[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 88 (Monday, July 10, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H4941-H4947]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2045
                             THE IRAQ WATCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, again we come to the floor 
this evening as part of what we have come to call the Iraq Watch. And 
first and foremost, as my distinguished colleagues have in previous 
occasions, I note that we want to distinguish first and foremost the 
war from the warriors.
  The men and women who serve this great country of ours deserve our 
unending respect and support for the kind of valor, the kind of job 
that they perform on a regular basis. Having said goodbye to far too 
many of them, many in our Reservists and National Guards who have been 
deployed, redeployed, deployed and then redeployed again, it is gut 
wrenching and heartrending to see what their families are going 
through. And so our thoughts and prayers are always with them, along 
with the support of this Congress.
  I further would like to say that it is important to distinguish the 
war from the warriors so that we have an opportunity to lay out policy 
for the American public. I want to start this evening with a policy 
that I believe sends a very strong message to the men and women who 
wear the uniform and their families here at home that are caring for 
them and caring about them.
  We have introduced a resolution that directs the President to send a 
clear message to the Iraqi Government that during this time of 
insurrection, a time when the Pew poll most recently indicates that 47 
percent of the Iraqi people believe that it is okay and justifiable to 
kill American soldiers, it is unacceptable; and we must send a clear 
message to the Iraqi Government that American soldiers who have been 
killed, maimed, wounded, kidnapped, tortured, that we will not, in any 
shape, manner or form, tolerate amnesty for those who have perpetrated 
those acts against these brave men and women.
  In my humble estimation, there is no reason why this shouldn't be a 
bipartisan resolution. We have over 100 Democratic signatures on the 
bill. We would like to get this bill passed before we adjourn for the 
August recess. We have been able to bring so many incidental bills to 
this floor by unanimous consent. Surely we can bring a bill to the 
floor that sends a clear message to our troops that we are putting the 
Iraqi Government on notice that it is not okay to kill, maim, kidnap, 
torture American men and women in our armed services.
  And so it is my sincere hope, and we have had some overtures from the 
other side of the aisle, but so far, no movement. And this should be a 
nonpartisan issue where we bring this resolution to the floor and take 
it up and pass it, and send it on to the President so that he can send 
a very clear message.
  More important than sending a clear message to the Iraqis is also 
sending a message to our troops that we here in this country stand 
behind them and their sacrifice that they have made and will not see 
this all go for naught being waived with an amnesty provision in the 
midst of an insurrection of paramount proportions that is currently 
going on within Iraq.
  So I want to start there. And then I would like to quickly just segue 
to a quote. This quote was put together by Graham Allison, and Mr. 
Allison is a Harvard professor who had this to say that ``with regard 
to the current situation that we face in Iraq, it is clear that we have 
diverted essential resources from the fight against al Qaeda. We have 
allowed the Taliban to regroup in Afghanistan, fostered neglect of the 
Iranian nuclear threat, undermined alliances critical to preventing 
terrorism, devastated America's standing with every country in Europe, 
and destroyed it with the Muslim world.''
  Mr. Allison goes on to say: ``Are we any safer today from the threat 
of nuclear attack, especially by way of a dirty bomb, than we were on 
September the 11?'' His conclusion is, no. And he says: ``It can be 
summed up in one word as to the reason why we are not safer: Iraq.''
  And with that, let me acknowledge and yield to my distinguished 
colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), who has, from the outset 
of this war, through public forums and discussion, been on record of 
having protested the sending of our troops into Iraq.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, my friend. I hope that you had a pleasant 
break. I know you were working, but I hope that you enjoyed your stay 
at home.
  Professor Allison's observations really echo the conclusion that was 
reached by a bipartisan group of experts, including many from the 
administration of President Reagan, and that conclusion was that the 
United States is losing the war on terror.
  We read that our friends on the other side of the aisle have made a 
political decision to talk about national security, to talk about 
terror and what they have accomplished. Well, the truth is, nothing has 
been accomplished, except the loss of thousands of American lives with 
a financial cost going on some half a trillion dollars.

  You know, one only has to watch the nightly news. I was in the 
cloakroom earlier and watched the national news. It was depressing, it 
was sad, it was tragic. What is going on in Baghdad today and all over 
Iraq is an orgy of violence and blood-letting.
  We hear these distinctions between sectarian strife, between 
insurgents versus the terrorists. I still can't quite figure them out. 
All I know is that lives are being lost, that we Americans are taking 
this burden on by ourselves.

[[Page H4942]]

