ``The Price of Loyalty.''
On page 96, I will not bore him and those who are watching us here
tonight with reading it, but I believe somebody owes the American
people and this Congress, Republicans and Democrats, an explanation of
why months before
9/11, months before 9/11, months before there was any discussion about
weapons of mass destruction or links, if you will, between al Qaeda and
Saddam Hussein, we are talking about war.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman will yield briefly,
Condoleezza Rice, the Vice President and a whole host of National
Security Council members were at that meeting. The gentleman to whom
you are referring is sour grapes because he lost his job as Secretary
of the Treasury. Their interpretation and their recall of that meeting
does not jibe with that at all. That is his singular opinion.
So let me just say that one person's comment at a meeting does not
make it so.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I would remind my friend from Indian of the 11th
amendment.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. What is that?
Mr. DELAHUNT. That Republicans do not criticize Republicans. I will
have to defend Paul O'Neill.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. That is the gentleman's prerogative.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Again, because we have a good discussion going here
tonight, I think it is important for all those that are watching,
because we will chew right into our friend's time too, I think it is
important here tonight that the American people understand that this is
good discourse. This is the kind of debate that this institution needs.
Despite the fact that we have disparate views and profound
disagreements, the reality is that we do have mutual respect, and in
the case of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) we have affection.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I think the gentleman from Indiana missed that last
comment. You might want to repeat it.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I am not going to repeat the praise I gave to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). Only once he gets the kudos.
While the gentleman might disagree with Paul O'Neill, the former
Secretary of the Treasury who was appointed, obviously, by this
President, I wonder if he disagrees with an observation or an anecdote
that was related by Bob Woodward just recently in the book that is on,
I understand, the President's Web site, where, again, I am quoting from
the book. I do not want in any way to infer that this is coming from me
or any of my Democratic colleagues.
But in response to this desire for war against Iraq, Bob Woodward
writes, ``Powell thought that Cheney had the fever. The Vice President
and Wolfowitz kept looking for the connection between Hussein and
September 11th. It was a separate little government that was out there.
Wolfowitz, Libby, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and Feith's
gestapo office, as Powell privately called it. Cheney now had an
unhealthy fixation. Nearly every conversation or reference came back to
al Qaeda and trying to nail down the connection with Iraq. He would
often have an obscure piece of intelligence. Powell thought that
Cheney,'' Powell not, not O'Neill, ``took intelligence and converted
uncertainty and ambiguity into fact. A conversation would suggest
something might be happening, and Cheney would convert that into a we
know. Powell,'' not O'Neill, ``Powell concluded we didn't know and no
one knew.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could prevail upon my
good friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who, I might say
this evening is in sartorial splendor, as well as a good friend, if we
might prevail upon him to maybe come back at another time when we can
have a conversation on this, because it is vital to America's
interests.
I know the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has spent his entire
congressional career addressing precisely that.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman will yield further, I will be
happy to do that, if you ever give me some macadamia nuts.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I will be happy to do that.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, back to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), I just wanted to respond finally
to the gentleman's suggestion that the prior administration, the
Clinton administration, had not done enough after several acts of
terror against this country.
The act of terror on 9/11 did change the thinking of a lot of people.
But if you will recall, in August of 1998, President Clinton did order
cruise missile strikes in Sudan as a result of some of the acts of
terror; and the Republican opponents in the Congress of the President
at that time did not accuse him of doing too little; they accused him
of doing too much. There was a great partisan uproar that President
Clinton was trying to distract the public from his impeachment woes
with the use of American military power.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, let
me just say according to most news reports that was not a factory for
weapons of mass destruction, as was anticipated, it was an aspirin
factory; and there was no reason for it. There were a lot of people,
including the media, that thought it was a ``wag the tail'' type of
attack.
Mr. HOEFFEL. I would say to the gentleman that the fact is the
Republican opposition at that time was in full throat, and the
criticism was not that he should be doing more; but that he was doing
too much, in the view of his critics.
I raise the point in good faith. I was not in the Congress then, and
the gentleman may or may not have been involved at that point at that
time. It shows you when there is too much partisanship I think that it
clouds the judgment. It probably affected President Clinton. He
probably did not think he could have congressional support if he took
more action at that time. I do not know.
I would suggest that there is a time when the level of partisanship
can rise so high that it can cloud the judgment of the government to
act in a concerted way. I do not want to see that happen.
There is a lot of frustration about Iraq and a lot of opposition to
what many of us think are the deceptions and the half-truths that have
been used. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) came today
to try to talk about that, and I welcome the bipartisan discussion
tonight; but we have got to try to get past the bipartisan anger.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to
yield, I think what is important here then to get across this evening
is that calling people to account is what we do. The oversight function
of the Congress has a long history. I can go back to the time in which
some people wonder how Harry Truman got to be chosen as Vice President
of the United States just prior to Franklin Roosevelt's death, before
his last campaign. Of course, he had made his reputation on an
oversight committee in the Senate looking into war profiteering, is
what he had done, trying to hold people to account. That is what this
is all about.
If someone wants to take up the position that this is a concentration
on

