[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 77 (Thursday, June 15, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H4129-H4132]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IRAQ RESOLUTION
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized
for half the time until midnight as the designee of the majority
leader.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the time here tonight.
There has been so much discussion today about the resolution on which
we will vote tomorrow that we wanted to address that. And I have a
friend with whom I went to Iraq in April, Congressman Shays from
Connecticut, who will also be assisting in this hour.
I would just like to clarify for those who are interested what this
resolution involves. Because the time is short remaining, I won't read
all of the whereases, but I will go straight to what is normally
referred to as wherefores.
Resolved that the House of Representatives honors all of those
Americans who have taken an active part in the global war on terror,
whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers
overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles.
{time} 2330
Honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and our
partners in the coalition and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight
alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the
struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and
others who risk their lives to help defend freedom.
Number 3, declares that it is not in the national security interests
of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or
redeployment of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq.
Number 4, declares that the United States is committed to the
completion the mission to create a sovereign, free secure and United
Iraq.
Five, congratulates Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi
people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing
millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first
government under Iraq's new Constitution.
Number 6, calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace
and security by standing with the United States and other coalition
partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live
in freedom.
And 7, declares that the United States will prevail in the global war
on terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist
adversary.
And I think that last point, Mr. Speaker, is the one on which there
is so much dissension from the other side and there are a few Members
on our side that are concerned, but it declares, we actually believe,
and a positive vote tomorrow will indicate, we believe we are going to
prevail in the global war on terror. And the truth of the matter is we
don't have a choice. It is either prevail on the global war on terror,
or be prepared to give up so many freedoms that I do not want to see
this Nation give up. Far too many people have given their lives to get
us what we have.
Now, one note I would like to address that has been brought up time
and time again, well, the President lied to us about WMDs. There are no
weapons of mass destruction. Well, we know there were at one time. But
to hear it said over and over, and hear again today, during the day
today, over and over, well, the President lied to us about weapons of
mass destruction. The President lied to us about weapons of mass
destruction. His administration lied to us about weapons of mass
destruction. And I think the jury is still out. We are finding
documents that apparently refer to things that were taken to Syria.
There may be things that turn up that we haven't yet found.
But let's say, for argument purposes, that there are no weapons of
mass destruction. You know, being a Christian
[[Page H4130]]
is part of who I am. We have been taught to forgive. I think it is high
time, if the President lied to us about weapons of mass destruction,
then let's forgive President Clinton for all those lies. Let's forgive
his administration, people like Madeleine Albright that lied, and let's
move on. Let's put that behind us and just get on down the road.
And I would like to say, I do appreciate the visitation that
Congressman Murtha makes to those who have been injured and harmed and
to the grieving families. He is very devoted in his visitation. And it
obviously, as I have talked to him, it obviously affects him, as it
would any of us that see people suffer.
There in East Texas, in my district, we had a Private First Class
Steven Wright who is 19 years old. Was killed, he was from Kilgore,
Texas. And, you know, some us, this was before I got elected to
Congress. But having spent 4 years in the Army, I have been to funerals
enough, back in the days when people didn't come to service members'
funerals. And they present the flag to the deceased family and say, on
behalf of a grateful Nation and they would look around, go where is the
grateful Nation. There is nobody here. Just a few friends. Where is the
grateful Nation?
And so out of concern that there might not be many show up to that
young man's funeral, this hero, Steven Wright from Kilgore, many of us
showed up from around east Texas that have been in the service before.
And I am telling you, that little rural church was a few miles from the
cemetery there on Highway 31. And I ended up at the back, and I checked
the mileage. There were cars creeping along three solid miles to have
their opportunity at the cemetery to pay tribute to that young man and
his family. And I saw them again Memorial Day, his family. They know
what the price is. They are not ready for us to cut and run. They know
that to do that would diminish the value of what Private Wyatt fought
and died for.
