[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 119 (Tuesday, September 28, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9772-S9774]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THIRTEEN REASONS WHY WE ARE NOT SAFER

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my friend from Mississippi attempted to 
describe my friend and colleague's position on a variety of different 
issues. As we know around here, one of the favorite techniques--we have 
just seen it--is to distort and misrepresent someone's position and 
then differ with it. That is what has been done with regard to Senator 
Kerry's position on the issues we just heard about. I know about the No 
Child Left Behind Act. I know John Kerry's position, and I know his 
position on health care. We talk about his position on health care. 
What he wants for the American people is the same thing President Bush 
has for himself. When he talks about the No Child Left Behind Act, the 
fact is 4\1/5\ million children aren't getting the benefits of it. He 
can defend himself.
  It is always interesting to me to listen to distortions and 
misrepresentations on his record. Read the Web site.
  I listened to the Senator from Kentucky talk about Senator Kerry on 
Iraq. The fact of the matter is this President can't solve that 
problem. He has had his turn, and it is time to have someone new. You 
can ask, Why? Because he has burned his bridges with

[[Page S9773]]

the international community. He has insulted the world community and 
shattered and shredded all of the treaties of the United States with 
the world community on the matter of dealing with Iraq. They don't 
trust him. And they won't. And they will John Kerry. You have had your 
time, Mr. President. You have had your turn to try to do it. John Kerry 
has a plan to be able to do it. He has outlined that and it offers the 
best reason and the best hope for us to be able to achieve it.
  Twenty-four years ago, the President of the United States, Ronald 
Reagan, posed the defining question to the American people in that 
election when he asked, ``Are you better off today than you were 4 
years ago?'' That simple question is given greater relevance now than 
when Ronald Reagan asked it.
  The defining issue today is national security. Especially in the post 
9/11 world, people have the right to ask Ronald Reagan's question in a 
very specific and all- important way. Are we safer today because of the 
policies of President Bush?
  Any honest assessment can lead to only one answer--and that answer is 
an emphatic no. President Bush is dead wrong and John Kerry is 
absolutely right. We are not safer today and the reason we are not 
safer is because of the President's misguided war in Iraq. The 
President's handling of the war has been a toxic mix of ignorance, 
arrogance, and stubborn ideology. No amount of Presidential rhetoric or 
preposterous campaign spin can conceal the truth about the steady 
downward spiral in our national security since President Bush made that 
decision to go to war in Iraq.
  No issue is more important today. The battle against terrorism is a 
battle we must win. Even those of us who opposed the war in Iraq 
understand that this is now an American commitment and we must see it 
through. But to remain silent in the face of mounting failures by this 
President and this White House is to weaken our security even further, 
and we cannot let that happen.
  The President keeps saying America and the world are safer today and 
better off today because Saddam Hussein is gone. Let us count the ways 
that George Bush's war has not made America safer.

  No. 1, Iraq has been a constant, perilous distraction from the real 
war on terrorism. There was no persuasive link between Saddam Hussein 
and al-Qaida. All you have to do is read the 9/11 Commission report. 
There it is on page 66.

       Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated 
     with al-Qaida in the development or carrying out any attacks 
     against the United States.

  There it is--9/11 Commission, Mr. Cheney; 9/11 Commission, Mr. Bush.
  It is stated in the staff commission report as well:

       Two senior bin Laden associates adamantly denied any ties 
     between al-Qaida and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that 
     Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United 
     States.

  There it is. There it is, and this President indicates that this ties 
in.
  We should have finished the job in Afghanistan. We should have 
finished the job with al-Qaida and the job with Osama bin Laden.
  No. 2, the mismanagement of the war in Iraq has created a fertile and 
very dangerous new breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq and a 
powerful magnet for al-Qaida that didn't exist before the war. We can't 
go a day now without hearing of attacks in Iraq by insurgents and al-
Qaida terrorists, and our troops are in far greater danger because of 
it.
  In the month of August, 863 Americans were killed or wounded; 70 
attacks every single day on American troops. And we hear the rosy 
picture of this administration, and the Secretary of Defense saying, 
``I am encouraged by the way things are going.'' The President of 
United States said only a week ago that it is just a handful of 
insurgents.
  Let us get real. This is what is happening. That this violence would 
occur was abundantly clear before the war.
  We find in today's New York Times, pre-war assessment on Iraq shows 
chance of strong divisions. Is this the same intelligence unit that 
produced a gloomy report in July that President Bush says is just a 
matter of guesswork by our intelligence agencies? He changed that to 
``estimate'' but initially called it ``guesswork.''
  About the prospect of growing instability in Iraq, the report 
``warned'' the Bush administration about the ``potential costly 
consequences of American-led invasion 2 months before the war began, 
Government officials said.''
  The assessments predicted that an American invasion of Iraq would 
``increase sympathy'' and support for political Islam and would result 
in a deeply divided Iraqi society prone to violent internal conflict.
  There it is. Give it to the President of the United States. We have 
140,000 American boys over there, with no tie-in with al-Qaida? And the 
predictions are right there in front of us that we were going to have 
this kind of conflict over there. And this administration says: Oh, no, 
we are a lot better off than we were before.