And don't talk to me about the coalition. It is an American burden 
almost exclusively.
  Let me just read to you this report from The Washington Post. And, 
again, this is a survey taken of some 116 experts. In the relationship 
between Iraq and the war on terror, I think it is all too sad that many 
of our friends and colleagues on the other side, but particularly in 
the administration, have an alternate reality. We have made these 
arguments before, that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the 
war on terror. There was, with one exception, unanimous support to 
invade Afghanistan to deal a blow to the Taliban, which were allowing 
al Qaeda safe haven and the ability to train and to grow.
  What we have done with this policy is we have created more terrorists 
than existed in 2001. There has been an explosion, not just of 
violence; there has been an explosion of terrorists. We have made Iraq 
into a breeding ground for terrorists. They are leaving Iraq, and they 
are going back to Afghanistan, as you pointed out, Mr. Larson. There is 
a resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and things are beginning to 
unravel again.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Well, to your point, you know, if we go 
back to the outset of the invasion of Iraq, we can trace it back to the 
summer of 2002, with the President's address at West Point, where he 
announced the doctrine of preemption and unilateralism. And as you will 
recall, who were the staunchest critics of the President at the time? 
It was not Senator Kennedy. It was not Senator Byrd. It wasn't Bill 
Delahunt or Jim McDermott or Maxine Waters or myself. It was Scowcroft, 
Eagleberger, Baker, Kissinger, because they understood the perils 
present in this kind of foreign policy, to abandon the precepts of 
Casper Weinberger and saying the United States should never enter into 
a military conflict unless its vital interests are threatened. And we 
knew that that was not the case, and the Powell corollary to that which 
is, if we go in, we go in with overwhelming force and secure the 
country.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. And you know where we didn't do that, John?
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. We didn't do that in Afghanistan.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. We did not.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. We cut and ran from Afghanistan. We were distracted by 
this vision, this neoconservative vision of invading Iraq and bringing 
stability and democracy to the Middle East. And yet now, now we are 
paying the price in Afghanistan.
  I yield back to my friend.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Because of the word of Ahmad Chalabi. So 
what has become the Chalabi-Cheney nexus has led us into this quagmire 
that we find ourselves into today. And as you point out, we have 
diverted the necessary funds that are needed to combat terrorism.
  We still do not have Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar. They are still 
at large. And we need to make sure that if we are going to send a 
strong message around the world that this kind of terrorist act will 
not be tolerated, that we refocus and regroup.
  It is also pointed out in several articles over this weekend that we 
still can prevail in Afghanistan if we put the resources there and 
support President Karzai and make sure that we regroup and redetermine 
our effort to put down the Taliban and to focus on weeding out those 
elements of al Qaeda that still exist along the Pakistani border and 
throughout Afghanistan that has become once again overwhelmed with 
warlords.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I know we have been joined by several of our 
colleagues, Congresswoman Waters and Congressman Van Hollen, and of 
course I see Mr. McDermott over there also. And I know Mr. Van Hollen 
has expended a considerable amount of time and effort in becoming 
conversant, an expert, if you will, with what is occurring in 
Afghanistan. But before I yield to either him or to Maxine Waters, let 
us just take a look at USA Today.

                              {time}  2100

  This is dated June 20 of 2006, more than 4 years after we invaded 
Afghanistan. The headline reads: ``Revived Taliban Waging Full-Blown 
Insurgency.'' I know that all of us who are interested in this 
particular issue can tell you that what is happening in Afghanistan 
today is very dangerous for stability, for the very fragile, extremely 
fragile democracy; that Afghanistan has become a narco-state that is 
providing 90 percent of the world's heroin. What have we wrought with 
this policy?
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Reclaiming my time, I thank you, Mr. 
Delahunt, for your comments; and as you point out, we have been joined 
by several of our esteemed colleagues. Maxine Waters has been in the 
forefront of making sure that the message continues to get out across 
this Nation with regard to the current situation in Iraq. She has been 
forthright in leading the Out of Iraq Caucus in the Democratic Caucus, 
and also has embraced wholeheartedly Jack Murtha's proposal.
  And, with that, I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATERS. Thank you so very much, Mr. Larson, for yielding and for 
organizing this special order.
  I certainly did come to the floor today to talk about what is going 
on in Iraq, but as I sat here and I listened to you in this colloquy 
that you have about what is going on in Afghanistan, I cannot help but 
join you and commend you for forcing some attention on the fact that we 
are going backwards in Afghanistan.
  It is shameful, because we did abandon the struggle in Afghanistan 
and took our resources in a direction where we were supposed to have 
been finding and bringing to the bar of justice Osama bin Laden. And as 
we look at what is happening, we find that Mr. Karzai is simply 
isolated in Kabul and that he cannot even move around, that with all of 
the protection that we are providing, his life is in danger.
  The Taliban is growing stronger every day; and we told our 
government, we told this administration, that the poppy fields were 
beginning to multiply in Afghanistan. And I have to tell you, this 
administration has turned a blind eye to the fact that the poppy fields 
are just overflowing. As a matter of fact, it seems as if we even 
understood and we allowed the poppy fields to become a source of 
revenue for somebody. The warlords have basically divided up the 
territories, and they all have their own plots and acreage, and they 
all are earning money; and we are about to lose again in Afghanistan.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Reclaiming my time, when you say ``poppy 
fields,'' you are referring to drug trafficking, correct?
  Ms. WATERS. That is what I am referring to, absolutely. And I am so 
glad that you are making it plain.
  The fact of the matter is, the growing and cultivating of poppy seeds 
in Afghanistan is the drug trade that is flowing off into that Pakistan 
border that we cannot seem to get under control. We have this so-called 
great relationship with Mr. Musharraf in Pakistan. But guess what? 
While he is talking to us and we are funding him and we are so-called 
cooperating, he tells us there is nothing he can do about the 
lawlessness on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. And it is 
believed by everybody that that is where Osama bin Laden really is. And 
so I do not know who our friends are anymore in that region.
  Having said that, I think you rightfully identified that we directed 
the resources away from Afghanistan and we went into this so-called war 
in Iraq because we were after Osama bin Laden, and we created this war 
on terrorism. And we led the American people to believe, the President 
did, that somehow, by doing this, we were going to get a handle on 
terrorism, we were going to capture Osama bin Laden, and everything was 
going to be all right.
  But I come here this evening as the Chair of the 72-member Out of 
Iraq Caucus. For more than a year, we have been working to conclude our 
involvement in Iraq and to bring our soldiers home. We did not believe 
this war was justified. In fact, many of us believed that the 
administration's so-called evidence justifying the war was truly 
exaggerated and very misleading. Furthermore, the administration's 
handling of this war has severely undermined our efforts in Iraq, and 
our service members are the ones that have