We had a Marine that I visited 2 or 3 weeks ago from Marshall, Tony
Flynn. He took a mortar round in the chest. And I think through the
prayers and the grace of God, he is doing well. And his mom was there
with him. He is doing well. I tell you, there have been so many
sacrifices. How tragic if we were to cut and run and leave all that has
been done. So close. I mean, democracy is right there within their
grasp. And when I was with Congressman Shays and Congressman Marshall
over there, we had a meeting, the leader of the Kurdish party, Shiia
party, Sunni party, and in talking with them, one of the things I
mentioned to them was that it is within their grasp. Just get the Prime
Minister appointed. Get the cabinet appointed; that they can let this
opportunity pass them by and they will be forgotten, or they can grasp
it and they would be the George Washingtons and the John Adams and the
Patrick Henrys of this next, well, of the next generations to come, as
well as in the Middle East itself.
I couldn't help but note, my good friend Mr. Scott said there is no
good result that can occur from what we are doing there. Well, I have
got good news. There have already been good results. You took a country
that had never experienced democracy, never knew democracy, and yet in
2005, that first election, there were fliers all over the country,
little fliers, had two sentences in their language that simply said,
you vote, you die. Despite those all over the countryside, people
turned out in millions to vote. They did it again for a constitution,
and they came out in even greater numbers, and the Sunnis participated
in the election in December. I am so proud of the courage of those
people.
And I would like, at this time, to yield to my friend from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays). As far I know, I don't believe there is any
other Member of Congress that has been more times to Iraq to ensure
that we are doing the right thing, that our money is being spent
appropriately, that we are giving our troops the things they deserve
because of his heartfelt desire, and he is a big hearted man. But his
heartfelt desire to make sure that our people are protected, our guys
in harm's way are getting what they need and we are doing the right
thing.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in hearing from my good
friend, Mr. Shays from Connecticut, on this subject at this time. I
yield to Mr. Shays.
Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And just to say that I
appreciate the opportunity to appear with him and to have some
dialogue.
Being to Iraq 12 times has been very interesting for me because what
I have been able to do, I go every 3 or 4 months and I am able to kind
of graph out how well we are doing or how well we are not doing and to
have a sense of where we are headed.
If you were to just take April 2003 when I was there, and now, in
June of 2006, you would say, well, we are not, things aren't as good as
they were way back in April when everyone was euphoric. And if you are
tempted to draw those two points you see a downward slope. But if you
were an economist or anyone else looking at a graph you would say,
well, what happened in between? Is the trend line up or is it down?
Well, it has clearly been up. And the reason it has been up is that we
saw a serious decline in what happened in Iraq shortly after we took
over. We, unfortunately, allowed for the looting. We, unfortunately,
didn't take charge of the munitions depots. So Iraqis got in there and
took out a lot of armaments. And then we, and I think this was the
biggest mistake. We allowed their army, their border patrol and their
police to be disbanded.
Now, what we basically said to 26 million Iraqis is, you have no
police, no border patrol and army. And then what we said to 150,000
troops, mostly Americans, is you have to be their army, their police
and their border patrol. Really, an impossible task. And I say that
with a lot of regret, but also with the recognition that explains why
things really started to decline. And what you then saw is the fact
that you saw the Iraqis have real concerns about the United States. We
had said, you lay down your arms, don't fight, and we will work with
you. And the Iraqis would say to me, why are you putting my brother and
my father and my uncle, my cousin, my son, particularly my husband out
of work? That was their argument. And they said, why can't they at
least guard a hospital?
Well, those were very poignant words for me because the first death
we had was Wilfredo Perez from Norwalk, a young man who was guarding a
hospital. We had another death Tyanna Avery Felder, this young woman
from Bridgeport. And then we lost another American, Jack Dempsey, a
very young man who graduated from high school and wanted to be in the
Marines, and he went in the Marines instead of going on to college.
These three fine Americans from my district lost their lives. I can
look their families in the eye and say, without any hesitation
whatsoever, that they did not die in vain. I can say that so long as we
don't abandon Iraq, leave prematurely.
