[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 10 (Thursday, January 18, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E139-E140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      ESSAY BY MR. ANDREW O'ROUKE

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, January 18, 2007

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, it is my distinct pleasure to 
congratulate Mr. Andrew O'Rourke for his articulate essay on the impact 
of the recent mid-term elections on the current U.S. policy in Iraq. 
Andrew is a 20-year-old sophomore at the University of Marquette, where 
his studies have focused on communications, business, and political 
science courses. His hard work in school has resulted in good grades, 
and he plans on attending law school after gradation. I am truly 
impressed by his insights, as well as the quality of his work.
  Andrew's essay encapsulates much of the frustration with America's 
direction that has been felt by my constituents in the First District 
of Indiana. His essay also expresses the desire for positive change in 
America. Andrew compels his readers to think hard about what this 
country means to them. He writes of the pitfalls of shortsightedness in 
foreign policy, as well as the importance of protecting our civil 
liberties here at home. Finally, he calls on the need for 
bipartisanship in order to form a strong-willed consensus for the road 
ahead.
  Madam Speaker, Andrew O'Rourke is an example of the great potential 
exhibited by the young people of northwest Indiana. Below, you will 
find the text of his essay, which I would like to have included in the 
Congressional Record. At this time, I ask that you and all of my 
distinguished colleagues join me in commending Andrew O'Rourke for his 
well-written essay. I wish him continued success in all his endeavors.
       While Democrats are better equipped now to make some 
     difference in President Bush's foreign policy, no force will 
     be able to influence the President more than a united 
     Republican thrust in favor of U.S. troop withdrawal.
       President Bush has proved rather stubborn on the subject of 
     his foreign policy, specifically the aspects of said policy 
     pertaining to Iraq and well, the entire Middle East in 
     general. Despite the sweeping restructuring of the House and 
     Senate during the mid-term elections, President Bush appears 
     still to have no intent on altering the current policy in 
     Iraq. An excerpt from a recent New York Times editorial 
     summarizes my argument quite well. The like-minded author of 
     this article believes that the President, ``for all of his 
     professed pipe dreams about democracy in the Middle East, 
     refuses to surrender to democracy's verdict at home.''
       It seems an indictment of our system, supposedly the best 
     in the world, that a mid-term election could serve the 
     umbrella purpose of a referendum on one specifically 
     controversial and pivotal policy, only to have

[[Page E140]]

     the said election results have absolutely no effect on the 
     policy. That does not fit the definition of representative 
     democracy I was raised to believe in since grade school. 
     Elected officials do not possess the right to represent the 
     people when and if they chose, as though they know best. We 
     do not live under a benevolent dictator, where the power of 
     decision is placed in the hands of a ruler whom we must trust 
     to make a conclusion we are otherwise deemed incapable of 
     making ourselves. Nor do we live in a country where the 
     wealthy elite enjoy all of the authority, sending young men 
     and women of the poor and middle classes off to become maimed 
     Purple Heart veterans and dead Medal of Honor heroes, 
     fighting in an utterly fruitless quagmire of a war. 
     Especially of late however, the aforementioned possibilities 
     seem likely explanations for the current shameful, stubborn, 
     and painfully simplistic foreign policy utilized by our great 
     nation, with its outrageously gigantic economy, 
     technologically superior mechanized army, and not to forget, 
     insatiable thirst for pure, unadulterated, according-to-hoyle 
     victory. Although many would love to believe such a naive, 
     black-and-white definition of victory, sadly like most things 
     in this world it is not that simple. Victory is a word that, 
     for every conceivable variable, from the largest, most holy 
     mosque destroyed by American artillery fire to the youngest 
     Iraqi girl whose parents were brutally murdered by either a 
     Sunni or Shiite deathsquad, has numerous definitions. You 
     cannot limit yourself to one characterization of what victory 
     is, for that is a direct route to complete failure and 
     disappointment, as we see everyday on CNN, when we are told 
     the story of another Joe Everyman 21-year-old private-first 
     class from anywhere USA who was killed on a humvee patrol 
     mission aimed at securing the other ninety-five percent of 
     Iraq not secured over three years ago when we triumphantly 
     declared mission accomplished, and were immediately showered 
     with flowers by the Iraqi people. And to those within this 
     country who believe that to withdraw will be a crushing blow 
     against American pride and standing in the world, expound 
     such blind patriotism when it is your son or daughter 
     walking the streets of Baghdad with no idea whether the 
     next street corner will be populated by a nearly invisible 
     IED, exactly like those that have crippled so many young, 
     promise-filled Americans, or one of the many deceivingly 
     well-hidden snipers who make steady sport of firing 
     potshots from a spire outside of an untouchably holy 
     Mosque, hitting our young men and women when they least 
     expect it. It is for these American heroes that I, along 
     with most Americans must hope President Bush's current 
     policy is a success.
       Because I know in my heart of hearts that this 
     administration is too prideful to consider taking a hint from 
     the American people, or the 9/11 Commission, or the Iraq 
     Study Group, I am forced to cheer for any alternative to the 
     current policy of ``stay the course'' while simultaneously 
     hoping that the abovementioned ``course staying'' rises like 
     the Phoenix from the ashes and succeeds. If Mr. Bush's 
     strategy is a success, which it appears as though, barring 
     some unforeseen circumstance, it most definitely will not be, 
     it will be a victory for the American fighting man and woman, 
     because until the next pre-emptive war, they will be safe. 
     But will the next be somewhere in Asia, Northern Africa, or 
     most likely the Middle East yet again? Iran and Syria both 
     seem hell bent on becoming America's Tour of the Arab World 
     stops two and three.
       Most likely it will take Republican pressure and lots of it 
     to revise in any way the single-minded policy of this 
     administration. Nevertheless, it is a heartrending day for 
     democracy when the resounding message of the American people 
     is deemed secondary to the egocentric and stubborn strategy 
     of a few white men (and black woman) who call a giant, white, 
     house on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington D.C. their office.
       To reiterate an earlier point, the leaders of this nation 
     are not free to choose what is in our best interest, when we 
     the people have clearly and resoundingly spoken against the 
     current ideals and strategies. The current policy quite 
     simply costs too many Americans and Iraqis their lives 
     without a foreseeable goal or proverbial light at the end of 
     the tunnel. Rather, they have a solemn obligation to 
     represent the views of the people of this country. But who 
     knows? Maybe a benevolent dictator would make things a whole 
     lot easier for most people in this country. Who likes freedom 
     anyways?

                          ____________________