[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 115 (Wednesday, September 22, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7425-H7430]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAQ WATCH
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McCotter). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue the
conversation here and switch gears here just a little bit with the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and continue the Iraq Watch
and talk a little bit about the foreign policy issues that have been
facing this Congress and facing the country for a few years now and
trying to figure out a way in which we can try to correct this problem
that we have gotten ourselves in.
Let me just first say that the whole Congress, Republican and
Democrat Parties, Independents, House and Senate, President, we are all
very much in support of the troops who are out on the front lines,
their families who are making tremendous sacrifices that many of us
will never ever know.
I have had the opportunity to be up to Walter Reed and visit some of
these injured soldiers, and there is nothing more heartbreaking than to
see a 19-, a 20-year-old kid who has lost his or her legs, an arm, and
just think about all their hopes and dreams that have, in many ways,
been washed away.
So we are taking this opportunity here as Democrats to talk a little
bit about how we got into this position, and I want to start on an
issue that I feel extremely passionate about.
When this all started after 9/11, the United States of America and an
international coalition moved forward in Afghanistan, and we moved
forward in Afghanistan because they were housing the Taliban and they
were housing or harboring Osama bin Laden, who was the main perpetrator
of 9/11 on the United States of America. So many of us are confused,
myself included, why we went into Iraq in the first place.
The reason is that we have only so many resources in the United
States of America, and we attacked and invaded with an international
coalition into Afghanistan. We ousted the Taliban government that was
harboring al Qaeda and harboring Osama bin Laden, and we sent Osama
running into the Tora Bora region on the Afghan-Pakistan border. We had
this international coalition, and we were going into Afghanistan and we
were going to rebuild this country, and we were going to make it a
thriving democracy. We were going to have a democracy in that region.
There is a great article in the Atlantic magazine this week, for
those of you who are at home who want to read it and get the complete
analysis and the timeline of how this happened. Then at one point, all
of a sudden, all of the generals and all of the military planners in
the United States of America began to shift their attention from
Afghanistan to Iraq, and they took in troops. We now have 130,000
troops in Iraq. In Afghanistan, we only have 17- or 18,000.
The Special Forces were moved as well, and then even as it states in
this article, the satellites that were focused on Afghanistan, that
were trying to provide intelligence, were also moved, and they were
shifted to Iraq. So how symbolic that we shifted our focus to Iraq and
took away from what was going on in Afghanistan.
Slowly but surely, Afghanistan began to unravel. We ended up with a
full-blown war in Iraq, and here we are, many, many months away from
that, stuck in a quagmire in Iraq that many of us have no idea how we
are going to get out of. I am glad to see that Senator Kerry has issued
a plan on how we are going to get out of there.
We have to bring in an international coalition. That is the only way
to do this. If we do not get troops in and support and money from the
international community, the only thing left is to have a draft in the
United States of America. If you ask the American people, would you
rather have a draft or try to unite the international community, I
think most Americans would say let us get the international community
united to put troops into Iraq, but this current President cannot do
that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Delahunt), who has been a real leader on this issue and more articulate
than anyone else in this Congress on the problems and challenges in
Iraq.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, we do not engage in hyperbole during the
Iraq Watch hour, your generous words are a bit overstated, but I want
to thank you for claiming the time this evening. I know my colleagues
who are regulars on the Iraq Watch are coming. We are assembling.
We want to review again what the current status of events in Iraq and
the Middle East are so that we can inform ourselves and hopefully
inform our colleagues and help educate the American people.
I am sure you are aware that just recently there was what is
described as a national intelligence estimate which painted a very
bleak picture of the future in Iraq. The national intelligence estimate
is a compilation of information drawn from the CIA and other American
intelligence agencies. As I indicated, it presents a very, very bleak
picture.
It is outlined that there are three different scenarios. The one that
is most disturbing is the possibility that Iraq not only will be
fractured, but that a full-scale civil war could break out at any time,
but I guess, as a Member of Congress, what is more disturbing is that
it was just, I think, yesterday when the question was posed to
President Bush, what about the national intelligence estimate and the
very pessimistic perspective that was presented by our own intelligence
agencies, that his response was, well, they are guessing, they are
guessing.
