[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 137 (Tuesday, October 25, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11780-S11782]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, 3 years ago when the Congress and the 
country debated the resolution to give President Bush the authority to 
launch a preemptive war against Iraq, reference was often made to the 
lessons of Vietnam.
  There are many lessons, both of that war and of the efforts to end 
it. But one that made a deep impression on me came from former 
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. He was, after all, the architect 
of that war. He said our greatest mistake was not understanding our 
enemy.
  Vietnam was a relatively simple country. It had changed little in the 
preceding 3,000 years. It was for the most part racially, ethnically, 
linguistically, and even religiously homogeneous. One would have 
thought it would be easy for American military and political leaders to 
understand.
  Apparently it was not. The White House and the Pentagon, convinced 
that no country, particularly a tiny impoverished land of rice farmers, 
could withstand the military might of the United States, never bothered 
to study and understand the history or culture of Vietnam, and they 
made tragic miscalculations. They lacked the most basic knowledge of 
the motivation and the capabilities and resolve of the people they were 
fighting.
  At the start of the Iraq war, those who drew some analogies to 
Vietnam were ridiculed by the Pentagon and the White House. Iraq is not 
a Vietnam, they insisted. Our troops would be greeted as liberators. 
Troop strength was not a concern. Our mission would be quickly 
accomplished. Democracy would spread throughout the Middle East. 
Freedom was on the march.
  It is true that Vietnam and Iraq are vastly different societies, but 
the point was not that they are similar but that some of the same 
lessons apply.
  We did not understand Vietnam, a simple country, and we paid a huge 
price for our ignorance and our arrogance. Iraq, a complex country 
comprised of rival clans, tribes, and ethnic and religious factions who 
have fought each other for centuries, we understand even less.
  If this were not apparent to many at the start of this ill-conceived 
and politically motivated war, a war I opposed from the beginning, it 
should be obvious today. Yet to listen to the Secretary of Defense or 
to the President or the Vice President, one would never know it.
  We know today that President Bush decided to invade Iraq without 
evidence to support the use of force and well before Congress passed a 
resolution giving him the authority to do so--actually, authority he 
did not even believe he needed--despite our great Constitution which 
invests in the Congress the power to declare war.
  Twenty-three Senators voted against that resolution, and I will 
always be proud to have been one of them.
  We know today that the motivation for a plan to attack Iraq, hatched 
by a handful of political operatives, had taken hold within in the 
White House even before 9/11 and without any connection to the war on 
terrorism that came later.
  We know that the key public justifications for the war--to stop 
Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons and supporting al-
Qaida--were based on faulty intelligence and outright distortions, and 
they have been

[[Page S11781]]

thoroughly discredited. United Nations weapons inspectors, who were 
dismissed by the White House as being naive and ineffective, turned out 
to have gathered far better information with a tiny fraction of the 
budget of our own intelligence agencies.
  We know the insurgency is continuing to grow along with American 
casualties--1,999 killed, and at least 15,220 wounded, many with 
crippling injuries, as of yesterday--despite the same old ``light at 
the end of the tunnel'' assertions and cliches by the White House and 
top officials in the Pentagon.
  The sad but inescapable truth, which the President either does not 
see or refuses to believe or admit, is the Iraqi insurgency has 
steadily grown, in part because of, not in spite of, our presence 
there.
  After baiting the insurgents to ``bring them on,'' as the President 
said, we got what the President asked for. More than 2 years later, the 
pendulum has swung against us and the question is no longer whether we 
can stop the insurgency; the question is how do we extricate ourselves.
  According to soldiers who volunteered for duty in Iraq believing in 
the mission and who have returned home, many Iraqis who detest the 
barbaric tactics of the insurgents have also grown to despise us. They 
blame us for the lack of water and electricity, for the lack of jobs 
and health care, for the hardships and violence they are suffering day 
in and day out.
  Unlike our troops and their families who are making great sacrifices 
every day, most Americans have been asked to sacrifice nothing for this 
war. In fact, we don't pay the bills. The bills are being sent to our 
children and our grandchildren by way of our rapidly escalating 
national debt and annual deficits.