When we dug this hole with no army, no police and border patrol, and
asked our military, we saw the problems that we have seen. But then
what did we do to turn this corner and head in the right direction? We
started to train their police, their border patrol and their army. That
is what we did. And we saw in 2005, extraordinary elections. I was
there for the first election. It was one of the most thrilling things
that I have ever seen in my entire life. We were in a Kurdish area, in
Irbil, and we saw Iraqi women bringing their husbands and family
members to vote. They were so excited that after they voted they
celebrated. And I was so excited watching these brave people as they
voted. And what I saw was something pretty extraordinary. What I saw
were Iraqis thrilled with the opportunity to vote. And I asked if I
could put my finger in that ink jar. And they looked at me and said,
with some astonishment, no. You are not an Iraqi. And I thought, she
could have said I wasn't a Kurd. But she said I wasn't an Iraqi. She
didn't think of Sunni, Shiia and Kurd. In fact, when I go to Iraq and I
will ask someone, are you a Kurd or a Shiia or a Sunni, they will say I
am a Shiia, but I am married to a Sunni, or I will ask someone the same
question. They will say, I am a Kurd. But sir, Kurds are Sunnis.
For me, it is an amazing thing to go to that country and to see the
absolute conviction that Iraqis have that they can have a better
future. And I think as I am seeing this, back here at home we are
saying we need to leave. Again,
[[Page H4131]]
when I ask the Iraqis what is their biggest fear, their biggest fear is
this, that you will leave us, that you will leave us before we can take
hold of democracy and own it.
And I know my colleague made reference to the concept of lying. There
is no question in my mind that anyone lied about weapons of mass
destruction, not a scintilla of doubt about that issue. And I could
confirm it in a whole host of ways. One is, we didn't let our troops go
into Iraq until every one of them had protective chemical gear.
{time} 2345
If we didn't think they had chemicals, if we didn't think they would
use it, we sure as heck would not have spent our time doing that. What
we should have made sure of was that they had body armor. So they did
not have body armor. They had exactly what we thought they needed:
protective gear against chemicals.
When I went to the Brits, the French, the Turks, the Jordanians, and
the Iraqis, they all said this to me: He has weapons of mass
destruction. Only the French said he wouldn't use it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Marchant). The time for the majority has
expired.
Is there anyone from the minority that claims the additional time?
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to use the
remainder of the time being there is no one here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman may proceed
until midnight.
There was no objection.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to yield to the gentleman from
Connecticut.
Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. I am almost done for this part, and I would
encourage the gentleman to stand up so we could have a little bit of a
dialogue about this.
But when I read what he read in the resolution, declares that it is
not in the national security interest of the United States to set an
arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States
Armed Forces from Iraq, I think it is a very clear statement. If people
think it is in the national interest to have an arbitrary date, they
can vote ``no'' against this resolution and hold their head up high. If
like you, Mr. Gohmert, and I feel that it would be an absolute huge
mistake, and, in fact, I am not aware of any war that has been won by
setting arbitrary dates, then we would want this statement to stand and
we would support it. This declares that the United States is committed
to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure,
and united Iraq. I believe the war in Iraq is a noble effort. I believe
this describes exactly how I feel. If there are those who feel that we
should not complete the mission to create a sovereign, free, and secure
and united Iraq, they have the ability with their heads held high to
vote against it.
I appreciate the opportunity we have had to debate these two very
important points.
Mr. GOHMERT. Reclaiming my time, you brought up the point about an
arbitrary date earlier tonight and then again just now, and for
illustration purposes I can't help but think about World War II. And
here you had Hitler basically hunkered down trying to withstand the
onslaught as Patton and the 3rd Army and Montgomery moved forward. What
if Congress had demanded a date at that time or before then and said if
we do not win by, say, December 1 of 1945, it is hard to imagine but
you know good and well Hitler would never have killed himself. He would
have been in a bunker saying if we can just hold out, if I can stay on
the run and stay alive until December 1, I win and I will be alive and
can carry on some other day and continue with basically guerrilla
tactics.