That certainly is disturbing to hear our leader, the leader of the
free world, make that kind of a statement. I wonder if he reached that
conclusion prior to our national tragedy of September 11 when he was
presented what is called a Presidential daily briefing on August 6,
2001, that was titled ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United
States.'' I wonder if he was guessing at that point in time because he
had that information, and now, now we are presented again with a
national intelligence estimate that presents a far different scenario
than what we hear from the President, from the White House, from the
Vice President.
Of course, tomorrow, the interim prime minister will be addressing
this House. I think it is important to understand that this was a prime
minister that was selected through a nonelective process. I am sure we
are going to hear a lot of rhetoric. It will sound good, but it is not
the true picture, I would suggest, of what our intelligence agencies
tell us is transpiring in Iraq today.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we had the same situation here when we
had the President of Afghanistan here, told us how great everything was
going in Afghanistan, how there was not a drug problem in Afghanistan,
we were going to have elections, on and on and on.
I would be happy to yield back, but just the American people need to
know that this is almost going to be a repeat performance of what we
heard a few months ago.
{time} 2215
Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, Mr. Speaker, the noted conservative columnist, a
prominent Republican, William Buckley, recently made the statement that
this administration has a dismaying capacity to believe its own PR.
Well, you know, this is not about public relations. This is about war
and
[[Page H7426]]
peace and the loss of American military lives and untold hundreds of
billions of dollars of American taxpayers' money. That is what this is
about. To simply say that things are rosy, and they are guessing, I
think does a disservice to our intelligence agencies.
Again, to point to the article that was as recent as September 16, it
was on the front page of the New York Times. It was entitled, ``U.S.
Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future'': ``A classified
national intelligence estimate prepared for President Bush in late July
spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government
officials said Wednesday. There's a significant amount of pessimism,
said one government official who has read the document.''
This is just unacceptable, to have the President of the United States
say, in response to a question, that they are just guessing. And before
we go any further, I think we should indicate that, while we happen to
be Democrats, our concern is shared by many prominent Republicans,
including men that serve in the United States Congress. So what I have
done is I have extracted some quotes from our friends and colleagues on
the other side of the aisle.
On September 19, just several days ago, Senator John McCain said this
on Fox News, ``I'd like to see more of an overall plan articulated by
the President.'' Well, so would the American people.
Senator Richard Lugar, another prominent Republican, chairman of the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, less than a week ago, in
response to a question about the slow pace of reconstruction in Iraq,
had this to say, ``Well, this is incompetence in the administration.''
``The fact is, a crisp, sharp analysis of our policies is required.
We didn't do that in Vietnam, and we saw 11 years of casualties mount
to the point where we finally lost. We can't lose this. This is too
important. There's no question about that. But to say, `Well, we just
must stay the course, and any of you who are questioning are just hand-
wringers', is not very responsible. The fact is, we're in trouble.
We're in deep trouble in Iraq.'' That is Chuck Hagel, respected
Republican from Nebraska.
Chuck Hagel goes on to say, ``It's beyond pitiful. It's beyond
embarrassing. It is now in the zone of dangerous.''
Well, again, I think we have learned that much of what we hear coming
from the White House is fodder for a political campaign. But let me
suggest that the President should put aside politics, not continue to
paint a rosy picture when those who ought to know, know that the
reality is totally different. Do not mislead the American people. The
American people were misled before. They were misled when it was
presented to the American people right on this floor that there were
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
It was the American people who were misled when it was suggested that
there were links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. That was false,
and we know it was false because the independent commission, five
Republicans and five Democrats, concluded that it was inaccurate.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from the State of Washington,
a regular member and cochair of Iraq Watch.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on what Republican
Senator Chuck Hagel said, because I think it is accurate. He said,
discussing the situation in Iraq, ``It is beyond pitiful. It is beyond
embarrassing. It is now in the zone of dangerous.'' And I want to
reiterate that that is not just rhetoric; that is reality.
The reason I know it is reality is because we just lost a man from
Lynwood, Washington, last week, Corporal Steven Rintamaki, 21 years of
age, who will never be coming home, killed in action in Iraq while
serving proudly and with distinction in Iraq. Yes, indeed, this is in
the zone of dangerous. And this country deserves an administration who
will be forthright and truthful and is not looking through this
situation with rose-colored glasses.
What Chuck Hagel said, that we are now in the zone of dangerous, I
think we can say in spades that that is the situation.