[[Page H4943]]

paid and continue to pay the price for this mismanagement. It is long 
past time to bring our troops home and reunite them with their 
families.
  Mr. Speaker, the violence in Iraq is almost beyond comprehension. 
Every day we hear about killings, bombings, kidnappings, and other 
forms of violence that create chaos throughout Iraq. Today's headline 
says it all. Let me give you an example: ``Baghdad Jolted by Sectarian 
Killing Sprees and Bombings,'' the L.A. Times; ``Scores of Sunnis 
Killed in Baghdad,'' the Washington Post; ``Baghdad Erupts in Mob 
Violence,'' the New York Times; and ``Fifteen Killed in Iraq Bombings, 
Shootings,'' the Associated Press.
  Unfortunately, today is no different than any other day in Iraq. The 
violence continues and scores of individuals are violently killed or 
injured. In today's version of the daily carnage, two car bombs 
exploded, claiming the lives of at least seven people and wounding 17 
others.
  Yesterday, Shiite gangs killed 36 Sunnis. Most of these victims were 
killed execution style, and several showed signs of torture. Later the 
same day, in retaliation, Sunnis detonated two car bombs, which killed 
at least 19 people, wounded 59, and damaged a Shiite mosque.
  And we are saying, maybe, it is about to be a civil war? Mr. Larson, 
I submit to you, there is a civil war going on in Iraq today.
  Last week, a bomb exploded in Sadr City, one of the Shiite sections 
of Baghdad, killing 62 people and injuring more than 100 others. It was 
the deadliest attack since Iraq's new government headed by Prime 
Minister al Maliki took office in May. Almost 1,600 Iraqis were killed 
in June, 16 percent more than in May.
  The violence has claimed the lives of more than 1,000 Iraqis per 
month since February. In fact, statistics compiled by the Iraqi 
Government indicate that the rate of killing in Iraq has increased 
since the death of Abu Musab al Zarqawi in June, something President 
Bush declared would be a turning point in the Iraq war.
  Sadly, the number of U.S. servicemembers who have died continues to 
grow as well. As of today, 2,541 U.S. troops have died in Iraq; more 
than 18,700 have been injured.
  The violence and death has gone on long enough. It is time to 
redeploy our troops out of Iraq and refocus our efforts on the war on 
terrorism, something this administration has neglected.
  The Out of Iraq Caucus believes that Congressman John Murtha's 
resolution, H.J. Res. 73, is the strongest plan to conclude the war and 
permit our soldiers to return to their loved ones.
  Mr. Larson, I thank you for yielding. Let me just conclude by saying 
this: You and others are here on the floor this evening, as you have 
come time and time again. The news media on Sunday mornings on most of 
the corporate media shows do not get the kind of conversation that we 
are having here today. They do not get this kind of conversation 
because they are not willing to listen to the voices that are 
challenging the President and the establishment in this total way that 
we do. They like to have it nuanced: I voted for the war and perhaps it 
has not been managed the way that it should have been managed, but we 
cannot get out. We have got to stay the course.
  The news media is not willing to hear what we are saying. And so the 
people out there who are trying to get the information, who are trying 
to listen to what we are all saying, just do not have all the 
opportunities because over and over again they are using the talking 
heads and the voices of people who are not here nor there, but 
somewhere in the middle, who are not willing to say that we have to 
bring our troops home.
  Finally, I am a Democrat, and I cherish my involvement in this party, 
and I think I know what we stand for. And I think I know what so many 
people have sacrificed for and have fought for. We have an election 
going on, and I know people sometimes do not have the courage to take 
the tough position, but in not doing so, we are watching our tremendous 
resources being just used up on this misplaced war.
  Our soldiers are at risk in more than one way. These young people, 
19, 18, 20 years old, have never been out of their hometowns before, 
who do not know a Sunni from a Shiite from a Kurd, are given the most 
sophisticated weapons and told to shoot anything that moves. And when 
they do, we talk about how horrible it is.
  This is a mess. This is unconscionable. Not only are we misusing the 
American taxpayers' money, not only are we placing Americans more at 
risk, but we are also sacrificing our young people in more ways than 
one.
  So I thank you for the opportunity to share this evening with you.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, 
and I would like to further substantiate what she had to say before 
about the trafficking of narcotics, especially opium poppies. Since 
2001, it increased from 200 metric tons to over 4,200 metric tons in 
just 2004.
  And our colleague from Maryland, Mr. Van Hollen, has written in the 
Washington Post and, I think, given very insightful comment on the 
situation in Afghanistan; and I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Larson, for 
his leadership on this.
  And, Mr. Delahunt, thank you.
  Let me just begin where you left off, Mr. Delahunt, with Afghanistan, 
because I think it is very important that we go back to that terrible 
day of September 11, 2001, and remember where the attack came from. It 
came from Afghanistan, organized by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, and 
they were given sanctuary by the Taliban. And the world was with us 
when we decided to respond to the terrible attacks. The United Nations 
General Assembly voted unanimously to support our effort. NATO, for the 
first time in the history of the alliance, invoked the provisions of 
the article that said an attack against one is an attack on all.
  And so it seems to me that the number one priority here should be to 
finish the business and complete the mission. We remember that fateful 
picture of President Bush on the aircraft carrier back in May, 2003, 
talking about ``Mission Accomplished'' with the great banner. Well, the 
mission is not accomplished. The people responsible for the attacks of 
September 11, 2001, are still somewhere along the border between 
Afghanistan and Pakistan. And that is why I think many of us were very 
surprised just last week to learn that the Central Intelligence Agency, 
the CIA, has closed down, closed down, the unit that was first 
established many years ago with the specific purpose of tracking down 
and hunting down Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.
  And let me just say this: I know a lot of us had to be scratching our 
heads when we saw that, because the American people know well that we 
have not completed that mission, and I think it is important that they 
know that the individual who first started that unit, a former member 
of the CIA, Michael Scheuer, was also very surprised and perplexed. He 
is the one that was the head of what was called Alec Station, this unit 
dedicated to tracking down Osama bin Laden. And he is now retired from 
the CIA, but here is what he said, It reflected a view within the 
agency, the CIA, that Mr. bin Laden was no longer the threat that he 
once was. And Mr. Scheuer said, and I think most of us would agree, 
that that view was mistaken, that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda remain a 
very virulent threat.