  Yet as the hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for the war 
continue to pile up and domestic programs, such as Medicaid, job 
training, and programs for needy students, are cut, then the sacrifices 
are going to be felt as well.
  Slogans have become little more than political rallying cries for the 
White House, slogans as empty and unfulfilled as ``mission 
accomplished.'' Our troops were sent to fight an unnecessary war 
without sufficient armor against these ruthless and barbaric bombing 
attacks, without adequate reinforcements, without a plan to win the 
peace, and without adequate medical care and other services when they 
return home on stretchers or crutches or with eye patches, unable to 
walk, to work, to pay their mortgages, or to support their families.
  Many of our veterans have been treated shamefully by their Government 
when it sent them into harm's way under false pretenses and again after 
they returned home.
  Today I worry about places such as Ramadi, where more than 300 
members of the Army National Guard from my State of Vermont are 
currently serving valiantly alongside their comrades in the Marine 
Corps and the Pennsylvania National Guard. Dozens of other citizen 
soldiers from the Vermont Guard are serving across Iraq, while hundreds 
more are deployed throughout the Persian Gulf region.
  Many Vermonters have been killed in Ramadi and elsewhere by roadside 
bombs and all-too-accurate sniper attacks. The insurgents too often 
seem to attack and then escape with impunity. You can actually open 
newspapers and see photos of armed insurgents walking the streets of 
Iraq in broad daylight.
  Many of these cold-blooded attacks are by people who are willing to 
trade their own lives to kill civilians, security guards, and our 
soldiers who now have no way of knowing whom they can trust among the 
general population.
  The President has no plan to deal with Ramadi, let alone the rest of 
Iraq, except doing more of what we have been doing for more than 2 
years at a cost of $5 billion a month--money we don't have and that 
future generations of Americans are going to have to repay. Nor has he 
proposed a practical alternative to our wasteful energy policy that 
guarantees our continued dependence on Persian Gulf oil for decades to 
come.
  I am sure that what our military is doing to train the Iraqi Army and 
what our billions upon billions of dollars are doing to help rebuild 
Iraq--whatever is not stolen or wasted by profiteering contractors--is 
making a difference. Iraq is no longer governed by a corrupt, ruthless 
dictator, and there have been halting but important steps toward 
representative government.
  I applaud the Iraqis who courageously stood in long lines to cast a 
ballot for a new constitution, despite the insurgents' threats. There 
are many profiles in courage among the Iraqi people, just as there are 
in the heroic and daily endeavors of United States soldiers there.
  But this progress masks deeper troubles and may be short lived, 
threatened by a widening insurgency and a divisive political process 
that is increasingly seen as leading to a Shiite-dominated theocracy 
governed by Islamic law and aligned with Iran, or the dissolution of 
Iraq into separate Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite states.
  Mr. President, this war has been a costly disaster for the United 
States of America. More than half of the American people now say they 
have lost confidence in the President's handling of it.

  Far from making us safer from terrorists, in fact, it has turned Iraq 
into a haven and recruiting ground for terrorists and deflected our 
attention and resources away from the fight against terrorism. If 
anything, it has emboldened our enemies, as it has become increasingly 
apparent that the most powerful army in the world cannot stop a 
determined insurgency.
  Regrettably, it is no longer a secret how vulnerable we are. 
Hurricane Katrina showed how tragically unprepared we are to respond to 
a major disaster 4 years after 9/11 and after wasting billions of 
dollars on an unnecessary war.
  Our cities are little further than the drawing board when it comes to 
developing workable evacuation plans for a terrorist attack or other 
emergency, not to mention how to feed, house, and provide for millions 
of displaced persons.
  This war has caused immense damage to our relations with the world's 
Muslims, a religion practiced by some 1.2 billion people, about which 
most Americans know virtually nothing. We cannot possibly mount an 
effective campaign against terrorism without the trust, respect, and 
the active support of Muslims, particularly in the Middle East where 
our image has been so badly damaged. Our weakened international 
reputation is another heavy price our country has paid for this war.
