[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 10 (Wednesday, February 1, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H128-H129]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               COMMENTS ON THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

[[Page H129]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  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, last night, Cindy Sheehan was evicted from 
this Chamber and arrested. Her crime? Wearing a T-shirt that 
highlighted the number of dead soldiers in Iraq and asking, ``How many 
more?''
  Since when is free speech conditional on whether or not you agree 
with the President of the United States? In fact, isn't the whole point 
of the first amendment to our Constitution to protect dissenters? And 
how ironic is it, Mr. Speaker, that this outrageous suppression of 
peaceful protest should take place on the very same day that America 
lost one of the pioneers of civil disobedience, Coretta Scott King.
  I will say about this episode what I said about the torture of 
prisoners, the PATRIOT Act, and the administration's illegal domestic 
surveillance program: How can we claim to be fighting on behalf of 
freedom around the world, making the world safe for freedom, when we 
are smothering freedom here at home?
  Let us not forget also that Cindy Sheehan has given her child for 
this country and this war. She deserves the sympathy and gratitude of 
every American. No one who sat in this Chamber last night has the moral 
authority she does to express an opinion on the Bush Iraq policy.
  But I might argue that it is actually a little misleading to classify 
Ms. Sheehan's views as ``dissent'' or ``protest,'' because a majority 
of Americans agree with her that the invasion of Iraq was a tragic 
mistake and a majority agrees with her that the President misled us 
about weapons of mass destruction intelligence in order to justify this 
war.
  The President, meanwhile, represents a minority view, and he tried 
once again to sell that minority view to skeptical Americans last 
night. And once again he did so by employing a spin, misleading 
rhetoric, and outright deception.
  Of course, he conveniently conflated the 9/11 attacks on America with 
the conflict in Iraq, exploiting a national tragedy for the umpteenth 
time. He talked about the importance of Iraqi reconstruction, but did 
not mention that the official in charge of reconstruction says there is 
not enough funding to complete key projects. He said that military 
commanders on the ground would make decisions for troop levels, but in 
2003 he dismissed the general who correctly warned that keeping the 
peace in post-war Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of troops.
  The President set up this misleading either/or proposition choice 
last night: you either support his militarism, or you believe in 
``retreating within our borders and the false comfort of isolation.''
  This is a false charge. We should absolutely be engaging the nations 
of the world, especially ones that are poor, underdeveloped, and 
vulnerable to terrorism; but we should be engaging the world with 
humanitarian support, not with bombs and missiles.
  Yes, by all means, let us meet the challenges of the world, where too 
many suffer under economic and political repression. But instead of 
sending troops, let us send small business loans, let us send 
agricultural experts, let us send doctors, teachers, scientists and 
constitutional scholars. Let us engage, not invade.
  This has been the core philosophy of my SMART Security Plan that I 
have discussed here many, many times: less brawn, more brains; less 
belligerence, more benevolence.
  It is interesting that a President who has disparaged allies, 
rejected multilateralism, and ignored global commitments now talks 
about the dangers of isolation. The only way to promote peace and 
security to combat terrorism, to stop the spread of deadly weapons is 
to embrace a vision of global partnership, cooperation and diplomacy; 
and that is exactly what the President has failed to do.
  He could start by abandoning his vision of conquest and bring our 
troops home. Only then can we begin the hard work of defeating tyranny 
and ensuring freedom and ensuring peace around the world.

                          ____________________