                              {time}  2115

  Here is what Mr. Scheuer had to say: ``This will clearly denigrate 
our operations against al Qaeda. These days at the agency, bin Laden 
and al Qaeda appear to be treated merely as first among equals.'' First 
among equals.
  These are the individuals, this is the organization that was 
responsible for the attacks on this country of September 11. They have 
disbanded the unit dedicated to tracking him down, and they have gotten 
themselves bogged down in a mess in Iraq. We have not finished the job 
in Afghanistan. We need to finish the job.
  We are sending the absolutely wrong signal, in my view, by reducing 
the number of forces committed to the southern part of Afghanistan, 
whereas Mr. Delahunt pointed out we have seen a great resurgence in 
activity of the Taliban along that southern area. That is the very area 
where the head of the Taliban, who is still also at large, made his 
base.

[[Page H4944]]

  So I think that it is important that we remember why we are engaged 
in this great national effort and the fact we have not accomplished our 
mission, and in fact, at the agency, they are disbanding one of the 
units that was established for that express purpose.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield for a moment, 
I would like to just quote another statement by Michael Scheuer that I 
really think tells it all in a very concise way. All of us should 
listen because this was an individual who participated in that group of 
experts, by the way, again bipartisan, many well-known Republican 
foreign policy experts who served in the Reagan administration, and 
this is what Michael Scheuer had to say, the man who headed the unit in 
the CIA to track down Osama bin Laden. His comments were really about 
Iraq and its relationship to Afghanistan and what has happened as a 
result of the Bush policy, supported by the majority in this Congress, 
to the war on terror.
  We are clearly losing today, Mr. Scheuer said. Today, bin Laden, al 
Qaeda and their allies have only one indispensable ally, the United 
States foreign policy towards the Islamic world.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, once again the gentleman from 
Maryland is so on point with his comments. I would like to read some 
remarks by former assistant Secretary of State James Rubin. He says 
that the Bush administration, that they have allowed Afghanistan to 
become the forgotten front on the war on terrorism, the forgotten front 
on the war on terrorism.
  As the gentleman from Maryland pointed out, these were the 
individuals who took down the World Trade Center, who hit the Pentagon, 
and but for the bravery of the people on board that heroic flight, the 
other plane ended up in Pennsylvania, in the fields of Pennsylvania.
  Afghanistan is the central front on the war on terror, and yet this 
administration does not have a long-term strategy for success in this 
crucial fight. They have allowed a war of choice in Iraq to distract 
from our critical mission in Afghanistan, a point the gentleman from 
Maryland articulated earlier.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I think 
Mr. Rubin is right on point on that very important issue, and I do 
think it is important to listen to what many of the experts in this 
area say.
  The President claims that he keeps listening to the experts with 
respect to the decision made in Iraq and elsewhere. The interesting 
thing is many generals and other experts have said that Rumsfeld and 
others, the Secretary of Defense, in fact, ignored their advice.
  But if you just go back to last March when the President took a visit 
to south Asia, he made a couple of stops. He stopped in Afghanistan, he 
stopped in India, he stopped in Pakistan. One of the great ironies is 
that the very day he made a stop over in Afghanistan, General Maples, 
who is the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, was testifying 
before the United States Congress. In fact he was testifying over in 
front of the Senate and talking about the danger of the resurgent 
Taliban in Afghanistan.
  Now, the President at that time was probably as close as he will ever 
get to Osama bin Laden. He was in Kabul, Afghanistan, going over to 
India and Pakistan; and yet, at the same time he has been talking about 
reducing in effect our commitment to Afghanistan in terms of our 
military presence, and this country has not yet made its financial 
commitments as well, but that very day General Maples was here 
testifying that, in fact, the continued presence of the active Taliban 
and al Qaeda resistance in Afghanistan was heating up and that the 
Taliban was coming back. He quoted many statistics. This was back in 
the spring. Since then things have only got worse.
  Mr. Delahunt pointed to the USA Today article, the headline. There 
have been, unfortunately, many headlines in recent times about the 
resurgent Taliban.
  We need to do better. This is where it all began September 11, and we 
need to remember the lessons of the past in Afghanistan. When the 
Soviets withdrew their forces from Afghanistan, the United States 
decided to say, well, we no longer have an interest there. We packed up 
our bags and left when the Soviets left, and what we left behind was a 
vacuum, a power vacuum; and it was that power vacuum that was exploited 
by the Taliban that then gave safe haven to al Qaeda, and it was al 
Qaeda then that launched the attacks of September 11.
  So we would be making a gross mistake, not once but now twice, if we 
do not complete the mission in Afghanistan.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, the parallels of history are 
so important, and to think now as you point out so well that we have 
nearly abandoned the effort in Afghanistan and find ourselves imperiled 
in Iraq, much in the same way Russia found itself imperiled in 
Afghanistan, with the rest of the world watching as we continue to 
expend our resources, over $400 billion, and our most precious of all 
resources, the men and women who serve this country; and in the 
meantime, Afghanistan has become the forgotten front on terrorism, 
something the gentleman from Maine knows about as well as anybody in 
this great body of ours, and I yield to him.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I took a trip to Kabul, to Bagram in Kabul, about a week after the 
invasion, a week or two after we invaded Afghanistan. I cannot tell you 
how proud I was of the men and women who are serving in our forces 
there, doing what they had to do in order to deal with that particular 
threat.
  But Afghanistan, when we now read the books that have come out about 
how the administration rushed to war against Iraq, and how they 
essentially were planning a conflict in Iraq even before September 11 
and how immediately after September 11 Secretary Rumsfeld was 
suggesting, find some evidence that Saddam Hussein was somehow 
connected so that we can attack Iraq as quickly as possible, it is very 
clear this administration was not living in the real world, the real 
world of evidence and information. They had a contempt for the State 
Department and for the expertise of those who had spent their entire 
lives in the Middle East.
  So what they did was essentially, and this I think has to be laid 
particularly at the feet of Vice President Cheney and Secretary 
Rumsfeld, they wanted to try out a new theory in Iraq, and that was to 
go in with a minimum amount of force, and basically go in, take out 
Saddam Hussein, and leave, with no thought given to what would be left, 
and now we know what was left.