[[Page H4627]]

President Bush for partisan activity, he is the President. He is making
the decisions, and those decisions are subject to scrutiny.
As the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) very well knows, back at
the time when Mr. Clinton made decisions about Bosnia and Kosovo, I
found myself in opposition to him and said so. I think at least as far
as this Member is concerned, I do not have to take a back seat to
anybody in trying to bring anybody to account in the executive,
Democrat or Republican, if I think that is in order.
If I know my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), well,
and I think I do, he does not stand for anybody telling him who should
be brought to account either. He has stood up on more than one
occasion, perhaps even singularly, calling for an accounting on various
issues. I think that is his function and our function, and that is what
this Iraq Watch is all about, I can guarantee you that. If we think
somebody is doing the right thing, we are going to say so; if we think
somebody is not acting necessarily in the best interests of the United
States, regardless of what their motivation might be, it is up to us to
say so and engage in a dialogue to try to illuminate where the
interests of the American people are.
I know that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) agrees with that,
and I look forward to any discussion we might have in the future along
those lines.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think it is
important to note that. Again, I am not sure about whether it was an
aspirin factory, but I think what is really important is the point that
the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) just made about oversight.
It is clear that there are no weapons of mass destruction. It is
clear that the kind of relationship that has been suggested by the
administration, particularly the Vice President and the President, does
not exist. It is, I dare say, hurting our credibility.
We come to this as Americans. You know that, I know that, and we all
know that. And this information comes from a variety of sources,
whether it be from Bob Woodward, who describes a conversation that
Secretary Powell has, or whether it is Paul O'Neill.
In the case of Richard Clarke, the terrorist chief, in the aftermath
of 9/11, he writes in his book he expected the administration to focus
its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was
surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq. ``Rumsfeld was saying
that we needed to bomb Iraq,'' Clark said, ``and we all said no, no. Al
Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld
said, there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan, and there are a lot
of good targets in Iraq.
``Well, there are a lot of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq
had nothing to do with 9/11. Initially I thought when he said there are
not enough targets in Afghanistan, I thought he was joking. They wanted
to believe there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting at that
particular meeting, and the FBI was sitting there, and I was sitting
there, and we looked at the issue for years, and we reached a
conclusion that there was no connection.''
The point is, let it go. To follow the admonition of David Kay, it is
time to acknowledge our mistakes as a Nation and to begin to restore
some of our credibility internationally.
I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

