[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 10 (Thursday, January 18, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H739-H745]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RECOUNTING REASONS FOR VOTING IN FAVOR OF 2002 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
USE OF MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
today, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is recognized for
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks,
the President began talking about going to war with Iraq. In the fall
of 2002, with the midterm elections heating up, the President
increasingly talked about the threat Iraq poses to the United States
and its allies. On October 10, 2002, the House voted on H.J. Res. 114,
the Authorization For Use of Military Force Against Iraq resolution. It
passed the House by a vote of 296-133: 215 Republicans voted for the
resolution, 6 voted against it. 81 Democrats voted for it, and 126
voted against it.
Madam Speaker, in light of what many of our Members know today, they
perhaps would not have voted for that resolution. As a matter of fact,
day in and day out as I talk with my colleagues, they recount all of
that which was told to us by the President of the United States and
others on the opposite side of the aisle, for the most part, about why
it was so important to go to war with Iraq.
They told us there were weapons of mass destruction. They told us
that the troop levels that they were sending were necessary. They told
us about the cost of the war. They told us that oil revenues would be
paying for the reconstruction. They told us we would be greeted as
liberators. They told us we would be able to contain sectarian
violence.
Well, Madam Speaker, I have colleagues that are here this evening who
will recount perhaps some of what they were being told and the way they
trusted the Commander in Chief, they trusted our President. They were
concerned about the safety and the security of our Nation.
So we have with us tonight some of the brightest, most hardworking,
most respected Members of the Congress of the United States. They are
going to remind us of what we were being told and how they came to
their decision and what they are thinking now.
Leading that discussion will be my dear friend from Missouri, that is
my hometown, my birthplace, who I have gotten to know very well. He is
the Chair of one of the most important committees of this House, the
Armed Services Committee, a highly respected gentleman, Representative
Ike Skelton.
I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend originally from
Missouri for yielding this time.
Last year, I had the opportunity to visit the Joint Forces Staff
College in Norfolk, Virginia. After a ceremony there, I went into the
library, and in the glassed-off section for old and rare books I found
a book printed in 1926 about the 1915 British misadventure at
Gallipoli, entitled ``The Perils of Amateur Strategy.'' I have often
thought regarding the situation in Iraq that we face today that this
administration is not giving food for thought to some author to write a
book entitled ``The Perils of Amateur Strategy II.''
The issue before us this evening is what would we have done, had we
known what we know today. Had that been the case, we probably would
never have had a resolution before us, much less voted in favor of it.
We have a wonderful military, the finest we have ever had and the
finest in modern history. The young men and young women are dedicated,
they are professional and they are volunteers, whether they be active
duty, whether they be National Guard or Reserve. Gosh, I am proud of
them. I have been with them aboard ship; I have been with them in their
training. I have been with them in Iraq and Afghanistan and had the
privilege of spending Christmas Day with them in Baghdad. But I wonder
where all of this ends.
They moved the goalposts on us. The first goal was to make sure that
weapons of mass destruction were not there, then to establish a
democracy, and now to bring stability to Iraq. And those goalposts keep
moving.
I am truly concerned about where we have been and much more concerned
about where we go in Iraq. Whatever happens there, and I feel that
there is no positive outcome for this, the star of this show will be
the young men and young women who wear the uniform of the United
States. History will treat them well and our gratitude should go toward
them.
There are some mistakes that are made that are irretrievable. There
have been such mistakes that we have made in Iraq. The first, of
course, was going in with the intelligence that at least was available,
not having a plan in use, despite the fact that there was a plan
available. Lieutenant General Jay Gardner asked for the people to help
draw it up and was finally given one person from the State Department.
But the plan was not allowed to be used.
Looting was allowed, and then we dismissed those who belonged to the
Baathist Party, who made the trains run and the local government run.
Some thousands of school teachers were put out of jobs. Then the army
was dismissed, rather than giving them a paycheck and a shovel and the
opportunity to help bring security and stability to that torn country.
[[Page H740]]
The military ammunition, weapons and caches, were not guarded. In
September of 2003, John Spratt, Robin Hayes and I were told by David
Kay that there were 50-some-odd caches that went unguarded, and the
truth in fact is there were many, many more. That is where the
insurgents got their weapons and ammunition to use against our young
people.
