[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 76 (Wednesday, June 14, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3976-H3977]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  FLOOR DEBATE ON GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, a remarkable document showed up in our 
mailboxes this afternoon. It is called a ``Confidential Messaging 
Memo'' for the floor debate on Iraq and the global war on terror.
  This is apparently a memo that Republican leadership provided to 
Members on their side so they would know how to go about rubber-
stamping the President's every thought and deed and could do their best 
to make sure that we don't have the kind of debate that the American 
people deserve.
  The American people deserve to have us talk about what is really 
going on in Iraq and how it does or does not make us safer. They 
deserve to have mistakes acknowledged and paths forward discussed 
honestly and frankly, admitting problems and working together to make 
things better.
  They deserve a Congress that is more interested in their security 
than in scoring points for the November election.
  According to the Republican leadership's tactical memo, this is 
precisely what the American people will not get. Instead, there will be 
confusion and intentional misdirection. There will be ad hominen 
attacks, and that means attacks on individuals, and attempts to make 
Saddam Hussein and 9/11 more or less the same thing, attempts to call 
Democrats' legitimate questions about the administration's rationale 
for war and conduct of the war into what, and I quote, ``policies to 
concede defeat on the battlefield.''
  The memo is filled with advice on how to deflect, confuse, conflate 
and con. I would like to enter that memo into the Record so everyone 
will be able to read it and not be confused when they hear the debate 
begin tomorrow. They will know what the script is that the other side 
is following.
  Mr. Speaker, let me read some portions now because I think we all 
have a right to know what Republicans are advising their Members to say 
and think.
  ``During this debate, our Republican Conference should be focused on 
delivering these key points:
  ``The Importance of Our Actions. It is imperative during this debate 
that we reexamine the conditions that required the United States to 
take military action in Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of the 
attacks of September 11, 2001.''
  In other words, the Republicans are being told to continue the big 
lie that Iraq was behind 9/11 or had something to gain from 9/11, and 
it is all tied together in one neat package.
  Secondly, the Republican leadership wants to make the point that they 
are smart and tough enough because they don't look back, they don't 
analyze, they don't admit errors, and they don't learn.
  Now if they were a baseball pitcher who was this bad, Rumsfeld would 
have been jerked five innings ago. But, of course, our President ran 
the Rangers and gave Chicago Sammy Sosa, so we know his judgment in 
baseball.
  Now to do anything else, according to their memo, is to be ``prone to 
waiver endlessly'' or ``to abandon our efforts'' against terrorism. It 
is as if the Republicans believe there is only one kind of effort 
against terrorism that has validity, and that any kind of thoughtful 
consideration of alternatives is a sign of cowardice and weakness.
  ``Republicans believe,'' the memo says, ``victory in Iraq will be an 
important blow for terrorism.'' Yes, of course, it would be. But what 
is victory in Iraq and how do we get off the path we are on presently 
and onto that victory path?
  We are forbidden to talk about those questions. It would be wrong for 
435 fairly well-educated, loyal Americans, who have been sent here by 
their districts to help govern this country, to start raising questions 
about what we ought to do.
  There will be one proposal with no amendments; that is it. It would 
be ``weak'' and ``wavering'' and a sign of ``abandoning our efforts'' 
if we attempt to make those efforts more rational and successful and 
relate them to the goal of making Americans safer.
  We are in trouble in Iraq. We don't have a plan except to keep 
plowing ahead with the same old policy: a strategy that is getting 
Americans and Iraqis killed and driving Iraqis to despair and 
helplessness. We don't have a Congress that can step up and take 
responsibility and try to make the administration listen to reason.
  The President's policy is to put the control of this in the hands of 
the Iraqis. When they stand up, we will stand down. Who is going to 
tell the Iraqis when to stand up? The clerics, of course. The Shiia and 
Sunni clerics will decide when they stand up. What if they don't tell 
them to stand up? We are there until it ends.
  This is a charade. We will go through it tomorrow, but it will not 
shed any light on where we ought to be going as Americans.
  And we don't have a Congress that can step up and take responsibility 
and try to make the administration listen to reason.
  So the Republican leadership scheduled public relations time in the 
House in an effort to stop the Republican free fall in the polls.
  Republican leaders cannot tell the American people what they intend 
to do except more of the same.

[[Page H3977]]

  Mr. Speaker, we can do better. I call on the Republicans to abandon 
the cynical strategy put forth by their leaders and think for 
themselves.