I learned something tonight, Mr. Speaker, that is so disturbing I
just have to share it. Osama bin Laden, who is still at large somewhere
in the world tonight, after the President told us he would get him dead
or alive; he is still at large. The al Qaeda network is still
functioning and now attacking our troops in Iraq. And we have been very
concerned for some time that this administration, in its action in
Iraq, has taken its eye off the ball of destroying the al Qaeda network
and diverted resources and attention into Iraq, thereby increasing the
risk that al Qaeda would remain a threat. And, indeed, Osama bin Laden
is alive tonight and is a threat.
I learned something tonight. We knew about the administration moving
resources from Afghanistan that could be used in the hunt for Osama bin
Laden. The Predator aircraft, the drone that moves around, they moved
that to Iraq before we got done looking for Osama bin Laden. We know
that the administration has more people checking on people going to
Cuba as tourists than they do trying to interdict monies going to al
Qaeda. We know about those diversions in this prioritization.
But let me tell you about one I learned about tonight. NBC news today
reported that the administration three times had the opportunity to
take out terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi who, right now, could be
associated with some of the beheadings we have seen, actually, his
network. Three times the President quashed efforts to take out Zarqawi
before the war in Iraq started because they did not want to diminish or
undercut their argument of why they needed to go to Iraq.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Massachusetts
yield to me on that point?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STRICKLAND. I just wanted to point out to my friend from
Washington, Mr. Speaker, that not only is this gentleman that he is
talking about responsible for some of the beheadings, the reports are
that he himself, he himself has been the individual that has actually
carried out the beheadings of Americans.
Mr. INSLEE. If the gentleman from Massachusetts will continue to
yield.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I continue to yield to the gentleman from Washington,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. INSLEE. In June, according to NBC news, in June 2002, the
Pentagon drafted plans to attack a camp Zarqawi personally was using
with cruise missiles and air strikes. The plan was killed by the White
House because they did not want to undercut their argument publicly
that we had to go into Iraq.
Again, 4 months later, Zarqawi planned to use ricin, this deadly
poison, in terrorist attacks in Europe. The Pentagon drew up a second
plan to go after Zarqawi. The White House killed it again because it
would interfere with the action, the public message that we had to go
to Iraq.
In January 2003, the pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and
for the third time, the White House killed it because ``military
officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was air
tight. But the administration feared destroying the terrorist's camp in
Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.''
If this is true, this is a gross dereliction of duty. We have now
seen multiple instances where this administration has moved forces that
could have been used to destroy the people that killed almost 3,000
Americans on September 11 and moved them in this effort to go into Iraq
under the pretense that there were weapons of mass destruction and
under the pretense that al Qaeda was responsible for September 11, both
of which have been shown to be false.
This bears scrutiny and investigation, and it demonstrates why we
need a new fresh approach in the war against the fundamental nihilists
who are still out there planning to attack this Nation.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Massachusetts will
yield once again.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, some may ask, why are these Members of
the House of Representatives standing here talking about past history?
[[Page H7427]]
Why are they not talking about what is happening today? Well, sadly, we
lost three more American soldiers today. Three more today. Every day we
are losing American soldiers.
But we are talking about what has happened in the past and the
mistakes that were made in the past because the very people who are
responsible for that terrible misjudgment or those misjudgments are the
very same people who want to remain in power so that they can make
decisions for the future. So, in a sense, as we talk about what
happened in the past tonight, we are doing it because we are concerned
about the future. We are concerned about the same people who made such
terrible misjudgments, who misled the American people, want to continue
to be in those positions of power.
I would agree with my friend that we have misplaced our priorities.
During the Republican convention in New York, the President spoke for
63 minutes during his acceptance speech. And all during that convention
there were multiple references to the tragedy of September 11, when so
many Americans were killed. But it is almost beyond belief to know that
the President talked for 63 minutes, and never once did he mention
Osama bin Laden. There are multiple references throughout that week to
Saddam Hussein, but not one reference on the part of the President to
Osama bin Laden, the man who was responsible, the one who attacked our
country, the one who masterminded that terrible day of September 11.
It is as though he has disappeared. We do not hear his name mentioned
even by the President. He is the one the President referred to in this
very chamber when he said, ``He can run, but he cannot hide.'' The sad
truth is, he ran, and he has successfully hidden. And in his hiding, he
is planning the next attack upon this country. That is the sad truth.