As the gentleman from Connecticut has said, no war has ever been won
by setting an arbitrary date beyond which we were not willing to fight.
Once the enemy knows that there is a date and that is all they have to
get by, then it is just a matter of their surviving until that date and
then they win.
Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman will allow me to comment, I think the
gentleman makes a very good point. I love to just think of the
Revolutionary War and, being somewhat a student of history and loving
history, thinking of when my professors would tell me that one-third of
the American people supported the war against Great Britain, one-third
opposed it, and one-third didn't care or didn't even know there was a
war. But we were pretty divided. In fact, the war during that time we
had families absolutely divided. And Benjamin Franklin's son was the
governor of a State, did not want to give up that authority given to
him by the crown, and opposed the war. Even among their own family,
there was division.
But what I think about that Revolutionary War that just blows me away
is George Washington had one failure after another after another. In
fact, they said if the wind had been blowing the other way, he would
have been captured in Manhattan. Thank goodness there was not the press
that said we have made all these terrible mistakes, we need to leave.
And it gets me to this point. We have made mistakes, but they do not
justify leaving. What is justified is to stop making those mistakes and
doing it the right way.
And if the gentleman would just indulge me a little longer, I am well
aware that Abraham Lincoln was constantly criticized because his
generals were not winning. In fact, his generals started criticizing
him. In fact, a general ran against him in his reelection because they
thought he was not fighting the war properly. So thank goodness we did
not set an arbitrary date on either George Washington or Abraham
Lincoln. Thank goodness we did not say because you have made mistakes,
we have got to just stop.
Mr. GOHMERT. Of course, being a history major at Texas A&M, I also am
a great fan of history and do believe the adage those who refuse to
learn from history are destined to repeat it. And then, of course, the
follow-up to that is those who do learn from history will find new ways
to mess up.
But going back to the Revolutionary War, the gentleman from
Connecticut gives a great example. As history indicates, and McCullough
did a great job of documenting this in his book 1776, before the
victory December 24, 1776, where Washington crossed the Delaware, there
was not much to really crow about. And as the gentleman well knows,
that retreat from over to Manhattan with the superior British forces
there could have been a disaster and would have been if the wind had
been blowing the other way. But I think it was providential that fog
came in and covered their retreat. But I believe it was on December 27,
not only did the Congress not set an arbitrary date by which he had to
win, they were so committed to victory, they passed a resolution that
basically gave Washington whatever power he needed, whatever authority
to spend money he needed to get the job done, to get the troops
reassigned so that they could fight until they won the war. That is how
committed they were. And in the cover letter, as I recall, and this is
a testimonial to Washington's being the man for the time, it went along
the lines of basically we submit a copy of the resolution and knowing
that neither man nor his liberty will be in jeopardy with your having
all this power, and then when it is no longer necessary, you will
return it back, as well he did. But what a contrast to the discussion
today to say, you know what, let us set an arbitrary date over here and
then just pull out after that. We would not have had a successful
conclusion to the American Revolution.
I would like to address something here. This is taken off-line from
USA Today. And it says ``Text of a Document Discovered in Zarqawi's
Safe House,'' and then it has updated June 15, 2006, 2:31 am, the
Associated Press. And it says ``Text of a document discovered in terror
leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi's hideout. The document was provided in
English by Iraqi National security adviser Mouwafak al Rubaie. And this
is supposedly from these guys, that it was discovered in a safe house.
And it documents exactly the things that so many on the other side and
a few on our side have been saying is not the case. Our own enemies
have documented what Mr. Scott will be glad to know are good results
that have been occurring.
And it goes on to say, and these are the terrorists writing this:
``As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting
negatively the forces of the occupying countries due to the losses they
sustain economically and
[[Page H4132]]
human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq,
time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and
harmful to the resistance.'' The terrorists call themselves resisters.