  I mean, people like Paul Wolfowitz, the Defense Secretary, who said 
to a congressional committee before the invasion, fortunately, Iraq has 
no history of ethnic conflict. Somebody who has studied Iraq for as 
many years as he had, ought to know better than to say that. They 
wanted to do the war. They had a war of choice. They chose it and they 
wanted to go, take out Saddam Hussein.
  I just wanted to say a couple of things about where we go from here. 
We have had all sorts of debates in here, not a lot on the floor but a 
few debates, at least one debate one day, on where we go from here.
  I think there is a case to be made for a draw-down this year and a 
withdrawal next year. The most important part of that case to me is we 
do not want the Iraqi politicians to be dependent on us. We want to put 
them under a timeline, some pressure to come to an agreement.
  You read the press and you see some of the comments out of the 
administration. It sounds like major trickery that they were able, 
after 5\1/2\ months, to agree who would be the defense minister and who 
would be the interior minister. Well, they have got another issue in 
front of them: how are they going to divvy up the oil. That is a lot 
tougher than any decision that the Iraqi Government has made to date, 
and they are making it in the face of ongoing violence every day in 
Baghdad and other dangerous places in the country.
  I think what we need to do is we need to refocus our attention on 
diplomatic solutions. We need to get people in other countries in the 
Middle East engaged, and we have to give the Iraqis a sense that we are 
not going to have permanent bases there and we are not going to stay, 
we are going to be drawing down our forces. The responsibility

[[Page H4945]]