It is almost as if we have decided that Osama bin Laden is no longer
important, this one who was the major person responsible for attacking
us. It is almost beyond belief that we could find ourselves in this
situation at this point in time after all that has happened. I just
think we should remind ourselves that we have not yet apprehended the
person who attacked our country.
Sure, we have gone into Iraq. We have spent about $200 billion. We
have seen about 6,000 or 7,000 of our soldiers injured. We have lost
well over 1,000 American lives. Yet the man who was responsible for
attacking us is a free man tonight, and he continues to be a danger to
us.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, when we talk about
failure, from the beginning, after our resources were diverted from the
military action that was achieved in Afghanistan, the policy that has
been promulgated by this administration can only be characterized as a
sequence of failures and, additionally, a refusal to accept
responsibility.
{time} 2230
It would be so much more credible for the President to stand up and
acknowledge the serious consequences that occurred as the direct result
of this policy.
I thought it was interesting that the individual that he appointed to
conduct the survey in Iraq to determine where at that point in time,
because we were told that there were weapons of mass destruction, where
they were located, called on the President and that man's name is David
Kay, as many of us know, called on the President to come clean with the
American people because he was concerned that if we did not do so, if
the President did not do so, then the credibility of the United States
would be eroded and that when another international crisis erupted and
we had to seek out support from other nations, this time we would be
looked at as having misled not only the American people but the rest of
the world. And that is exactly what has happened.
If anyone has traveled abroad, the antipathy and the hostility that
has been expressed about this President and, tragically, about our
Nation because of the errors and the lack of willingness to accept
responsibility has hurt our national interests and our national
security, when his own appointee who was highly regarded and highly
respected was the chief weapons of mass destruction inspector appointed
by this President said, Mr. President, come clean, tell the American
people that we were all wrong. He said that here in this building in a
hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And what does
this White House do? They continue to shuffle. They reluctantly say,
well, maybe that was a mistake. And then the Vice President continues
to suggest that somehow there are links between Saddam Hussein and
Osama bin Laden. The only link is that Osama bin Laden despised,
despised and hated, Saddam Hussein, whom he considered a corrupter of
Islam.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, it is true that in spite of all evidence
to the contrary and in spite of the report of the bipartisan 9/11
Commission that the Vice President continues to insist that there was a
connection between Iraq, al Qaeda, and the attack upon our country.
It is amazing to me that in spite of all of this evidence that the
Vice President would continue to say that. I mean, it is contrary to
every expert, every study, the 9/11 Commission. Even the President
himself has disassociated himself from that contention. And yet the
Vice President continues to make the accusation. Why did the Vice
President say something like that that has been so discredited?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me suggest this as
an answer. Because if one repeats it often enough, a large number of
people, unfortunately, will accept it. That is why it is important to
have in a leadership role during these very dangerous times an
administration that will be forthright, that will be honest, that will
admit mistakes, and that will listen to others. That is what is
important.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, it takes strength and it takes
confidence to be willing to admit a mistake. And, quite frankly, we
have not heard the President or the Vice President admit any mistakes,
any mistakes. Anytime there is bad news coming out of Iraq, and it is
coming out on a daily basis, the word we get from the White House is,
we expected that.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, they say that now. But
they were not saying that during the course of the major combat phase.
They were saying that we were going to be greeted as liberators, that
people would be dancing in the streets. That is absolutely false. And
yet they insist on maintaining the message. But it is not an honest
message.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. INSLEE. It seems to me we are at a Y in the road; and as Yogi
Berra said, when you are at a Y in the road, take it. But this
administration is refusing to recognize the need for a change in policy
in Iraq. Their message to the American people is more of the same. Same
old, same old. We are doing just fine. It is hunky-dory in Iraq. So let
us keep doing what we have done here for the last year and a half.
I want to suggest there are four things that need a major change in
our Iraq policy or we will face certain failure and more deaths, as my
constituent did last week.
Four things: number one, we have got to have a meaningful, timely
training program to train the Iraqi forces so that they can take
responsibility for their own country, which is the only way this is
going to be successful. What do we find this administration has done in
regard to retraining the Iraqi Army? We are now a year and a half after
the invasion of Iraq, a time period where we knew, if somebody was
thinking about it, that we were going to have massive retraining needs
to train about 250,000 troops. That was going to take some work to do
that. One would think people would figure that out. But it is a year
and a half after the invasion of Iraq, and this administration still
has less than 40 percent of even the people responsible for
[[Page H7428]]
training the Iraqis working for us to get this job done. We only have
half the capability, according to an article of September 20; 230 of
the 600 we knew were going to be necessary are on the job.