  We should have finished the job against al-Qaida. We should have 
finished the job in Afghanistan. We should have had Osama bin Laden 
behind bars instead of Saddam Hussein.
  And what did the administration do? They put on their ideological 
blinders, ignored the intelligence, and rushed headlong into a 
misguided war that has put our troops in perilous danger.
  Mr. President, if we had gone into Afghanistan, we could have either 
ended or damaged al-Qaida, and captured Osama bin Laden. But al-Qaida 
is like a cancer. It metastasized. We had an opportunity to grab it all 
when we battled in Afghanistan, but we did not. We stepped back. We 
went into Iraq. And what has happened? Like a cancer, it has 
metastasized all over the world--in Southeast Asia, in Saudi Arabia, as 
far as Morocco, all over. It is a fundamental and basic miscalculation, 
and the American people are in greater danger as a result of that 
decision not to close the door on al-Qaida.
  No. 4, because of the war, the danger of terrorist attacks against 
America itself has become greater. Our preoccupation with Iraq has 
given al-Qaida 2 full years to regroup and plan murderous new assaults 
on us. We know al-Qaida will try to attack America again and again at 
home if it possibly can. Yet instead of staying focused on the real war 
on terror, President Bush rushed headlong into an unnecessary war in 
Iraq.
  No. 5, and most ominously, the Bush administration's focus on Iraq 
has left us needlessly more vulnerable to an al-Qaida attack with a 
nuclear weapon. The greatest threat of all to our homeland is a nuclear 
attack. A mushroom cloud over any American city is the ultimate 
nightmare, and the risk is all too great. Osama bin Laden calls the 
acquisition of a nuclear device a ``religious duty.'' Documents 
captured from a key al-Qaida aide 3 years ago reveal plans even then to 
smuggle high-grade radioactive materials into the United States in 
shipping containers.
  If al-Qaida can obtain or assemble a nuclear weapon, they will use it 
on New York, Washington, or any American city. The greatest danger we 
face in the days and weeks ahead is a nuclear 9/11, and we hope and 
pray it is not already too late to prevent. The war in Iraq has made 
the mushroom cloud more likely, not less likely, and it never should 
have happened.
  No. 6, the war in Iraq has provided a powerful worldwide recruiting 
tool for al-Qaida. We know al-Qaida is getting stronger because its 
attacks in other parts of the world are increasing. In the 8 years 
before 9/11, al-Qaida conducted three attacks. But in the 3 years since 
9/11, it has carried out a dozen more attacks, killing hundreds in 
Spain, Pakistan, Indonesia, and elsewhere.
  No. 7, because of the war, Afghanistan itself is still unstable. 
Taliban and al-Qaida elements roam the country. A dangerous border with 
Pakistan, where terrorists can easily cross, continues to be wide open. 
President Hamid Karzai is frequently forced to negotiate with warlords 
who control private armies in the tens of thousands. Opium production 
is at a record level and is being used to finance terrorism. Our troops 
there are in greater danger. Free and fair elections are in greater 
danger. The war in Iraq has stretched our troops thin to the point 
where we cannot provide enough additional forces to stop the rising 
drug trade and enable President Karzai to gain full control of

[[Page S9774]]

the country and root out al-Qaida. How can we afford not to do that?

  No. 8, we have alienated longtime friends and leaders in other 
nations, whom we heavily depend on for intelligence, for border 
enforcement, for shutting off funds to al-Qaida, and for many other 
types of support in the ongoing war against international terrorism. 
Mistrust of America has soared throughout the world, and we are 
especially hated in the Muslim world. In parts of it, the bottom has 
fallen out.
  The past 2 years have seen the steepest and deepest fall from grace 
our country has ever suffered in the eyes of the world community in all 
our history. We remember the enormous goodwill that flowed to America 
in the aftermath of September 11, and we never should have squandered 
it.
  Does President Bush ever learn? His chip-on-the-shoulder address to 
the United Nations last week was yet another missed opportunity to turn 
the page and start regaining the genuine support of the world community 
for a sensible policy on Iraq.
  In fact, the President's arrogance toward the world community has 
left our soldiers increasingly isolated and alone. We have nearly 90 
percent of the troops on the ground in Iraq, and more than 95 percent 
of those killed and wounded are Americans. Instead of other nations 
joining us, initially supportive nations are pulling out. The so-called 
coalition of the willing has become the coalition of the dwindling.
  No. 9, our overall military forces are stretched to the breaking 
point because of the war in Iraq. As the Defense Science Board recently 
told Secretary Rumsfeld:

       Current and projected force structure will not sustain our 
     current and projected global stabilization commitments.

  LTG John Riggs said it clearly:

       I have been in the Army 39 years, and I've never seen the 
     Army as stretched in that 39 years as I have today.