rests on them to make the very tough political compromises that need to 
be made to give that country a chance, and that is all they have got 
now is a chance for some greater stability than they have today.
  With that, I thank the gentleman for the yielding.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Maine, as always, for his very thoughtful comments; and I want to make 
a statement consistent with what the gentlemen from Maryland and 
Massachusetts have said and ask the gentleman from Washington State to 
join us as well.
  But clearly, as the gentleman from Maine points out, our continued 
presence in Iraq only helps to fuel the insurgency and prolong 
instability between Iraq's regional and sectarian factions. Instead, 
our Nation needs a new direction that redeploys our forces to win the 
war in Afghanistan, tracks down key al Qaeda leaders, and refocuses on 
fighting the war on terror, something the gentleman from Maryland 
articulated so well.
  Instead, we get nonbinding resolutions that come to this floor when 
virtually this entire Chamber was united in the effort to make sure 
that we went after those criminals who perpetrated the acts of 
September 11, and instead, we have abandoned this front in Afghanistan. 
Astoundingly, as the gentleman from Maryland points out, the CIA is 
disbanding the unit that was focused on going after Osama bin Laden and 
allowed the Taliban to continue to regroup in Afghanistan. Talk about 
cut and run. Where is the debate on this issue?
  On the front line of terrorism, as Ms. Waters pointed out, with what 
we know is a regrouping of the Taliban, and where we know the funding 
of terrorism comes from the source of opium trade and that it is 
allowed to flourish and, in fact, expand and grown since 2001, it is 
time for a change in policy.
  With that, I will yield to the gentleman from Maryland for remarks 
and then we will go over to the gentleman from Washington State.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I just wanted to 
point out that, as others have said, the diversion of resources from 
Afghanistan to Iraq is now clearly coming back to haunt us because we 
have not fulfilled the commitment that we made with respect to 
Afghanistan.
  The other effect it has had, as the gentleman from Maine pointed out 
in his remarks just a minute ago, this was a decision that was really 
both discussed before September 11, but in the very moments after 
September 11, there was discussion of going after Saddam Hussein in 
Iraq, even though there was absolutely no evidence, and the President 
has admitted to this day that there was no evidence of any linkage 
between Saddam Hussein and Iraq and the terrible attacks of September 
11.
  The result of what we did was taking a situation where the world and 
international community that had rallied around us, it had passed 
resolutions at the United Nations and through NATO, and the world had 
joined us in this effort, and we lost that support. It evaporated, and 
it is not like we want to win some kind of popularity contest or to win 
a popularity contest, but we have recognized that we need the 
cooperation of other nations in terms of intelligence-gathering, in 
terms of support if we all want to be successful in combating 
terrorism.
  The fact of the matter is, by going into Iraq, taking the lid off 
Pandora's box, unleashing historical forces that existed in Iraq 
between the Sunni and the Shiia and inflaming the Islamic world, we 
have certainly helped multiply the force of al Qaeda, both the 
organization itself, as well as the copycat organizations that have 
sprung up as a result. They sprung up when the Islamic world saw the 
United States making a war of choice and going into Iraq, when it 
became clear to the world that the twin pillars of our argument, the 
claim that there were weapons of mass destruction and the claim that 
there was a link between September 11 and al Qaeda was cooperating with 
Saddam Hussein, the twin pillars of our argument proved to be false.

                              {time}  2130

  And the world looked at us, and we made those claims before the 
United Nations. Secretary Powell, with great show of, you know, 
different charts and graphs and things that he displayed to the world, 
and the world looked at it and found out it was all untrue. And that 
fact helped fuel this resentment against the United States, which makes 
it more difficult for us to gain the cooperation of others in trying to 
fight terrorism around the world.
  And so I think that we come here tonight saying the mission has not 
been accomplished. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden remain where they are, 
and last week we learned that the CIA is dismantling the one unit that 
was dedicated to tracking down Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If I may, before you yield to Jim McDermott, I think it 
is important to follow what Congressman Van Hollen just talked about in 
terms of the diversion of resources.
  Several weeks ago, the foreign minister of Afghanistan came to this 
country and made a statement, and it was reported in the Washington 
Times, that the government forces, the security forces, the army and 
the police, are being outgunned and outmanned by the terrorists in 
Afghanistan.
  In response the administration said, Well, we will double the 
assistance to the security forces. This is more than about 5 years, I 
daresay, since we invaded Afghanistan. This just simply goes to the 
point that in Iraq, with Katrina, with Afghanistan, with just about 
everything, we have seen a level of incompetence and mismanagement that 
is simply mind-boggling.
  Last week, they are talking about increasing military assistance to 
the security forces in Afghanistan. In the meantime, it is going very 
badly in Afghanistan.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. The gentleman from Washington State.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Larson. I think that people may wonder 
why some of us come out here and talk about this week after week. It 
really has to do with the feeling of having seen this story once 
before.
  And when you know what it is to commit people to battle. I had to 
say, this person is fit for active duty and goes to war in Vietnam. I 
had to do that again and again and again. So I know what the weight is 
of doing that.
  When you ask, why are the generals coming out and talking about what 
is going on in this whole thing? Why do people who have been loyal to 
this country and have served for long, distinguished careers, now stand 
up and say about the management of this war, as General Newbold did on 
April 9th of this year, he said, My sincere view is that the commitment 
of our forces to this fight was done with the casualness and the 
swagger that are the special privilege of those who have never had to 
execute these missions or bury the results.
  And it is incredible that we stand out here today, 120 days from 
election, being subjected to a propaganda war that things are getting 
better. In spite of bombings and people dying and our soldiers 
continuing to be killed, the administration says, We have to stay the 
course.
  Now, if you look around the world, you would think maybe, well, maybe 
it is just some antiwar Americans. Right? No. In yesterday's Guardian, 
or the July 5 Guardian, there was an article my Menzies Campbell. He is 
the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the British House of Commons. 
And he said, the British and American Governments have tried to pretend 
things are getting better in Iraq. They are wrong. The facts belie 
their optimism. Between 2004 and 2005, the number of car and roadside 
bombs doubled and the suicide bombs trebled. Electricity supplies and 
oil production are still below prewar levels. Iraq stands on the 
threshold of a civil war.
  Now, here is a leader in Britain saying exactly what we are saying. 
They have got troops on the ground. They are committed in support. But, 
in fact, they are becoming very antsy. Mr. Campbell comes up with a 
six-point plan to get out of Iraq. It is things that we have talked 
about right here in this room.
  He talks about a comprehensive U.N.-led disarmament, demobilization 
and reintegration strategy as necessary to make a reality of the Iraqi 
prime minister's policies that the militias must merge with the 
national security forces.