This administration has dropped the ball on a fundamental thing that
is required for success in Iraq, which is to train their security
forces. And why did they do this? I know why they did it. Because they
told us we were going to be greeted with open arms, rose petals, and
the Iraqi equivalent of champagne. Why would we have to train all these
soldiers and police officers? It was going to be a cake walk.
Mr. DELAHUNT. And, Mr. Speaker, we would not have to pay for it.
Mr. INSLEE. And we would not have to pay for it either, Mr. Speaker.
So here we are a year and a half after the invasion, this
administration still has less than half the infrastructure we need to
get this job done. So that is number one that needs a significant
change in policy.
Second, we need an administration who will say we have got to have
elections sooner rather than later. When we had a brief window where we
were not getting bombed and RPG'd for about 3 months early in this
campaign, we had a chance for elections. But the President sent Mr.
Bremer over there, and he put the kibosh on elections. Sistani wanted
elections. They would not allow them. And here we are in this pickle.
And this is why this is important. They are telling us, Mr. Allawi is
going to tell us tomorrow, that we are going to have great elections on
January 31 in Iraq. That is great except for one problem: there are
huge swaths of Iraq today, in late September, that are not under the
control of the Iraqi government. Fallujah, Ramadi. We heard about a
battle a couple of miles south of Baghdad yesterday. How are they going
to have elections to get this job done? They are not prepared to get it
done, and the only way we are going to do this is to only have about 50
percent of the country voting.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, does the gentleman
know what they call those large swaths of territory?
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, those
large swaths are called no-go zones. And that means that nobody from
the Iraqi government or we go to.
What is happening tonight with those no-go zones? The Iraqi
insurgents are planning to kill Marines and building up their
capability of doing it, and we are not going after them. I am
concerned, I am concerned, that one of the reasons we have adopted
these no-go zones is because this administration wants no casualties,
which none of us want ever, but he particularly may not want them
before November 2. We never want casualties ever, but to allow these
insurgents to build their forces which they are later going to throw
back in our faces and shoot at our Marines and soldiers is most
troublesome.
There is a third thing that needs to change, and I want to note it.
We need to get busy allowing the Iraqis to rebuild Iraq. If we listen
to what these insurgents are saying, they are angry because they do not
have electricity, and they blame us for it. Frankly, I do not think
they should be blaming us for it. They should be blaming Saddam Hussein
for it. But they do blame us. We need to get a reconstruction program
that is working. And the reason it is not working, the reason we have
spent less than 10 percent of the money that we voted on a bipartisan
basis on a variety of occasions to apply, the reason that money has not
been spent, $18 billion have been appropriated, less than $2 billion
has been spent. Why have they not spent the money? For this reason:
this administration has insisted that instead of hiring Iraqis to do
the construction and Iraqi businesses and Iraqi employees, they want to
hire their pals at Halliburton; and they insisted that American
contractors, many of whom happen to be significantly connected to the
administration, do this.
And the Iraqis are the ones who are unemployed. Those are the people
we should be hiring to get this job done. Every Iraqi that gets a job
is one less Iraqi willing to join the insurgency. But, no, this
administration wanted to make sure Halliburton got the money.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, on one point, returning soldiers have
told me that Halliburton is literally importing Filipinos to do much of
the work in Iraq. As the gentleman said, the Iraqi people are
unemployed. They have no source of support for themselves and their
families. They are just unemployed with no incomes. And yet Halliburton
is importing Filipinos and workers from other parts of the world who
will provide cheap labor for them while the Iraqis go unemployed. That
is just one example of the terrible policy that this administration is
following right now.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I believe the reason that Halliburton is
doing that is that they do not want to deal with the difficulty of
hiring Iraqis. With all due respect, we have to get the Iraqis involved
in their own economy, or they are never going to be on board in a new
government. And this administration, in their lust, in their lust, to
continue their relationship with Halliburton, has squandered this
opportunity to get Iraqis involved in their own reconstruction. And it
has hurt us big time in the insurgency that is now raging across wide
swaths of Iraq.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman means no-go zones.
