[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 115 (Wednesday, September 22, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9474-S9476]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to help frame the issue in 
Iraq. The American people deserve straight forward answers on issues of 
war and national security; especially when their lives are directly 
threatened and our military forces are engaged around the world in the 
war on terrorism. And it is not just our military forces that are at 
risk; our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and ordinary civilians 
working in war zones all face enormous danger from a very treacherous 
and barbaric enemy.
  The recent, brutally grotesque beheadings of innocent Americans 
Eugene Armstrong on Monday and Jack Hensley yesterday are just two of 
many examples of the kind of evil that we face and why it must be 
eradicated.
  Ambiguity is something we probably should expect in a heated 
political campaign, but anything less than total candor on national 
security issues is not acceptable.
  The junior senator form Massachusetts has accused President Bush of 
``colossal failures of judgment'' on his plan for Iraq. He then went on 
to lay out his own four-point plan for handling the conflict in Iraq. 
His four points were, No. 1, to get more help from other nations; No. 
2, provide better training for Iraqi security forces; No. 3, provide 
benefits to the Iraqi people; and No. 4, ensure democratic elections 
can be held next year as promised.
  I have no problem with this plan, because it is the short term and 
long term plan now in place by the Bush administration. Our President 
has consistently and assiduously worked with our allies to get more 
help in Iraq.
  Sure, we would like to get more countries on board with us, but this 
is tough business and it takes bold, visionary leadership--like we see 
in Great Britain, Italy, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Australia, 
and dozens of our closest allies. To imply, as some of my colleagues 
have, that the United States is not getting help from our international 
friends is simply untrue. As terrorism spreads to other countries, as 
it did recently in Russia, we should expect--and provide--even more 
help.
  And let me point out the obvious about some allies, like France, who 
have not been supportive of our policies in Iraq. Their foreign policy 
decisions are based on internal political considerations and not on the 
personality of the President of the United States. For some of my 
colleagues to imply that some countries will change their policies 
toward Iraq if we change our President is ludicrous and misleading. The 
French will change their foreign policy when they change their 
President, not when we change ours. I have a great deal of trust and 
confidence in the common sense of the American people and I am sure 
they will understand exactly what I am saying.
  The junior Senator from Massachusetts has also called for better 
training for Iraqi security forces. I am glad that he also agrees with 
President Bush on this point. Training Iraqi security forces is a high 
priority of this administration.
  Let us look at the facts. The Iraqi Army has more than 62,000 
members. Of these, almost 46,000 have been trained and another 16,000 
are currently in training. All 27 battalions of the Iraqi Army will be 
operational by January 2005.
  Speaking at New York University recently, the Democratic Presidential 
candidate said, ``Of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one, not 
one, has completed a 24-week field training program.'' Just yesterday, 
however, The Washington Post reported that the head of strategic plans 
and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lt. Gen. Walter Sharp, said 
that Kerry's accusation was just not accurate. According to Gen. Sharp, 
who is in a position to know, basic training for new Iraqi police 
officers is eight weeks, followed by 26 weeks of ``on-the-job'' field 
training. The Post article went on to say that Gen. Casey, the top U.S. 
commander in Iraq, estimates that Iraqi security forces will be in 
`local control' of the majority of Iraq by the end of December, which 
is just 3 months away. Gen. Casey defined `local control' as a 
combination of having Iraqi security forces in place, plus an 
assessment of the ability of local political leaders to govern