We fought the insurgents, the Baathists, criminals, foreigners and al
Qaeda helping the insurgency, and then more recently the sectarian
violence that overlays all of the insurgency that is going on; and we
are there trying to bring stability to that torn land.
{time} 1945
I am hoping for a positive outcome. It is dark and misty as to where
we are going today. I am hoping lightning will strike for the benefit
of our young people who are there.
It is having serious implications in our readiness which we will
explore and talk about and hope to rectify to some extent in the Armed
Services Committee.
All of these areas, I think, are irretrievable, and I am hopeful that
in the days ahead there will be some light at the end of the tunnel in
this very sad misadventure in Iraq.
Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman, and before the gentleman leaves
the microphone, would you please confirm for me that did you not have a
son that served or is serving in Iraq?
Mr. SKELTON. That is correct.
Ms. WATERS. Thank you so much.
Mr. SKELTON. I appreciate the gentlewoman making reference. As you
know, I am very, very proud of all three of our sons, two of whom are
in uniform, and I do not speak about them other than just to be proud
of them.
Ms. WATERS. Thank you so very much. We appreciate your service, we
appreciate your work, and we appreciate the fact that you sit here
every day trying to manage this most important problem and crisis that
we have and the fact that you have your son who is put at great risk.
Thank you very much.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Tauscher), who is a member of the Armed Services Committee, who is the
chair of the New Democrats, one of the hardest working members of the
California delegation who will present.
Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Speaker, let me first thank my friend and
colleague from California for her passion and her presence and for her
leadership and also my other colleague Barbara Lee and for Lynn Woolsey
and so many of my colleagues who have been indefatigable, unrelenting
and brilliant in their insistence that we continue to put pressure on
the administration and the President specifically for the litany of
mistakes that have been made in Iraq, but at the same time holding
deeply in our hearts the fighting men and women that come from all of
our neighborhoods, come from all of our communities. For your
patriotism, I cannot thank you enough. For your leadership and
friendship, I will always be indebted.
Madam Speaker, I cannot and will not support putting more American
troops on the ground in Iraq. I stand here today more convinced than
ever that the President's so-called new plan to send over 21,000
additional American troops to Iraq will only lead to further chaos.
My opposition to this troop surge is built upon years of hearings in
the House Armed Services Committee, where I serve as subcommittee
chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, congressional briefings
and five trips to the region, including three to Iraq, witnessing the
war firsthand and speaking with our troops and commanders on the
ground.
Sadly, the President has gotten it very wrong every step of the way.
Yet he continues to ask us to trust him.
When the Republican-controlled Congress was rushing a vote to
authorize the war in the middle of 2002's campaign season, I joined my
friend Dennis Kucinich to call on the Republican leadership to take the
politics out of the vote, take the decision to send our troops into
harm's way seriously and postpone the vote until after the election.
We wrote to our colleagues in October of 2002: ``It is incumbent upon
us to address the matters of national security and decisions through
the reasoned and deliberate process afforded us by our Constitution.
This becomes particularly important when these decisions could possibly
mean putting our young servicemen and women in harm's way. This is not
a process that can be rushed for the sake of political expediency.''
Our best attempts failed. Congress was rushed to a vet, and we had no
opportunity to sort through what we now know was the Bush
administration's personal collection of cherry-picked or just plain
false intelligence.
The President made it clear that he wanted to rush to invade Iraq and
prevent international weapons inspectors from finishing their job.
I spoke out at the time saying, ``We must consider every peaceful
alternative and contemplate every possible outcome before we turn to
force.''
Our warnings were again ignored. In February of 2003, I co-authored
legislation that would have required the President to submit a public
report to Congress prior to initiating military action in Iraq.
Our bill said: ``The United States should not proceed with unilateral
or preemptive military action in Iraq, but if we do have to go to war
to disarm Saddam, Congress needs to be sure there are sensible plans
that will not compromise our ability to prosecute the War on Terror
elsewhere or further destabilize an already volatile region.''
That same month, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell presented
the United Nations with the Bush administration's case on Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction, I again said, ``I continue to believe that
the United States should not proceed with unilateral or preemptive
military action.''