Mr. INSLEE. No-go zones, Mr. Speaker. And the problem is the no-go
zones are not going to be no-go zones permanently. At some point we are
going to have to ask American sons and daughters to go into Fallujah,
and they are going to be fired at by insurgents. And the problem is
those insurgents tonight are building bunkers and recruiting and
building taps and they are building car bombs. They think many of them
are assembled in Fallujah and driven around the country, and we are not
rousting those groups out. And we are going to have to face their guns
when they are emboldened and empowered and in a tougher position. That
is terrible military doctrine. It is a mistake. And it is going to cost
American lives. And I think that it is one of those things that needs
change.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman goes to his fourth
point, these no-go zones are made up of the largest cities in Iraq. The
largest cities in Iraq are no-go zones right now. The gentleman is
right. We are not going into those cities now. But the elections are
scheduled for the end of January next year. And there is every
intention that we are going to go into those cities before the Iraqi
elections. If they have the Iraqi elections and much of the country
cannot participate, it will be considered an invalid election. People
will not be able to accept it. So we know that the intention of this
Pentagon, President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, is to go into these
no-go zones before the end of January.
{time} 2245
But they are not doing it now, and I think my friend has indicated
why we are not doing it now. We are not doing it now because it is
going to be a tough thing to do. We are 41 days in front of our
elections, and so basically we are letting these no-go zones fester.
Even members of the Taliban now are moving into some of these no-go
zones. So we have the terrorists, the insurgents, building up their
networks within these no-go zones, and when we do go in, it is going to
be terribly difficult to dislodge them, to overcome them and overtake
them. But every day that passes that they have these sanctuaries,
basically, they are able to increase their strength, to increase their
ability to resist once we do decide to go into these areas.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think I would
suggest this, that what we are seeing in Iraq, because of the
incompetence of this White House and this administration, is a
burgeoning number of safe havens for terrorism. Yet we hear that there
is progress being made on the war on terror. How absolutely false that
is.
[[Page H7429]]
Again, if I can just take 2 minutes, I do not want to leave the
impression that we are speaking here in partisan tone, because so many
prominent Republicans, colleagues of ours, share this view. If I may,
just indulge me for a moment to read some quotes.
From the former vice chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence, Doug Bereuter, highly regarded and well-respected.
Upon leaving here he sent a letter to his constituents. In it he said,
``I have reached the conclusion now that the inadequate intelligence
and faulty conclusions have been revealed; that, all things being
considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action, especially
without a broad and engaged international coalition. Our country's
reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are
weakened. Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is
no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without
creating future problems in the region and in general in the Muslim
world.''
That is somebody who served on the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence in this House.
A former advisor to Mr. Bremer, who was personally recruited by Dr.
Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor, had this to say about
3 weeks ago. His name is Larry Diamond. ``We are significantly worse
off strategically than we were before. There are really no good
options.'' Another Republican.
Let me quote William Buckley once more. ``If I knew then what I know
now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed
the war.''
Someone who works in this building on the other side, ``Our committee
heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the
war and people outside the administration, what I call the dancing in
the street crowd, that we just simply will be greeted with open arms.
The nonsense of all that is apparent.''
The lack of planning is apparent. What we had here was a volatile
combination of the ideology, the so-called neoconservative influence in
this administration, combined with a magnitude of incompetence that if
it occurred in the private sector, heads would have rolled, people
would have been fired and a new team would come in.
Mr. INSLEE. If the gentleman will yield, you mentioned a pretty
explosive word, which is ``incompetence.'' When we have our sons and
daughters at risk for their lives, over 1,000 of whom we have lost now,
it is a pretty serious charge to suggest that an administration has
been incompetent in the prosecution of this mission.
So I just want to quote a Republican Senator in this regard, or two
Republican Senators in regards to points two and three that I talked
about in saying that we need a major change in American policy in Iraq.
On point two, the issue of rebuilding Iraq, when Senator Lugar,
Republican Senator, was asked----
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McCotter). The Chair would remind
Members to refrain from improper references to the Senate or its
Members.
Mr. INSLEE. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me rephrase. When a prominent
Republican individual who served in public office in a post that
involves a 6-year term was asked why only $1 billion of $18 billion
appropriated last year for Iraqi reconstruction, why less than 10
percent of that had actually invested in Iraq, he said, ``Well, this is
the incompetence of the administration.''