[[Page S9475]]

and to manage economic reconstruction efforts.
  Others have criticized the President for not getting NATO involved in 
Iraq. Too bad they didn't read yesterday's London Financial Times. If 
they had, they would have read that, ``NATO is close to a deal to 
establish a military training academy in Iraq. The academy, which would 
have a staff of about 300, is intended to give substance to a decision 
by a NATO summit in June to provide training to the war-torn country as 
it seeks to build up its institutions.'' I hasten to add, that this 
NATO initiative was put forward by our President. So getting NATO 
involved is another area where the Democratic Presidential candidate 
agrees with the administration's policy in Iraq. Let me also add that 
15 of 26 NATO member states are sharing the military burden on the 
ground with us in Iraq.
  Charles Colton's famous quotation, ``Imitation is the sincerest of 
flattery,'' certainly applies to my colleague, Mr. Kerry. His four-
point plan is not new and it certainly is not original. A careful 
review of President Bush's policies in Iraq clearly shows that the 
administration has been implementing all the points addressed by 
Senator Kerry well before he even articulated them.
  We need to judge the President's policy in Iraq, not by the rhetoric 
of his detractors, but by those who know the facts. Tomorrow, the 
Congress will welcome, in Joint-Session, the interim Prime Minister of 
Iraq, Dr. Allawi. Let us hear from him how things are going in Iraq. 
Let us listen to him to find out what the Iraqi people think of our 
policies and programs for restoring security and getting the Iraqi 
economy going.
  Let me close by quoting from President Bush's speech, which he gave 
at the UN yesterday. I believe it clearly shows why we are in Iraq, 
something that others do not seem to grasp. The President said:

       Our security is not merely found in spheres of influence, 
     or some balance of power. The security of our world is found 
     in the advancing rights of mankind. These rights are 
     advancing across the world--and across the world, the enemies 
     of human rights are responding with violence. Terrorists and 
     their allies believe the Universal Declaration of Human 
     Rights and the American Bill of Rights, and every charter of 
     liberty ever written, are lies, to be burned and destroyed 
     and forgotten.

  He went on to say:

       We are determined to destroy terror networks wherever they 
     operate, and the United States is grateful to every nation 
     that is helping to seize terrorist assets, track down their 
     operatives, and disrupt their plans.

  The Acting Secretary of the Army, Les Brownlee, has eloquently framed 
why Iraq is important in the war on terrorism when he said:

       This is not simply a fight against terror--terror is a 
     tactic. This is not simply a fight against al Qaeda, its 
     affiliates and adherents--they are foot soldiers. This is not 
     simply a fight to bring democracy to the Middle East--that is 
     a strategic objective. This is a fight for the very ideas at 
     the foundation of our society, the way of life those ideas 
     enable, and the freedoms we enjoy.

  Thank you Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is said that politics is the art of 
the possible. And while certain things are simply not possible, it is 
our duty to try all the same.
  So today, I will try to explain the unexplainable. The distinguished 
junior Senator from Massachusetts has made so many statements on this 
country's involvement in Iraq that he has taken every conceivable 
position possible, and many that are simply not possible. The result is 
a record of ``dizzying contradictions,'' as Charles Krauthammer 
recently wrote, so confusing that the more he speaks, the less we 
understand.
  Mr. President, John Kerry has spoken on so many aspects of the 
liberation of Iraq. He has been on both sides of just about every coin 
in this entire debate. I want to address just four different positions 
he has taken.
  What is more disturbing is that he has taken these four positions on 
the most basic question of the liberation of that country. The question 
is not nearly as difficult as the multiple answers we continue to get.
  The question is: Would you have used force to remove Saddam Hussein?
  Back in 2002, the answer was clear enough. Citing Saddam Hussein's 
use of weapons of mass destruction, his terrorist-like actions, and the 
fact that he was part of a global scourge of terrorism, Senator Kerry 
said he completely agreed with the President to effect regime change in 
Iraq, unilaterally if necessary. So he voted for the Iraq war 
resolution in October of 2002. Support in October of 2002.
  Nine months later, Senator Kerry started to use another answer. He 
now claimed that the war resolution he supported in October 2002 did 
not empower the President to engage in regime change.
  By January of 2004, around the time of the Iowa caucuses, Senator 
Kerry had a new position. He was now the ``antiwar candidate.'' In 
January of 2004, he was now the antiwar candidate, campaigning in the 
Iowa caucuses, having been, in October 2002, entirely supportive of the 
war.
  He then went on to lock up the Democratic nomination for President. 
So we are into the general election season, Mr. President. When 
challenged by the President to answer whether he would have gone into 
Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein based on what we now know, Kerry stood 
on the edge of the Grand Canyon--a dramatic pose facing the Grand 
Canyon--and said on August 11:

       Yes, I would have voted for that authority.

