[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 92 (Wednesday, July 7, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5323-H5324]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SMART SECURITY AND IRAQ TRANSFER OF POWER
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, at the end of last month, the United States
Government handed control of Iraq ``back to its people.'' And everyone
I know who is being at all intellectually honest believes that the
choice of a June 30 deadline was driven more by the political calendar
than anything else.
The Bush administration wants to have it both ways. They want to go
before the voters with ``clean hands'' in the fall to say that the job
has been completed just as they tried to declare ``mission
accomplished'' a year ago, but at the same time remaining in charge of
this occupation, while even after the handover, U.S. troops and other
officials will enjoy full immunity if they should destroy property or
kill Iraqi citizens.
Coming on the heels of the Abu Ghraib revelations, this arrogance and
lack of accountability is absolutely staggering. The war in Iraq has
already cost lives of hundreds of American soldiers, 25,000 being
injured, the lives of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, and
billions of dollars that should have been invested right here at home.
This war has diverted resources from the struggle against al Qaeda,
the group actually responsible for the atrocities of 9/11. Now al Qaeda
has regrouped and poses as great a strength and threat as ever.
[[Page H5324]]
This case for war was built on dubious intelligence and outright
deceptions. The 9/11 Commission recently announced that it had access
to all the same information as Vice President Cheney; yet there is ``no
credible evidence'' that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq
collaborated with al Qaeda.
Our presence in Iraq has been met not with gratitude but resentment.
Instead of throwing flowers at American troops, Iraqis now throw
torches at Humvees.
Mr. Speaker, our current national security approach is an unmitigated
disaster, but do not take my word for it. Listen to the statement
issued in mid-June by a group of 27 former senior diplomats and
military officials. They said the Bush administration ``has failed in
the primary responsibilities of preserving national security and
providing world leadership.'' They went on to say: ``Instead of
building upon America's great economic and moral strength to address
the causes of terrorism and to stifle its resources, the
administration, motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis,
led the United States into an ill-planned and costly war from which
exit is uncertain.''
It is clearly time for a new national security policy, Mr. Speaker.
And I have introduced H. Con. Resolution 392 to create a SMART security
platform for the 21st Century. SMART stands for Sensible Multilateral
American Response to Terrorism. SMART security treats war as an
absolute last resort. It fights terrorism with stronger intelligence
and multilateral partnerships. It controls the spread of weapons of
mass destruction with aggressive diplomacy, strong regional security
arrangements, and vigorous inspection regimes. SMART security invests
in the development of impoverished nations to prevent terrorism from
taking root in the first place. SMART security is about preventing war
as opposed to preemptive war. It emphasizes brains over brawn. It is
tough, but diplomatic; aggressive, but peaceful; pragmatic, but
idealistic.
President Bush loves to think that those who support his efforts in
Iraq are patriotic and those who think there is a better way are
unpatriotic, or worse, un-American. But I can think of nothing more
patriotic than pursuing a national security policy that protects
America by relying on the noblest of American values, our capacity for
global leadership, our compassion for the people of the world, our
commitment to peace and freedom.
____________________