``This is the incompetence of the administration.'' That is what this
has been. We need someone competent running the operation in Iraq.
Point three, the point we have been saying, that our military people
are going to be endangered as a result of not training people and
getting into these no-go zones, another prominent Republican, who once
recently ran for President and suffered grievously at the hands of a
fellow Republican in South Carolina, said ``it was a major error in
allowing insurgents to keep control of the City of Fallujah after
vowing to oust them.''
The same quote: ``As Napoleon said, if you say you are going to take
Vienna, you will take Vienna,'' this unnamed prominent Republican
person in a 6-year post said.
The fact of the matter is, these are major policy failures of this
administration. It is costing us in lives, and we need a change.
Unfortunately, this administration has one prominent rule in Iraq,
and an economic policy, for that matter: Do not bother me with the
facts. I told you guys it was going to be roses. I told you we were
going to be treated as liberators. Despite the fact we have this
horrendous problem in Iraq, we are not going to change our policy one
wit.''
We need a fresh policy in Iraq, and, one way or another, we have got
to get it.
Mr. STRICKLAND. If the gentleman will yield, as I am standing here
listening to the two of you talk I have a chilling thought, and that
thought is this: In spite of all that has gone wrong, even today it
seems as if military decisions are being affected by political
considerations.
Now, I understand what a serious charge that is, that military
decisions would be affected or mandated or influenced by political
considerations. But why would we allow these no-go zones in Iraq to
remain no-go zones when we know that that cannot continue, that we have
got to change that situation before the end of January, if in fact the
Iraqi elections take place as planned, and the administration insists
that they will take place?
That means that at some period of time between now and the elections
in Iraq in January we are going to have to deal with these no-go zones.
And if it is true, and I believe it is, that as each day passes the
insurgents who are occupying these areas increase their strength,
increase their ability to resist our Armed Forces or the Iraqi forces
once they do go into those areas, then it leads me to the only
conclusion that I think is rational or logical, and that is that
military decisions are being influenced by political considerations,
namely the November 2 election in this country, and that is terribly
troubling.
I think the American people ought to understand what is going on
here, because it involves the well-being of our soldiers, and I think
it involves the credibility of our government as we reach out to the
world for partners and partnerships.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Reclaiming my time, of course it does. The gentleman
talks about our soldiers. I do not think there is any community in this
country that expected the need to call upon our National Guard and our
Reserves to the extent that they did, particularly when the Deputy
Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wolfowitz and Secretary Rumsfeld dismissed
General Shinseki, who at that point in time was the head of the United
States Army, his estimate that 200,000 to 300,000 troops would be
needed. They said that was a wild exaggeration.
Mr. Wolfowitz, that neoconservative who in many ways was the
intellectual author of this adventure, dismissed it, because as Dick
Lugar said, we were going to be treated to flowers and the Iraqi
equivalent of champagne and dancing in the streets. How long did that
last?
But now, but now, oh, no, now we are calling up on a regular basis
for deployment after deployment our Reserves, to the point where
Lieutenant General James Helmly, who heads the U.S. Army Reserves, said
just this past week that the war in Iraq is creating great stress on
the Reserves, and he is concerned that they will have a tough time
meeting their recruiting goals next year. He also noted that the
Reservist jobs in Iraq are just as dangerous as regular troops. There
is no more a secure rear area. Our truck drivers and our military
police have become frontline troops, again underscoring the
incompetence of the planning in terms of the military planning and the
reconstruction phase of this inept administration.
Mr. STRICKLAND. If my friend will yield, just one example of the
incompetence was the fact that our soldiers were sent into Iraq without
body armor. We hear a lot of talk in this Chamber about body armor. We
have heard a lot of accusations that somehow a particular person
running for President other than the President himself is responsible
for voting against body armor. But the fact is that initially, when our
troops went into battle, they were sent into battle without body armor.
Thousands of them were there without body armor.
[[Page H7430]]
I wrote Secretary Rumsfeld about that and asked him to give me a date
certain when they all would be well-equipped with this armor, because I
had heard from a young soldier, who happened to be a West Point
graduate, one of my constituents, he said, ``Congressman, my men are
wondering why they don't have body armor?''
The fact is that that decision was made to send our troops into
battle without body armor, and the war started months before the vote
on the $87 billion that is now being used to accuse others of depriving
our troops of this vital equipment. That is just one example. But we
also know that they were sent there without armored Humvees and in
insufficient numbers. These are examples that I would consider
incompetent leadership. Incompetent leadership. It continues to this
very day.
