[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 83 (Friday, June 23, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1263-E1264]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DECLARING THAT THE UNITED STATES WILL PREVAIL IN THE GLOBAL WAR ON 
                                 TERROR

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. KENNY C. HULSHOF

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 15, 2006

  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution, 
in support of our troops, and in support of our Nation's efforts in the 
Global War on Terror.
  In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we find ourselves locked in a struggle 
with an enemy that despises liberty and embraces an ideology of hate.
  Terrorists did not declare war on us the morning of September 11, 
2001. It started long before that. Consider the following:
  In November of 1979, radical Iranians seized the U.S. Embassy in 
Tehran, holding 53 American hostages for 444 days.
  Less than four years later, 63 people died when the U.S. Embassy in 
Beirut is bombed.
  Scant months later, 242 Americans and 58 French are killed by 
simultaneous suicide bombers in the American and French compounds in 
Beirut.
  March 1984, Islamic terrorists kidnapped and murdered Political 
Officer William Buckley.
  One year later, terrorists seized the Italian cruise liner the 
Achille Lauro and killed Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old American who 
was confined to a wheelchair.
  In June of 1985, Lebanese Hizballah terrorists hijacked a TWA flight 
forcing the plane to fly to Beirut. Eight crew members and 145 
passengers are held hostage for 17 days, during which time a U.S. 
sailor is murdered.
  April 1986, two U.S. soldiers are killed and 79 are injured when 
Libyan nationals detonated bombs in a West Berlin discotheque.
  Two years later, Libyans again take American lives when Pan Am Flight 
103 exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland. All of the 259 people on board 
are killed.
  On February 26, 1993, for the first time, Islamic terrorists strike 
on American soil when a car bomb explodes in the garage of the World 
Trade Center, killing six and injuring 1,000.
  On April 14, 1993, Iraqi intelligence operatives attempted to 
assassinate former President Bush.
  In 1995, a car bomb exploded at a U.S. military complex in Riyadh, 
Saudi Arabia, one U.S. citizen is killed.
  Seven months later a truck bomb detonated outside the Khobar Towers 
in Dhahram, Saudi Arabia. Nineteen Airmen are killed and 515 people are 
wounded.
  In August of 1998, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania fall 
victim to coordinated attacks. Over 300 are killed.
  Two years latter, a small watercraft laden with explosives rammed 
into the U.S.S. Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.
  Finally, September 11, 2001, two hijacked airliners hit the World 
Trade Center towers, another plane crashed into the Pentagon and a 
fourth plane, headed for either the White House or U.S. Capitol 
Building in Washington, D.C., crashed in a Pennsylvania cornfield. All 
told, 3,025 perish.
  But until we took action in Afghanistan, our response to terror was 
often non-existent, sporadic, or inconsistent.
  In the wake of September 11, the American people rightfully demanded 
that their elected officials make a commitment to aggressively combat 
terrorism. We went into Afghanistan to proactively stop further attacks 
on innocent Americans. Afghanistan was a haven for al-Qaeda, and the 
terror attacks on our own soil showed us that we can no longer rely on 
oceans and geography to protect our homeland :from attack. Thus, we 
must drain the swamps where terrorism breeds and take the fight to 
those who have, through their own words and deeds, declared war on us.
  In addition to the real-life need to protect our citizens, there is a 
larger meaning in our efforts in the Global War on Terror. Those we 
fight abhor freedom and liberty. They shun religious tolerance and view 
with disdain our deeply held belief that every person is endowed with 
basic human rights. And make no doubt about it--our enemy in the Global 
War on Terror is determined to impose their dangerous ideology on 
innocent people around the globe. The carnage of September 11 showed us 
that we can no longer turn a blind-eye as hate-filled terrorists plot 
against our Nation and its citizens.
  Then there is the question of Iraq. Hindsight is 20/20, and we now 
know that Iraq did not possess significant stockpiles of weapons of 
mass destruction. But let us look at the evidence from the time--the 
evidence upon which the Congress, the Administration, and our allies 
around the world had to judge the threat posed by Iraq.
  Saddam Hussein had a long history of pursuing weapons of mass 
destruction. Like the terrorist acts against this country, Saddam's 
determination to pursue weapons of mass destruction and desire to 
intimidate his neighbors in the region began long ago.
  In the 1970's, Iraq started constructing a nuclear reactor in Osirak. 
The international community did nothing in response to this gathering 
threat. Israel, not content to watch Saddam Hussein move forward with a 
nuclear program, destroyed the reactor in 1981.
  In the 1980s and the early part of the 1990s, Saddam Hussein's regime 
proved time and again that they were a threat to peace and stability in 
the region. Saddam repeatedly, almost continually, used chemical and 
biological weapons on his own citizens and Iranian troops. For example:
  In August 1983, Saddam used mustard gas on almost 100 Iranians and 
Kurds in Haji Uman.
  From October through November of that same year, he used mustard gas 
on 3,000 Iranians and Kurds in Panjwin.
  One year later on Manjoon Island, Saddam again used mustard gas on 
2,500 Iranians.
  Simultaneously, he used the nerve agent tabun on 50 to 100 Iranians 
in Al Basrah.
  A year later, in March of 1985, mustard and tabun were used in 
Hawizah Marsh on 3,000 Iranians.
  February of 1986 in Al-Faw, mustard and tabun were used against 8,000 
to 10,000 Iranians.