  In August of 2004, in the general election, he seems to be back where 
he was in October of 2002. He has gone from support to oppose and back 
to support.
  But that was last month. A week ago, on the ``Imus in the Morning'' 
show, Senator Kerry was asked:

       Do you think there are any circumstances we should have 
     gone to war in Iraq?

  That is a pretty simple question. Here was Senator Kerry's response:

       Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none 
     that I see.

  This was last week. A month ago, he was in support of the war, but 
last week he was back in opposition to the war. He says:

       I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The President 
     distorted that, and I've said that. I mean, look, I can't be 
     clearer. But I think it was the right vote based on what 
     Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right thing 
     to do to hold him accountable. I've said a hundred times, 
     there was a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. The 
     President chose the wrong way. Can't be more direct than 
     that.

  Let's try this one more time. Senator Kerry, on the ``Imus'' show 
last week, said, in answer to the question:

       Do you think there are any circumstances we should have 
     gone to war in Iraq?

  He said:

       Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none 
     that I see. I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The 
     President distorted that, and I've said that. I mean, look, I 
     can't be clearer. But I think it was the right vote based on 
     what Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right 
     thing to do to hold him accountable. I've said a hundred 
     times, there was a right way to do it and a wrong way to do 
     it. The President chose the wrong way. Can't be more direct 
     than that.

  When Kerry finished his interview with Imus, here is what Imus had to 
say about it. Don Imus said:

       I asked him a number of questions about Iraq and I can't 
     tell you what he said.

  That was Don Imus' summary of John Kerry's position on Iraq on his 
program last week.
  Well, Mr. Imus, you are not alone. The top ranking Democrat on the 
Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, recently stated:

       I don't think John should go back and try to explain 
     accurate statements that are unexplainable.

  That is our colleague in the Senate, an enthusiastic supporter of 
Senator Kerry. He said why try to explain the unexplainable, referring 
to Senator Kerry's various positions on Iraq.
  We could all use clarity from John Kerry with regard to Iraq's 
liberation, but none more than Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who will be 
here among us addressing Congress tomorrow morning. Dealing with the 
terrorists and Baathist insurgents, he needs, more than anyone, to know 
that the U.S. position of supporting the liberty of Iraq is clear, 
unequivocal, and steadfast. He would not get that from reading John 
Kerry's numerous positions.
  Mr. President, a Senator's position on Iraq should not be all that 
hard to explain because it is not a complicated question. It is, 
however, a tough question, representative of the sort of tough issue 
any Commander in Chief

[[Page S9476]]

frequently gets. In trying to answer and re-answer the most important 
issue of this election, central to the struggle for freedom today and 
tomorrow, we have a Presidential candidate who constantly changes his 
mind. This is not some little issue; this is the biggest issue 
confronting the country today. We are 6 weeks from the election, and 
this is a man who flip-flops like a fish on the deck of a boat, back 
and forth, back and forth, who doesn't know where he stands on the most 
important issue we are confronting in our era.
  For example, when asked if he would have gone into Iraq to remove 
Saddam Hussein, Kerry recently answered:

       You bet, we might have.

  Let me read that one more time. When asked if he would have gone into 
Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, Kerry recently said:

       You bet, we might have.

  Not exactly Winston Churchill. Perhaps there is some nuance here, 
such as an exclamation point or a question mark, that tells whether 
this is a declaration or a question, but the answer to the most 
critical issue in this election should not leave the world wondering 
and more confused than before.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.

                          ____________________