Now, the President was asked this past week how he could defend his
statements about how well things were going in Iraq in light of the
recent report from the intelligence community saying things were not
going well.
He answered this way. He said, ``Well, they laid out three
possibilities: One, things would be lousy; two, things would not be so
good; and things would be better.''
Well, ``things being better'' was not one of the possible outcomes,
as we heard from the intelligence community. The best that they said we
could expect was just more of the same, of what we have right now, and
the worst was out-and-out civil war within Iraq. There was no better
scenario.
The President seems incapable of just speaking forthrightly and in a
candid manner about the real situation to the American people. So we
hear this happy talk, and every day, more and more and more of our
soldiers are being lost.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think what we are
saying is please, Mr. President, just give it to us straight, okay? Try
a little bit of Harry Truman. Lay it out there, the good, the bad and
the ugly. The American people can handle it. The American people
deserve to know. Unfortunately, this particular White House has an
obsession with secrecy.
{time} 2300
We know that. Everybody knows that. But if I can, just for one
moment, get back to that $87 billion that has emerged as an issue in
this election. I voted against the $87 billion. I do not know how
either of my colleagues voted; they voted against it. I dare say we
voted against it because rather than providing the money to the Iraqi
government as a loan, this White House, this President, insisted that
we just give it away to the Iraqi government. It was a big give-away.
There is no other major donor to the reconstruction effort in Iraq that
did not require the monies that are donated or given to be done on a
basis of a loan so that their taxpayers would be repaid.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, if we go
back and recall the circumstances surrounding that $87 billion,
remember when the President went on national television and announced
to the American people he was going to ask for an additional $87
billion, his approval rating fell like a rock, because the American
people were upset that the needs here at home were being so woefully
neglected, and here the President was, coming, asking for an additional
$87 billion.
So many of us thought that the fair thing to do was to take that
portion of the $87 billion that was going to Iraq for the rebuilding of
schools and clinics and roads and bridges in Iraq, and to make that
available as a loan that would be paid back to this country once Iraq
was stable and they had these huge oil sales which was going to make it
possible for them to repay that loan. And the White House said, no, no,
no. We will only make this money available as an out-and-out gift.
Mr. DELAHUNT. A give-away.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, a give-away. So they went to Madrid to this so-
called donors' conference and they came back and they were trying to
convince us as a Congress and as the American people that all of these
other countries had ponied up, had given their fair share. And what did
we find out, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has
said here, all of these countries that made monies available made them
available in the form of a loan. They will, in fact, at some point be
repaid for whatever they give, but not the good old USA. We gave our
money away, and now the President is criticizing those of us who fought
to have this given as a loan, implying, I guess, that somehow we did
not care about the troops. Which is, quite frankly, a little
outrageous.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, there is
another aspect of this $87 billion that we need to point out, of whose
money the President wanted to spend. He wants to spend our
grandchildren's money. Because every single one of those $87 billion he
committed to Iraq, which had to be spent in some sense, but instead of
us paying for it and dealing with it with taxes, he wanted, and he
consciously decided to make it all deficit spending. We had a proposal
to pay for it so that our grandchildren would not have that deficit
spending obligation on them.
Now, why is this? I think this is symptomatic of why we need a new
administration with a fresh policy. Winston Churchill said, all I have
to offer you is blood, sweat, toil, and tears. This President said, you
can fight this battle on the cheap. It will be sugar candy, roses, and
champaign corks all the way. And as a result of that, we got $87
billion deficit spending, 1,000 dead, and a silent draft that is going
on now drafting our people to serve longer times than they really did
sign up for when they went into the military. That is why everybody in
this chamber is hearing stories about 50-year old people who left their
career for a year, came back, now have to go back for another year, and
goodness knows how many years, because they have not committed the
troops that are necessary to get this job done like General Shinseki
told them.
This President wanted to fight this war on the cheap. It has cost us
in lives, it has cost us in deficit spending, and we need a new policy.
We do not say this just to be critical; we say this to get a new policy
in Iraq. Unless we get that, we are heading into deep, deep trouble.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier this evening, the only
people sacrificing for this war are the soldiers and the people who
love them. They are the only ones who are sacrificing, and that is sad.
____________________