[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 152 (Wednesday, November 16, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12879-S12880]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this morning's newspapers across America 
have lead stories that I think are a grim reminder to us of the reality 
of life in Washington and the challenges we face. The lead stories in 
most newspapers across America relate to a vote on the Senate floor 
yesterday. I believe it was a historic vote. By a vote of 79 to 19, 
Republican and Democratic Senators said it is time for change in this 
administration's policy in Iraq.
  Certainly, when you look at the statistics, it is understandable: 
Over 2,060 of our best and bravest soldiers have lost their lives in 
Iraq. Over 15,000 have been gravely wounded, some of them with injuries 
that will change their lives. And, of course, 25,000 or 30,000 innocent 
Iraqis--innocent Iraqis--have died during the course of this war.
  This war has gone on for over 3 years, after the administration 
promised us, in the words of Secretary Rumsfeld, that he could not 
imagine we would be there for more than 6 months. It is now beyond 3 
years; no end in sight.
  The American people are frustrated, as they should be; frustrated by 
the fact that this administration made a case for the war in Iraq that 
was false. You can recall it, as I do, the President, the Vice 
President, the Secretary of Defense, Condoleezza Rice, even Secretary 
of State Powell, making statements about the existence of weapons of 
mass destruction in Iraq that were a threat to the Middle East and to 
the world that could easily fall into the hands of terrorists; 
statements over and over again about nuclear weapons, Condoleezza Rice 
talking about mushroom clouds that we could fear if we did not invade 
Iraq and stop Saddam Hussein; and, of course, linking our national 
tragedy of 9/11 with Saddam Hussein, saying that somehow he had 
connections with al-Qaida.
  Well, it turned out all of those things were false--every single one 
of them--so false to the point where the President had to do something 
I do not think has ever been done in the history of this Nation. He had 
to apologize and recant a remark he made in his State of the Union 
Address about this yellow cake coming from Niger in Africa so the 
Iraqis could use it to make nuclear weapons. It turned out it was a 
phony. It was not true.
  So we were drawn into a war under false pretenses. We all knew how 
terrible Saddam Hussein was, but we certainly came to understand that 
the specific reasons given for the invasion of Iraq turned out not to 
be true, one after the other. Weapons of mass destruction, nuclear 
weapons, connections with al-Qaida, yellow cake from Niger, so-called 
mobile biological weapons laboratories--all of these things turned out 
to be totally false.
  It is understandable the American people are concerned about it 
because if you measure an abuse of power by a government, could there 
be an abuse of power any worse than misleading the people of a country 
into believing that a war is necessary?
  That is, of course, why the Senate Democrats took to the floor just 2 
weeks ago and demanded that the promised investigation of this 
administration for the potential misuse of intelligence be completed by 
the Senate Intelligence Committee. It has been over 20 months--20 
months--since we were promised that this honest investigation would 
take place, and nothing has happened.

  There have been small parts of it that have been addressed, but I 
think we all know what the story is. The Senate Intelligence Committee, 
under the control of the President's party, does not want to open that 
door and look inside. Well, why should we? Why should we reflect and 
dwell on the past? Some say: Let's look forward. But if we do not get 
to the heart of this issue, the truth of the matter, if we are not 
honest with the American people and straightforward as to what happened 
leading up to that invasion of Iraq, then I think we are derelict in 
our constitutional responsibilities.
  This Congress is designed as one branch of Government to serve as 
oversight of the executive branch of Government. The failure of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee, for more than 20 months, to produce this 
intelligence analysis, which they promised, is proof positive they are 
dragging their feet, unwilling to accept the responsibility which they 
have publicly proclaimed.
  So yesterday we passed on the floor, by a vote of 79 to 19, a clear 
statement to this administration that the policy in Iraq must change. 
No. 1, we said the year 2006 will not just be another year in Iraq, 
another year of casualties, another year of death, another year of our 
despondency over whether this is going to end well. It will be a year 
of significant transition. That is what the Democratic amendment said. 
That is what was adopted.
  Secondly, we served notice on Iraqis that it is their responsibility, 
not the American responsibility, to secure their own country and to 
build a political coalition that can defeat the insurgency. I had hoped 
we would have even stronger language to say to the Iraqis: We are not 
here indefinitely. We want to bring our troops home. The Republican 
side watered down that language, but the message was still clear.
  The third element is important as well. Accountability is essential. 
This administration must be held accountable for whether we were 
prepared not only for the invasion of Iraq but for what occurred 
afterwards. You know what happened afterwards. Secretary Rumsfeld 
visited with our troops, and a soldier came forward, held up his hand 
to ask a question, and said: Mr. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, why is 
it that we soldiers have to scavenge through junk piles to find pieces 
of armor to stick on these humvees to protect ourselves? A moment of 
great embarrassment for the Secretary, but I am glad that soldier had 
the courage to stand up and say what we already knew.
  We were not prepared. We sent our troops into combat without the 
necessary humvee armor, without the necessary body armor, without the 
necessary protection for our helicopters. It was done, and in some 
respects too late