[[Page H4946]]

  We all know this cannot be a government that has militias running it. 
It becomes warlords. It becomes like Afghanistan. It is the same thing. 
He also says there needs to be an end to the systematic, indefinite 
detentions by U.S. and Iraqi forces.
  Today, there are 30,000 Iraqis held in more or less permanent 
detention, whether it be in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib or wherever. And 
as long as we continue to do that, we are occupiers. There is no 
question about it. And the plan which Mr. Menzies Campbell puts 
forward, or the one that we put forward, there are reasonable ways to 
get out of this. But we must get out of Iraq if we are ever going to 
deal with the problems you talk about in Afghanistan.
  We cannot fight on two fronts. We have proven that. We left 
Afghanistan to go to Iraq, and the mess came right back up. And if we 
are serious about dealing with whatever kind of terrorism was being 
created in Afghanistan, we have got to go back and finish that job.
  Now, Menzies Campbell finishes by saying, you could change the words 
a little bit, but it would be the very same thing. With distressing 
regularity, the Commons, or the Congress, pays tribute to the brave men 
and women who have given their lives in Iraq.
  If the government cannot explain why this is necessary, that they 
should make this ultimate sacrifice, then it must be prepared to bring 
them home. And that is where we are today. We have a government that 
wants to get through 120 days, and I will make a prediction for you. 
Right there, the prime minister of Iraq, Mr. Maliki, is going to come 
in here in the next month, and he is going to stand up there and plead 
with us to leave our troops in Iraq.
  We have seen that kind of stuff already in this House. And you can 
bet that the PR from that will be to stimulate people to say, oh, gee, 
if we stayed just another 3 months or another 4 months or whatever. We 
have been there since 2002, 4 years, and this is what you have as the 
analysis by people who know what they are talking about.

                   [From the Guardian, July 5, 2006]

   Only a U.N.-Led Peace Process Can Halt the Iraq Catastrophe--The 
Government Cannot Justify the Continuing Presence of Our Troops Unless 
               It Shows It Has Learned From Its Failures

                         (By Menzies Campbell)

       The British and American governments like to pretend that 
     things are getting better in Iraq. They are wrong. The facts 
     belie their optimism. Between 2004 and 2005 the number of car 
     and roadside bombs doubled, and suicide bombs trebled. 
     Electricity supplies and oil production are still below 
     prewar levels. Iraq stands on the threshold of civil war. The 
     illegal invasion, launched on a flawed prospectus and with 
     little understanding of the consequences, has resulted in the 
     deaths of about 3,000 coalition soldiers, 40,000 civilians 
     and many U.N. and humanitarian workers.
       Since 2003 the coalition has met neither its obligations 
     nor its objectives. There was a catastrophic failure to plan 
     for postwar Iraq, followed by misjudgment and incompetence. 
     This has been overlaid by a disproportionate use of military 
     force, including gross human rights abuses. There are nearly 
     30,000 people being held without trial in Iraq. These 
     failures and misjudgments have perpetuated the insurgency, 
     increased corruption and criminality, and inhibited 
     improvements to the lives of Iraqis. We must now face the 
     possibility that Iraq could become a failed state. That would 
     have devastating economic and security consequences for the 
     region, and would risk taking the current humanitarian 
     disaster to a completely new level.
       The catalogue of errors means the capacity of the UK and 
     the U.S. to play a positive role in redeeming the situation 
     is severely diminished. The legitimacy of the coalition, 
     always questionable, is now simply not accepted by most 
     Iraqis. A 2005 poll for the British Ministry of Defense found 
     that eight out of 10 Iraqis strongly opposed the presence of 
     coalition forces. Between 70 percent-90 percent want to see a 
     timeline for the withdrawal of coalition troops.
       Faced with this reality, the British and American 
     governments seem to be in denial. The last time the British 
     government allotted parliamentary time for a full debate on 
     Iraq was July 20 2004, which was only the second occasion 
     since March 18 2003. It appears to be running scared of 
     critical evaluation. The coalition does not have an exit 
     strategy, nor does it have a strategy for staying. But to 
     continue as it has been is not a credible option. The British 
     and U.S. governments require a coherent stabilisation and 
     exit strategy. The early moves by Iraq's government of 
     national unity to form a reconciliation plan are positive, 
     but vague on detail.
       The foundation of a new strategy should be a peace process 
     led by the U.N. to accelerate national reconciliation and the 
     internationalisation of support for Iraq. If the problems of 
     internecine conflict within Iraq have international 
     dimensions, so too must the solutions. A new strategy would 
     seek to build on the policies set out by the Iraqi prime 
     minister and work towards an international ``compact'', 
     similar to that agreed with Afghanistan, setting out the 
     commitments of all sides and a comprehensive security and 
     reconstruction strategy.
       Only an international solution can shore up the legitimacy 
     and effectiveness of Iraq's government, improve the delivery 
     of essential services and facilitate the end of the 
     militarisation. Every further association with the U.S. and 
     the UK taints the Iraqi administration.
       What should that solution contain? First, establishing a 
     regional contact group would strengthen the engagement of 
     Iraq's neighbours, and require them to play a constructive 
     role in reconstruction. A contact group could play a 
     significant role in talking to insurgent groups, improving 
     border controls and promoting economic stability.
       Second, enhanced measures to train, equip and 
     professionalise Iraqi security forces are needed to de-
     politicise them and improve security. Coalition forces should 
     move towards training, advising and equipping. Third, a 
     comprehensive, U.N.-led disarmament, demobilisation and 
     reintegration strategy is necessary to make a reality of the 
     Iraqi prime minister's policy that the militias must merge 
     with the national security forces.
       Fourth, there should be an end to systematic indefinite 
     detentions by Iraqi and U.S. forces, and full access should 
     be granted to U.N. human rights monitors and the Red Cross. 
     Fifth, the reconstruction process must be expedited and 
     legitimised (60 percent of Iraqis believe the U.N. should 
     have the lead role). Increasing UNDP and the World Bank 
     involvement would enhance transparency and accountability. 
     Donors must play their part and deliver on their aid pledges.
       Sixth, Iraq needs a programme for phased security transfer 
     and withdrawal of coalition troops. The Iraqis view them as 
     occupiers. A limited British withdrawal is taking place but 
     U.S. troops are redeploying in other parts of the country. 
     The UK should aim to achieve a series of withdrawals, in 
     parallel with the U.S., according to milestones in the 
     stabilisation and reconstruction process. A transparent 
     agreement with the Iraqi administration would help to counter 
     the perception of occupation and illegitimacy.
       I have been supportive of British efforts to bring 
     stability to Iraq. But, support for the government cannot be 
     unconditional. Unless it shows that it has learned from its 
     failures and is ready to look afresh at the way out of the 
     Iraqi quagmire, it will be impossible to justify the 
     continuing presence of British forces in Iraq. With 
     distressing regularity, the Commons pays tribute to the brave 
     men and women who have lost their lives in Iraq. If the 
     government cannot explain why it is necessary that they 
     should make the ultimate sacrifice, then it must be prepared 
     to bring them home.