{time} 2100

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment. I want to
pose a important question to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) if
he could help us out.
My comment is on the difference between connection and action and
collaboration. I do not think there is any question that there had been
some communication between al-Qaeda and some Iraqi officials. I think
we all agree on that, and have for a long period of time. The September
11 Commission reported that back in 1994, bin Laden had essentially
asked for help from Iraq but Iraq said no deal. We are not going to
help you.
And from that, the September 11 Commission concluded, a bipartisan
commission concluded there had been no collaboration and there had been
no active work between the two. In fact, the two highest bin Laden
associates we have in custody have adamantly denied that any ties
existed between al-Qaeda and Iraq.
I think an accurate picture that has been stated is that there were
some contacts and that bin Laden had asked for help and Iraq had
refused to give him help. And yet the President started this war. Now,
the question I have is what was the President trying to do in this
conversation with the American people? It appears to me that he was
trying to create an impression in the American people that Iraq was
behind the attack of September 11. Let me give you just one quote that
fits into that impression. On September 14, 2003, Vice President Cheney
said ``If we are successful in Iraq, then we will have struck a major
blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base
of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but
most especially on 9/11.''
That is just one of hundreds of statements made by this
administration that to me was responsible for creating an impression in
at least 69 percent of the American people that Iraq was behind it and
that this was pay-back time. In fact, I remember seeing a tank as it
entered Baghdad with it was lettered on the side ``pay back time.'' And
I can understand why soldiers felt that way if the President of the
United States was creating an impression that Iraq was responsible for
September 11.
It was not an impression that led this country to war that bin Laden
had asked for help, but Iraq had said no, that is not the salient
feature that led to this war. What led to this war was the President
succeeding in creating an impression in America that Iraq was behind
this venous and evil attack against us on September 11.
So the question to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) if I can
ask him, just kind of two questions, does he share my view that
probably a majority of Americans had the impression as the result of
its Federal Government's dissemination of information, the
administration, that Iraq was behind in some fashion, or associated
with the attack on September 11?
And if that is true, does he think the President of the United States
did enough to be candid with the American people to tell the American
people that no, we do not have any evidence of collaboration resulting
in the attack of September 11. Sincere question.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is the
President went to war with Iraq because of two reasons: One, weapons of
mass destruction; and two, the threat to security in the Middle East
and the United States of America, and because there were indications of
a connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. And there is
documentation even stated in the 9/11 Commission report or in the 9/11
Commission statement.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if one reviews the 9/
11 report, they are very clear that there were more connections, more
connections between Lebanon, between Iran and al-Qaeda than there ever
were between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda, in fact, Osama bin
Laden, in 1990 right after the invasion of Kuwait, went to Saudi Arabia
and met with Prince Sultan, who was the defense minister and said that
we have to do something about that secularist. Let us join forces and
destroy Saddam Hussein. He considered Saddam Hussein as an apostate, a
corrupter of Islam.
The point is, and again, another report that came out today, Chairman
Kean, again suggests that the connections between Pakistan, between
Iran and Hezbollah, far exceeded the connections between Saddam Hussein
and al-Qaeda. There was no collaborative relationship. We continued to
hear about al-Qaeda bases in Iraq. They were in northern Iraq under the
protection of the no-fly zone.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
All this points up to the fact that this is ideologically driven.
This has nothing to do with those facts. This is ideologically driven
by people who are generally termed neoconservative. I am the
conservative here. And my colleague should be the conservative here. He
is conservative. It is the conservative position not to get trapped in
these foreign conflicts, not to go off charging around the world to try
and do these things.

[[Page H4628]]

The ideology behind this is that Iraq was the key to being able to
move into Syria, being able to move into Iran, that this is somehow a
defense of the Likud version of what is in Israel's interest. The so-
called neoconservatives that are behind this ideological thrust have
wanted this war for years. It is not hidden. It is not a conspiracy. It
is not some kind of subterfuge. It is an announced policy and
possession philosophically they have had for years.
The sad part is after Mr. Bush became President, was appointed
President, they came into the forefront in terms of their appointments
in the Defense Department where they were able to bring their
philosophy forward. That is what is driving this. That is what the
President has to face up to. This is where his difficulty is.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I know we have very limited time left. But
I think before we go we should wish a happy birthday to our friend and
colleague from Indiana (Mr. Burton), because it is his 45th birthday
today, is that correct?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. 29.
Mr. DELAHUNT. 29th birthday today, I think this has been a very good
discussion. We really do welcome this conversation with my colleague.
He knows we have respect.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I hope we have more of these.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I hope we do, too. I would issue a challenge to my
friend because he and I have traveled together and it is an experience,
and it is a very positive experience, but there are people that are in
the custody of the executive branch, those so-called senior
intelligence Iraqi agents, that continually deny any knowledge
whatsoever of Iraq or meeting the gentleman that allegedly met with
Mohammed Atta in Prague in the Czech Republic, is in our custody.
Let us challenge together the executive branch and my colleague,
myself, and anyone else who wishes to join us, go together and exercise
the oversight responsibility and function of this Congress and
interview Mr. Al-Ani and make that decision ourselves and come back and
report to the American people.

____________________