[[Page E1264]]

  Later in 1986 in Urn ar-Rasas, mustard gas was used against thousands 
of Iranians.
  Then in April of 1987 at Al-Basrah, mustard and tabun were used on 
3,000 Iranians.
  Later that year, mustard and a nerve agent were used in Sumar/Mehran 
on 5,000 Iranians.
  In March of 1988, mustard and a nerve agent were used on thousands of 
Iranians and Kurds in Halabjah and Kurdish areas respectively.
  One month later, Al-Faw again sees destruction when mustard and a 
nerve agent were used on thousands of Iranians.
  One month after that, Fish Lake sees hundreds or thousands of 
Iranians succumb to mustard or a nerve agent.
  In June of 1988, Manjoon Island was attacked with mustard and nerve 
agent, this time hundreds or thousands were affected.
  July of that year, the chemical agents were again used along the 
South-central border with the same effect.
  One month later in Haij Urnran, mustard gas was used on less than 100 
Kurds.
  And finally, in March of 1991 in the An-Najaf-Karbala area, nerve 
agent was yet again used by Hussein's regime.
  These attacks demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt Saddam Hussein's 
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against not only his 
foreign enemies, but even his own citizens.
  Now, let us remember that the intelligence community around the world 
continued to assert that Iraq under Saddam Hussein continued to pursue 
the means to produce and deploy weapons of mass destruction. It would 
have been irresponsible--in light of Saddam's record of using these 
weapons--to ignore these intelligence warnings. And I might also add 
that in the wake of these intelligence shortcomings and in response to 
the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, the House has taken 
concrete steps to improve our intelligence gathering and analytical 
capabilities.

  Three years ago when I addressed this House on the resolution 
authorizing the use of force against Iraq, I said, ``while I do not 
find sufficient evidence to establish a concrete link between Iraq and 
the al-Qaeda terrorist that committed the terrorist acts of September 
11th, the fact remains that Iraq continues to sponsor terrorists with 
global reach.''
  I think this analysis holds true today. To use the words of British 
Prime Minister Tony Blair, ``September 11 was not an isolated event but 
a tragic prologue, Iraq another act, and many further struggles will be 
set upon this stage before it's over.''
  Let us remember--Iraq had been labeled a State Sponsor of Terrorism 
by both the current Bush Administration as well as the Clinton 
Administration. Removing this breeding ground of terrorism was and is 
in this country's best interest.
  Furthermore, Saddam demonstrated a complete disregard for his 
international obligations. Over the course of more than a decade, he 
willfully violated or simply ignored 17 U.N. Security Council 
Resolutions. He attempted to assassinate our former President, and he 
continually violated the peace treaty that he signed to end the first 
Gulf War. And let us not forget that Saddam also invaded two of his 
sovereign neighbors.
  Saddam Hussein's blatant disregard for basic human rights was well-
documented. He used fear arid intimidation to retain his grip on power, 
and his henchmen employed torture, rape, murder and a host of other 
unspeakable crimes to keep the Iraqi populace under his tyrannical 
control. I think it is again worth reminding my colleagues that these 
evil individuals no longer control Iraq, and Saddam finds himself on 
trial before his fellow Iraqis for crimes against his own people.
  I believe that history will excuse the errors in our intelligence 
about weapons of mass destruction and reach a common-sense conclusion--
military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power was justified, and 
the world is a safer place with Saddam Hussein in a jail cell.
  The storm clouds were gathering in Iraq. As Franklin Delano Roosevelt 
said in his 1941 State of the Union Address, ``when the dictators . . . 
are ready to make war upon us, they will not wait for an act of war on 
our part . . . they--not we--will choose the time and the place and the 
method of their attack.'' The wisdom of President Franklin Roosevelt 
still rings true today. It would have been a grave mistake to dismiss 
or ignore the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
  Our actions in Iraq and in Afghanistan were in response to the global 
threat we faced from state sponsors of terror that harbored and 
assisted our enemies. And whether you supported or opposed military 
action in Afghanistan and the use of force in Iraq, the fact of the 
matter is that we now have troops in the field working diligently to 
help fledgling democracies take hold in the Middle East. The world is 
watching, and we must remain committed to our principles and our 
mission. And we have a duty to stand behind our troops.