  Each day, as more and more Iraqi civilians, often children, lose 
their lives and limbs from suicide bombers and also from our bombs, the 
resentment and anger toward us intensifies. And every week, the number 
of U.S. service men and women who are killed or wounded creeps higher 
and will soon pass 2,000, but, even more tragically, shows no sign of 
diminishing.
  This war has isolated us from our allies, most of whom want no part 
of it, and if we continue on the course the President has set, it will 
also divide our country.
  Other Senators and Representatives, Republicans and Democrats, have 
expressed frustration and alarm with the President's failure to 
acknowledge that this war has been a costly mistake, that more of the 
same is not a workable policy, and that we need to change course. My 
friend Senator Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, has pointed out the increasing 
similarities to Vietnam. We learned this week that the administration 
has even resumed the discredited Vietnam-era practice of measuring 
progress by reporting body counts.
  White House and Pentagon officials and their staunchest supporters in 
Congress warn of a wider civil war if we pull our troops out. They 
could be right. In fact, it could be the first thing they have been 
right about since the beginning of this reckless adventure.
  My question to them is: When and how then do we extract ourselves 
from this mess? What does the President believe needs to happen before 
our troops can come home? What is his plan for getting to that point?
  If we cannot overcome the insurgency, what can we realistically 
expect to accomplish in Iraq--and at what cost--that requires the 
continued deployment of our troops? What is it that compels us to spend 
billions of dollars to rebuild the Iraqi military when our own National 
Guard is stretched to the breaking point and cannot even get the money 
for the equipment it needs?

[[Page S11782]]

  I doubt the President or the Secretary of Defense will answer these 
questions. Instead of answers, we get rhetoric that conflicts with just 
about everything we hear or read, including from some of this country's 
most distinguished retired military officers who served under both 
Republican and Democratic administrations.
  Six months ago, the Vice President said the insurgency was in its 
last throes. That was just the latest in a long string of grossly 
inaccurate statements and predictions and false expectations about 
Iraq.
  Secretary Rice, when asked recently when U.S. forces could begin to 
come home assuming the Administration's rosy predictions come true, 
could not, or would not, even venture a guess.
  Without answers--real answers, honest answers--to these questions, I 
will not support the open-ended deployment of our troops in a war that 
was based on falsehood and justified with hubris.
  Even though I opposed this war, I have prayed, like other Americans, 
that it would weaken the threat of terrorism and make the world safer, 
that our troops' sacrifices would be justified, and that the President 
had a plan for completing the mission.
  Instead, it has turned Iraq into a training ground for terrorists, it 
is fueling the insurgency, it is causing severe damage to the 
reputation and readiness of the United States military, and it is 
preventing us from addressing the inexcusable weaknesses in our 
homeland security.
  The Iraqi people, at least the Shiites and Kurds, have voted for a 
new constitution, as hastily drafted, flawed, and potentially divisive 
as it may be. Saddam Hussein, whose capacity for cruelty was seemingly 
limitless, is finally facing trial for his heinous crimes. Elections 
for a new national government are due by the end of the year. By then, 
it will be more than 2\1/2\ years since Saddam's overthrow, and we will 
have given the Iraqi people a chance to chart their own course. The 
sooner we reduce our presence there, the sooner they will have to make 
the difficult decisions necessary to solve their own problems in their 
own country.
  Our military commanders say that Iraq's problems increasingly need to 
be solved through the political process, not through military force. We 
must show Iraq and the world that we are not an occupying force, and 
that we have no designs on their country or their oil. The American 
people need to know that the President has a plan to bring our troops 
home.
  Once a new Iraqi government is in place, I believe the President 
should consult with Congress on a flexible plan that includes pulling 
our troops back from the densely populated areas where they are 
suffering the worst casualties and to bring them home.
  It is also long overdue for Congress and the White House to reassess 
our policy toward this region.