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I know we all remember when President Bush 
made that surprise visit to Baghdad to meet with the Iraqi leaders. And 
on the way back, he was on Air Force One, and he brought some reporters 
in. He had this to say about his conversations with the Iraqi leaders:
  There are concerns about our commitment in keeping our troops there. 
They are worried, almost to a person, that we will leave them before 
they are capable of defending themselves. And I assured them they did 
not need to worry.
  But I guess when he is referring to just, I think his words were, 
``almost to a person,'' he did not mention that the Vice President of 
Iraq came to him and said, please, Mr. President, would you provide a 
time line for the withdrawal of American troops, the clear inference 
being, until you leave, we are not going to be able to resolve the 
issues because you are fueling this violence by your presence.
  What was interesting was that the President of Iraq, the Kurdish 
leader Talabani, corroborated this request by his Vice President and 
said that he supported it. They want us out.
  Those that want Americans soldiers there, I would suggest to you, 
have a motive that is dark, because they realize that with the presence 
of American troops, they have an excuse, they have an excuse to commit 
violence. They have a rationale to inflame passion. And what is the 
result? We have seen it over the course of this weekend and today with 
hundreds being executed, murdered, in a situation that is clearly a 
civil war.
  We hear terms like low-grade civil war. I guess that is something 
like being a little bit pregnant. I mean, it is just simply----
  Mr. McDERMOTT. To the 40,000 people who died there.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. 50,000 civilians who have died.
  So my point is, to go back to where we began, all of us want to win 
against

[[Page H4947]]

terrorism, which we can agree is scourged. However, the rest of the 
world--there was another poll that was taken; 34 out of 35 countries, 
this was commissioned by the BBC, and this poll found that in 34 out of 
35 of those countries more people believed, 60 percent believed that 
the war in Iraq increased terrorism, and 15 percent disagreed and said 
it impacted terrorism and led to a decline. Sixteen percent to 15 
percent, and yet this administration, this Republican leadership, is 
tone deaf to that.
  I am convinced we all, everyone in this Chamber, everyone in this 
government wants to defeat terrorism. It is just they do not know how 
to do it.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. The gentleman from Washington State makes 
a very good point when he says, as the viewers all across this country 
tune in, and they see people coming down to this floor and speaking 
from their hearts and their heads about the situation we find in here, 
the one thing we want the people of this country to know is that the 
main purpose that we come down to this floor is because of love of 
country.
  The gentleman from Washington State loves his country, as do the 
gentlemen from Massachusetts and Maryland. And yet we found ourselves 
in this situation here where oftentimes our voices are muffled. We do 
not get an opportunity, even in a nonbinding resolution, to present our 
alternative point of view. This is a one-party town where the other 
side of the aisle, our erstwhile Republican colleagues, control the 
Presidency and all of its agencies and both Houses of these Chambers.
  And it is because of love of country and a concern to make sure, as 
we said from the outset, that we distinguish the warrior from the war, 
that we have an obligation to come to the floor and speak truth to 
power.
  That is why I commend all of you for coming down to the floor, as you 
have since the outset of this war. And again pointing out this evening 
that we need a new direction, a thoughtful, provocative direction that 
all of you have expressed this evening. Articulated by the gentlemen 
from Maryland and Maine and Massachusetts and Washington is the sense 
that the American people intuitively understand this and are yearning 
for their Nation to leave. But our inability in the minority to break 
through causes us to come here evening after evening in the hope, in 
the silence of this great hall, in this great room, that our message 
reaches out across this Nation and is heard by people who love this 
country.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle love their country as 
well. But our patriotism and our belief in this Nation stem from the 
fact that we are a nation configured through the rule of law.
  And that is why I am so proud to stand here with each and every one 
of you this evening. Thank you so much for again coming out for Iraq 
Watch.

                          ____________________