Confidential Messaging Memo--Floor Debate on Iraq and the Global War on 
                                 Terror

       This week, the House of Representatives will engage in a 
     debate about the war in Iraq, the Global War on Terror and 
     our efforts to strengthen our national security in a post-9/
     11 world.
       The past week has brought news of several important, 
     positive developments in Iraq and the Global War on Terror:
       U.S. military forces eliminated the terrorist Abu Musab al-
     Zarqawi, al-Qaeda's top commander in Iraq and a cold-blooded 
     killer.
       The Iraqi government named new interior, defense and 
     security ministers as part of the new government's continued 
     progress.
       Just this morning, President George W. Bush traveled to 
     Baghdad to meet the newly appointed Prime Minister of Iraq, 
     Nouri al-Maliki and to discuss our growing partnership with 
     the new democratic ally.
       Clearly, these positive developments are the result of 
     steadfast support of both our military and diplomatic efforts 
     in Iraq and across the globe. We should not refrain from 
     touting such progress.
       During this debate, our Republican Conference should be 
     focused on delivering these key points:


                     The Importance of Our Actions

       It is imperative during this debate that we re-examine the 
     conditions that required the United States to take military 
     action in Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of the 
     attacks of September 11, 2001.
       The attacks we witnessed that day serve as a reminder of 
     the dangers we face as a nation in a post-9/11 world. We can 
     no longer expect oceans between us and our enemies to keep us 
     safe. The plotting and planning taking place in terror camps 
     protected by rogue regimes could no longer go unchecked or 
     unchallenged. In a post-9/11 world, we could no longer allow 
     despots and dictators like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein to 
     ignore international sanctions and resolutions passed by the 
     United Nations Security Council.
       So, during this debate we must make clear to the American 
     people that the United States had to take action in the best 
     interests of the security of our nation and the world 
     community. As Republicans who supported military action 
     against Saddam Hussein and terrorists around the globe, the 
     United States had to show our resolve as the world's premier 
     defender of freedom and liberty before such ideals were 
     preyed upon, rather than after standing witness to their 
     demise at the hands of our enemies.
       As President John F. Kennedy once stated so eloquently:
       ``The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have 
     always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that 
     is the path of surrender, or submission.''


                        A Portrait of Contrasts

       This debate in the House of Representatives gives our 
     Republican Conference the opportunity to present the American 
     people our case for strong national security policies whose 
     purpose is to protect the nation against another attack on 
     our own soil.
       Similarly, we must conduct this debate as a portrait of 
     contrasts between Republicans and Democrats with regard to 
     one of the most important political issues of our era. 
     Articulating and advocating our core principles will allow 
     the American public to witness Members of Congress debate a 
     fundamental question facing America's leaders:
       In a post-9/11 world, do we confront dangerous regimes and 
     the threat of terrorism with strength and resolve, or do we 
     instead abandon our efforts against these threats in the 
     hopes that they will just fade away on their own?
       Republicans believe victory in Iraq will be an important 
     blow to terrorism and the threat it poses around the world. 
     Democrats, on the other hand, are prone to waver endlessly 
     about the use of force to protect American ideals. Capitol 
     Hill Democrats' only specific policy proposals are to concede 
     defeat on the battlefield and instead, merely manage the 
     threat of terrorism and the danger it poses.
       These are troubling policies to embrace in a post-9/11 
     world. During this debate, we need to clarify just how wrong 
     the Democrats' weak approach is and just how dangerous their 
     implementation would be to both the short-term and long-term 
     national security interests of the United States.


                   Resolve Will Triumph Over Retreat

       As a result of our efforts during this debate, Americans 
     will recognize that on the issue of national security, they 
     have a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the 
     stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democrat Party 
     without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly 
     dismisses the challenges America faces in a post-9/11 world.
       Let there be no doubt that America and its allies in the 
     war in Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism face difficult 
     challenges. The American people are understandably concerned 
     about our mission in a post-Saddam Iraq. There have been many 
     tough days since Iraq's liberation and transition to a 
     sovereign democracy.
       Democrats are all too eager to seize upon the challenges we 
     face as their rationale or motivation for retreat. As 
     Republicans, we understand the diplomatic and national 
     security hazards of such a move.
       We must echo the American public's understanding of just 
     how great the stakes are in Iraq and our long-term efforts to 
     win the War on Terrorism.
       Building democracies in a part of the world that has known 
     nothing but tyranny and despotism is a difficult task. But 
     achieving victory there and gaining democratic allies in the 
     region will be the best gift of security we can give to 
     future generations of Americans.

                          ____________________