  As Senator John McCain warned last week, if we have a problem in some 
other flash point in the world, ``it's clear, at least to most 
observers, that we don't have sufficient personnel.''
  The war has also undermined the Guard and Reserve. Many Guard members 
are also first responders for any terrorist attack on the United 
States. Our homeland security, as well, is being weakened because of 
their loss.
  No. 10, the war in Iraq has undermined the basic rule of 
international law that protects captured Americans. The Geneva 
Conventions are supposed to protect our forces, but the brutal 
interrogation techniques used at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq have lowered 
the bar for treatment of POWs and endangered our soldiers throughout 
the world.
  No. 11, while President Bush has been preoccupied with Iraq, not just 
one but two serious nuclear threats have been rising--from North Korea 
and Iran. Four years ago, North Korea's plutonium program was inactive. 
Its nuclear rods were under seal. Two years ago, as the Iraq debate 
became intense, North Korea expelled the international inspectors and 
began turning its fuel rods into nuclear weapons. At the beginning of 
the Bush administration, North Korea was already thought to have two 
such weapons. Now they may have eight or more, and the danger is far 
greater.

  Iran, too, is now on a fast track that could produce nuclear weapons. 
The international inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium at 
two nuclear sites, and Iran admitted last March that it had the 
centrifuges to enrich uranium. The international community might be 
more willing to act if President Bush had not abused the U.N. 
resolution passed on Iraq 2 years ago, when he took the words ``serious 
consequences'' as a license for launching his unilateral war in Iraq. 
Now, after that breach of faith with the world community, other nations 
now refuse to trust us enough to enact a similar U.N. resolution on 
Iran because they fear President Bush will use it to justify another 
reckless war.
  No. 12, while we focused on the nonexistent nuclear threat from 
Saddam, we have not done enough to safeguard the vast amounts of 
unsecured nuclear material in the world. According to a joint report by 
the Nuclear Threat Initiative and Harvard's Managing-the-Atom Project, 
``scores of nuclear terrorist opportunities lie in wait in countries 
all around the world''--especially at sites in the former Soviet Union 
that contain enough nuclear material for a nuclear weapon and are 
poorly defended against terrorists and criminals.
  As former Senator Sam Nunn said:

       The most effective, least expensive way to prevent nuclear 
     terrorism is to secure nuclear weapons and materials at the 
     source.

  How loudly--how loudly--does the alarm bell have to ring before 
President Bush wakes up?
  No. 13, the neglect of the Bush administration of all aspects of 
homeland security because of the war is frightening. All we have to do 
is look at today's paper.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to notify me when I have 
1 minute remaining.
  It says in the paper that the FBI is said to lag on translations. It 
talks about 3 years after 9/11 more than 120,000 hours of potentially 
valuable terrorism-related recordings have not been translated by the 
linguists at the FBI. Then it talks about that the al-Qaida messages 
``tomorrow is zero hour'' and ``the match is about to begin'' were 
intercepted by the National Security Agency on September 10 but not 
translated until days afterwards.
  Homeland security? Why aren't we getting this done in terms of 
securing our homeland? We are pouring nearly $5 billion a month into 
Iraq. We are grossly shortchanging the urgent need to strengthen our 
ability to prevent terrorist attacks at home and to strengthen our 
preparedness to respond to them if they occur.
  As former Republican Senator Warren Rudman, chairman of the 
Independent Task Force on Emergency Responders, said: ``Homeland 
security is terribly underfunded.''
  That is a Republican Senator who is saying that. That isn't a 
Democrat. ``Terribly underfunded.''
  We see what happens as a result. Our hospitals are unprepared for a 
bioterrorist attack. Our land borders, our seaports, our shipping 
containers, our transit systems, our waterways, nuclear power--none of 
these have sufficient funds for protection against terrorist attacks, 
even though the Bush administration has put the Nation on high alert 
for such attacks five times in the last 3 years.
  You can't pack all these reasons America is not safer into a 30-
second television response ad or a news story or an editorial. But as 
anyone who cares about the issue can quickly learn, our President has 
no credibility--no credibility--when he keeps telling us that America 
and the world are safer because he went to war in Iraq and rid us of 
Saddam Hussein.
  President Bush's record on Iraq is clearly costing American lives and 
endangering America and the world. Our President won't change or even 
admit how wrong he has been and still is. Despite the long line of 
mistaken blunders and outright deception, there has been no 
accountability. As election day draws closer, the buck is circling more 
and more closely over 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Only a new President 
can right the extraordinary wrongs of the Bush administration on our 
foreign policy and our national security.
  On November 2, the American people will decide whether they still 
have confidence in this President's leadership. When we ask ourselves 
the fundamental question, whether President Bush has made us safer, 
there can only be one answer. No, he has not. That is why America needs 
new leadership. We could have been, and we should have been much safer 
than we are today.
  We cannot afford to stay this very dangerous course. This election 
cannot come soon enough. As I have said before, the only thing America 
has to fear is 4 more years of George Bush.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Wisconsin.

                          ____________________