[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 131 (Monday, October 17, 2005)]
[House]
[Page H8823]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAQ AND THE ``BOLDER APPROACH''
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, the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice,
appeared on ``Meet the Press'' yesterday morning and made this
assertion, and I quote Dr. Rice: `` . . . when we were attacked on
September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the
proximate cause was al Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into
the buildings and, therefore, we would go after al Qaeda and perhaps
after the Taliban and then our work would be done . . .
``Or we could take a bolder approach, which was to say that we had to
go after the root causes of the kind of terrorism that was produced
there, and that meant a different kind of Middle East. And there is no
one who could have imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam
Hussein still in power.''
Mr. Speaker, what happened to the weapons of mass destruction? In the
run up to the war, no one said anything about a bolder approach.
We were told about uranium purchases from Niger. We were told about
the world's most dangerous weapons falling into the hands of the wrong
people. We were told by Dr. Rice herself about the specter of mushroom
clouds over American cities. We were treated to a campaign of fear and
deception about weapons of mass destruction because the Bush
administration knew that was the only way to convince the Nation and
the Congress to commit to this war.
They knew that this bolder approach, this ideological pipe dream, was
an absolute nonstarter.
So what are we supposed to tell Cindy Sheehan and the thousands of
other mothers, fathers, spouses, siblings, and friends of dead soldiers
and soldiers who were wounded? That their children died or were wounded
not to protect America but for some ``bolder approach,'' because the
Middle East is the personal chess board of a gang of neoconservatives
who have not had to sacrifice a thing for this war?
Mr. Speaker, I traveled to Iraq a few weeks ago to meet the troops to
learn more about their mission. I cannot tell the Members how impressed
I was with the courage, the loyalty, and intelligence of our soldiers
from the officers down to the citizen soldiers of the National Guard.
They are, indeed, the best America has to offer.
My question is: Why can we not have political leaders with the same
honor and integrity as the men and women who wear the uniform, who take
the risks, who make the sacrifices? It is nothing short of tragic the
way the Pentagon and the White House have let down and even exploited
the men and women in their charge. They sent them to Iraq on false
pretenses, on a poorly defined mission, without all the tools they
needed and without a plan to bring them home.
I have been calling for our troops to come home this entire year. I
have called for hearings. I have introduced resolutions. I have forced
a vote in this Chamber. But, Mr. Speaker, I am not just speaking for
myself. A majority of Americans clearly share this anxiety and
skepticism about the war.
I have tried to jumpstart the conversation about how to go about
ending the occupation. At the hearing I convened last month, some very
sound ideas were laid out about how to end this debacle and how the
United States can play a constructive role in the rebuilding of Iraqi
society.
But the President will not engage on this level. He will not engage
in this conversation. He offers nothing but platitudes and vague
assertions. Terrorism is bad and freedom is good, he tells us. We need
to stay the course, he tells us. We will be there as long as we need to
be there, he tells us.
This is not enough. The American people and our soldiers deserve
better. They deserve a plan, an endgame, a clear strategy to return
Iraq to the Iraqi people and the troops to their families back home.
____________________