  The President has declared democracy is taking root throughout the 
Middle East, and there have been some small, positive steps. But they 
are dwarfed by the ongoing threat posed by Iran, Syria's continued 
meddling in Iraq and Lebanon, repression and corruption in Saudi Arabia 
and Egypt, the danger that the momentum for peace from Israel's 
withdrawal from Gaza will be lost as settlement construction 
accelerates in the West Bank, and the widespread--albeit mistaken--
belief among Muslims that the United States wants to destroy Islam 
itself.
  Just as the White House's obsession with Iraq has diverted our 
resources and impeded our efforts to strengthen our defenses against 
terrorism at home, so has it made it more difficult to constructively, 
with our allies, address these regional threats.
  As I have said, I did not support this war, and I believe that 
history will not judge kindly those who got us into this debacle by 
attacking a country that did not threaten us, after deceiving the 
American people and ridiculing those who appealed for caution and for 
instead mobilizing our resources directly against the threat of 
terrorism.
  I worry that many of our young veterans who have gone to Iraq and 
experienced the brutality and trauma of war and may already feel guilty 
for having survived, will increasingly question its purpose. As the 
architects of this war move on to other jobs, I fear we are going to 
see another generation of veterans, many of them physically and 
psychologically scarred for life, who feel a deep sense of betrayal by 
their Government.
  If President Bush will not say what remains to be done before he can 
declare victory and bring our troops home, then the Congress should be 
voting on what this war is really costing the Nation.
  We should vote on paying for the war versus cutting Medicaid, as some 
are proposing; or pay for the war versus cutting VA programs that are 
already unable to pay the staggering costs of treatment and 
rehabilitation for our injured veterans; or pay for it versus 
rebuilding our National Guard; or rebuilding FEMA; or securing our 
ports and our borders; or investing in our intelligence so we can 
finally capture Osama bin Laden; or investing in health care for the 
tens of millions of Americans who cannot afford to get sick; or fixing 
our troubled schools, so our children can learn to do a better job than 
we have of making the world a safer place for all people.
  These, and the tarnished reputation of a country that I love and so 
many once admired as not only powerful buy also good and just are the 
real costs of this war.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I put all Senators on notice that we will 
soon be starting the debate on an amendment to be offered by Senator 
Durbin. We had expected to go on the bill at 10, with morning business 
scheduled from 9:30 to 10, but morning business has run a little late. 
One of the Senators asked for an extension of time, which was not 
objected to. Now Senator Stabenow has asked for 5 minutes, which we 
will agree to. Senator Harkin and I are on the floor, and we are 
anxious to proceed with the business of the bill. I know Senator Harkin 
would like to make a comment.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the distinguished chairman would yield, I am sorry I 
was off the floor momentarily, but did the Senator from Pennsylvania do 
anything about the amendment that is pending?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the request was made to have the 
amendment which is pending accepted by a voice vote. It is really in 
the nature of a technical amendment. The amendment reduces Federal 
administrative costs for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 
by $15 million with no cuts coming from oversight and enforcement. This 
reduction is necessary to bring the Labor-HHS bill into compliance with 
its allocation ceiling. Concerns have been raised that this reduction 
would reduce the funds available to administer the new prescription 
drug program. This is not the case--the reduction will come from 
administrative overhead, supplies and contracts. We had talked about 
having a vote on it this morning at 10:30, but in light of the request 
that we not vote on that amendment but vote on the Durbin amendment, 
that is acceptable to this side.
  As I said before, Senator Stabenow has asked for 5 minutes, and we 
are prepared to yield that time. But we want to put all Senators on 
notice we are anxious to proceed with the bill, and I will expect to 
start on the Durbin amendment at about 10:24 and expect to vote on it 
sometime between 10:45 and 11.
  Senator Harkin and I, backed by the leaders, have said that we are 
going to do our best to enforce 20-minute votes, 15 and a 5-minute 
extension. So all Senators should know when we start the Durbin vote 
that it will be limited to 20 minutes to the extent that Senator Harkin 
and I can prevail on that. When we finish the Durbin vote at about 
11:15, we would be pressing to have amendments filed. We have a long, 
complicated bill. There is an amendment lined up at 2:15, but if we are 
to move this bill along and to avoid pressing for third reading and 
final passage, we want to avoid lengthy quorum calls.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________