[[Page S12880]]

and too little. We lost American soldiers' lives and many were injured 
because we did not have the right equipment in place.
  So now what we are saying is that this administration must be held 
accountable, to report to Congress every 90 days to tell us in Congress 
the progress that is being made in protecting our troops, in preparing 
the Iraqis to defend their own country, in moving that country toward 
stability, and in moving us to the point where American soldiers can 
start coming home. That was passed yesterday, 79 to 19.
  As the President stood on Veterans Day and in an unprecedented 
political speech attacked his Democratic critics for saying they did 
not agree with his war policy, this Senate, on a bipartisan basis 
yesterday, 79 to 19, said to the President: Your policy in Iraq must 
change. We need to start looking to bring American soldiers home. And 
2006 is the year to begin that process in earnest.
  That is why it was a historic vote. Of course, as we look at the 
statements made in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, there is a 
recurring theme. It turns out that the major sources of intelligence 
that were passing through the administration and to the American people 
were passing across the desk of Vice President Cheney.
  Lieutenant Colonel Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary of State 
Colin Powell, referred to a cabal, a cabal led by Vice President Cheney 
and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, a cabal which set the stage for the 
invasion of Iraq. The man speaking was not a partisan Democrat. He was 
the chief of staff to the Secretary of State in the Bush 
administration, Colin Powell. I think it makes clear that throughout 
the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, our Vice President, Richard 
Cheney, was making statements that did not reflect the truth of what 
was occurring in Iraq.
  Repeatedly, he said Iraq had links to al-Qaida, and that was proven 
false. Repeatedly, he said Iraq was an imminent threat to the United 
States, and that was proven false. Repeatedly, Vice President Cheney 
said Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and that was proven 
false.
  On ``Meet the Press,'' on March 16, 2003, the Vice President said: 
``And we believe he [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted 
nuclear weapons.'' False.

  In addition, there were statements made about whether Iraq was trying 
to acquire uranium from Africa, statements made by the Vice President 
which turned out to be false, and statements, of course, relative to 
aluminum tubes. I knew something about that debate because as a member 
of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I listened as the Department of 
Defense and the Department of Energy debated whether these aluminum 
tubes were really all about nuclear weapons. There was a real division 
within the administration, and I would walk outside the Senate 
Intelligence Committee room and hear statements made by the Vice 
President saying: There is no debate. It is all about nuclear weapons.
  Now, I could not repeat what I had heard in the Senate Intelligence 
Committee. I was prohibited from saying it publicly. I knew what he 
said was false. It is one of the reasons I voted against that 
resolution to go to war in Iraq.
  But again and again the Vice President was taking information, 
intelligence information, giving it to the American people selectively, 
making certain that it was always the strongest spin toward the 
immediate need for a war, and that is how we ended up in the position 
we are in today.
  It is a lot easier to get into a war than it is to get out of one. 
And we have learned that with the cost in human lives and the cost to 
America's Treasury.

                          ____________________