  It is in our national security interests for the seeds of democracy 
take hold in Iraq. And we must continue to train and assist Iraqis to 
provide for their own security. A significant step towards the goal of 
a free, peaceful and independent Iraq will be the development of 
security forces, composed of and led by Iraqis, that is firmly under 
the direction and control of the freely elected government.
  Ultimately, success will be achieved when Iraq is a stable country 
that is no longer a threat to the region or global security, a 
peaceable country that respects the rights of its citizens and its 
neighbors.
  This is a difficult but worthwhile endeavor. And we are making 
tangible progress.
  Iraqi security forces are growing in number and taking more 
responsibility for internal security. We have now trained more than 
240,000 security forces, and these men and even some women are now 
beginning to take the lead in the fight against terrorist insurgents. 
Indigenous personnel and intelligence assets played a key role in the 
successful mission that led to the elimination of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, 
al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq.
  Democracy is taking root in Iraq. The Iraqi people have approved what 
is arguably the most progressive constitution in the Arab world, and 
last December, 75 percent of voting age Iraqis freely elected their new 
government. Iraq now has a new Prime Minister, Jawad al-Maliki, and the 
Prime Minister has filled all of the positions in his cabinet. The new 
government is a representative cross-section of Iraq's diverse 
religious and ethnic populations.
  Things are moving forward on the economic front. In 2005, the Iraqi 
economy grew by an estimated 2.6 percent in real terms and the 
International Monetary Fund has estimated that it will grow by more 
than 10 percent this year. Foreign and domestic banks are opening new 
offices in Iraq and a stock market has been established. Vital 
infrastructure--schools, hospitals, fire stations and the like--
continues to come online.
  Progress in Iraq has been slow, but it is happening, and slowly but 
surely, things are moving in the right direction.
  It has been suggested by some in this Chamber that we should either 
immediately remove our troops from Iraq or set artificial timelines for 
withdrawal. Like all Americans, I want our troops to return as soon as 
is possible. But I think it would be short-sighted to withdraw our 
military until stability has been established in Iraq. A 
premature withdrawal would waste the sacrifice of those who have worked 
so hard to promote freedom in the heart of the Middle East.

  The National Defense Authorization Act for 2006 stated that ``2006 
should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty 
with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free 
and sovereign Iraq.'' I agree with this language.
  However, the job now is not finished. Iraqi security forces are not 
ready to counter all of the threats that are facing Iraq and cannot 
secure their country on their own. If we made the ill-fated decision to 
turn our backs on the Iraqi people, we would doom their brief 
experience with democracy and risk creating a lawless safe-haven for 
terrorists.
  Our enemies know what is at stake in Iraq. Al-Qaeda views Iraq as the 
frontline in their efforts to combat the spread of democracy in the 
Middle East. They realize that our success in Iraq is a direct threat 
to their ideology of fear and hate. To walk away now from our mission 
in Iraq would be portrayed in the Arab World as a significant victory 
for al-Qaeda. It would draw into question or commitment to our allies 
in the region and our commitment to the very principles upon which our 
Nation is based.
  Like all Americans, I want our troops home as soon as possible. And 
we as Congress have a constitutional obligation to weigh-in on this 
effort and ensure that our Nation's policy is consistent with a goal of 
achieving victory in Iraq. And as appealing as an immediate withdrawal 
may be to certain segments of our society, I think it would be 
irresponsible for Congress to turn our back on our obligations and call 
for the removal of troops from Iraq before the mission has been 
accomplished. And as a matter of fairness, the embrace of a ``cut and 
run'' approach to Iraq would waste the sacrifice of thousands of 
American troops who have served in Iraq.
  Since September 11, 2001, we have not had a major terrorist attack on 
American soil, despite the clear desire of our enemy to again strike us 
here at home. We have terminated or captured dangerous terrorists 
around the globe, disrupted their financing, and denied them safe-
haven. We should be proud of these accomplishments, but remain vigilant 
in recognizing that more work remains.
  God willing, we will prevail in this struggle. May God bless the 
United States, and God bless the soldiers that defend it.




                          ____________________