``For the following reasons:
Number one, ``By allowing the American forces to form the forces of
the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake
military operations against the resistance.'' The resistance being the
terrorists, which is just what the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays) was saying earlier. We have been there. They are training them.
Some opponents are saying we have not been able to train people, that
they cannot protect themselves. Well, the terrorists are saying in this
document that our forces have been able to form them and train them and
reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations.
Mr. SHAYS. Will the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. GOHMERT. I certainly will yield.
Mr. SHAYS. What is important in your dialogue is the terrorists. And
there was this argument: Well, the terrorists are not in Iraq. I am not
going to argue whether they were there before we went in, but no one
can argue that they are not there now. In fact, the prince of the
terrorists, al Zarqawi, was killed. He was killed operating and doing
his handiwork in Iraq.
Mr. GOHMERT. Reclaiming the time, it is such a great point. He was
killed.
I will tell you, I do not know if the gentleman has been hearing some
of the ridiculous reports. One thing we have seen from this
administration is they cannot keep secrets too well. The President went
to Iraq without but a handful of people knowing. But if they try to
keep a secret very long, somebody leaks from all over the place. And so
there were some reports, and I couldn't help but shake my head, that
said, We think they had Zarqawi on ice in a freezer somewhere and they
just brought him out. And some have said he was beaten to death, that a
bomb did not do that. Do you want to know how absurd that is? Can you
imagine this administration having Zarqawi in a freezer somewhere for
weeks and somebody not leaking that? I am sorry. That could not happen.
That would have been leaked by somebody that they have got Zarqawi on
ice.
Mr. SHAYS. I do not know, if that is the kind dialogue that has been
happened in Texas. Most of my folks have recognized that we got him and
it was due to good intelligence. But if I could, you are talking about
this administration. Let me just talk briefly about what a former
administration said, in other words, what Bill Clinton said, according
to John A. Torres from the Florida Today on June 13 in a meeting he had
on the 12th. He wrote, ``Former President Bill Clinton told Florida
Democrats on Monday that Iraq's fledgling government would falter if
the United States were to withdraw its troops. He also said more
terrorists could emerge from that region without an American military
presence.''
So he is arguing that without a presence it would be worse. Then he
said, and this is a quote: `` `The representative government there in
Iraq is a hopeful sign,' '' Clinton said at a fundraising reception for
the Florida Democratic Party at the Orlando Marriott downtown. `But we
need to stay there long enough for the politics to get worked out,' he
said. `If we withdrew tomorrow, that government couldn't survive.'
``Clinton said he didn't agree with the original decision to invade
Iraq before finishing military operations in Afghanistan. However he
said the focus now needs to be on stabilizing Iraq and he warned that
occupying Iraq for too long would backfire.'' Too long it would
backfire, but he is very clear: We cannot leave until we stabilize
Iraq.
Mr. GOHMERT. Those are important words from our former President
Clinton, who had said himself numerous times that they did have weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq, that Saddam did, and I am glad to hear
that he is recognizing that an arbitrary withdrawal would be
devastating.
There are numerous other things here in this document. If I could
just touch on a couple very briefly as our time comes to a conclusion.
He goes through about how the picture is bleak, and he goes on to say:
``Based on the above points,'' and there were seven of them, ``it
became necessary that these matters should be treated one by one.'' And
he has a strategy. The strategy is to use the media for spreading an
effective and creative image of the resistance, or otherwise the
terrorists. Another point was to create division and strife between
America and other countries and among the elements disagreeing with it.
And then after seven more points, he says: ``In general and despite the
current bleak situation, we think that the best suggestions in order to
get out of this crisis,'' he calls it a crisis, ``is to entangle the
American forces into another war . . . ''
Mr. SHAYS. This is al Qaeda that is saying that; correct?
Mr. GOHMERT. This would be al Qaeda that is saying this. They realize
that they are in a crisis, they are big trouble, and that we are
prevailing and that the situation looks bleak.
We believe the United States will prevail in the global war on terror
and the noble struggle to protect freedom from terrorist adversaries
will be all worthwhile.
____________________