After the invasion, I remained concerned about the Bush
administration's rush to war, and in July 2003 I authored legislation
to create a select committee to hold public hearings to investigate
several aspects of intelligence, including whether intelligence
supported the claim that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United
States, questioning the accuracy of intelligence that led the
administration to believe Iraq was working with al Qaeda, and
questioning the role of the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon.
The Republican-controlled Congress at the time would not allow my
bill to see the light of day.
In September 2003, the President requested an additional $87 billion
to finance the war. In response, I authored legislation calling for
explanations, noting that ``President Bush has not yet provided
Congress with a detailed plan that outlines the strategic objectives of
Operation Iraqi Freedom.''
I have sent dozens of letters to the President, Secretary Rice,
Secretary Rumsfeld and others over the past 4\1/2\ years urging them to
explain our mission and exit strategy for Iraq. I have offered
suggestions to stabilize Iraq and bring our troops home sooner. Yet I
have received few answers.
Last week, I watched the President plead his case to the American
people, trying to justify why more troops will save his failed policy.
But yet again I was disappointed by the stubbornness exhibited by a
President that has failed in Iraq every step of the way.
I have stated throughout the timeline of the war that the Commander-
in-Chief has the responsibility to define a well-articulated mission
that has the support of the American people and an exit strategy to
bring our troops home sooner and safer. The President has neither.
Top military commanders in Iraq, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and
the American people all agree that sending more troops to Iraq will not
end the civil war. They understand that we should immediately begin a
strategic redeployment of U.S. troops in conjunction with diplomacy
that forces Iraq's neighbors to step up as responsible regional
partners.
Adding additional troops further prevents the Iraqi government from
taking responsibility for securing their own country. If the President
sidesteps the Congress, he does this at his own peril, and sadly, he
does it with the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families
paying the highest price.
This is why I am an original cosponsor of the Meehan legislation that
requires the President to ask Congress
[[Page H741]]
for an up-or-down vote if he plans to raise troop levels in Iraq.
I am not advocating cutting funds for the troops while they are in
harm's way, but I am an advocate of conditioning all further spending
for the Iraq War based on the Iraqis meeting security and political
benchmarks and establishing a plan for the redeployment of our troops.
I will continue to challenge the President to abandon his flawed
troop surge policy, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. We
owe it to our troops, to the American people and to our conscience.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from
California, not only for the statement that she has made this evening,
but I believe that you are an example of one of our highly respected
Members of Congress who trusted the President, who believed what he was
saying when he offered all of the reasons why we should be going into
the war, and to have lost your support, I think, is the kind of
significance that everyone should have an appreciation for.
We have come to that point in time where supporters who believed in
the President are now withdrawing their support and urging him to
abandon the failed policies that took us into that war.
Next, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Wynn). He is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, another one
of our respected Members in this House who supported the Commander-in-
Chief when he brought to us all of the flawed evidence, that we did not
know was flawed at that time, and he has taken a lot of criticism for
it, but he certainly has clarified his understanding now and he has a
statement that he would like to bring forward this evening. I yield to
the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank first the gentlewoman
from California for yielding, and also for her consistent, aggressive
and activist leadership on this issue. She has been very courageous
throughout. She has always taken a principled position, and she is now
leading our efforts to stand up and express our opposition to the
President. I want to thank her for that.
Sometimes one of the most difficult things for a politician or
elected official to do is to say I was wrong; I made a mistake. I am
here to say that tonight.
After 9/11, after the Pentagon was attacked in addition to New York,
my district, which is just outside of Washington, D.C., felt the
effects very severely. A lot of my constituents worked in the Pentagon.
I went to several funerals, and I was very sensitive to the fact that
my constituents in suburban Washington, D.C., in Montgomery County and
in Prince Georges County, as Federal workers, were very vulnerable to
an attack in what is arguably the number one or the number two target
of terrorists in the United States.
I represent 72,000 Federal employees, most of whom work right here in
the Nation's capital, in the immediate Capitol complex area.
At that time, the President was presenting, as the gentlewoman
mentioned, extensive evidence about the existence of weapons of mass
destruction, about attempts to develop a nuclear arsenal, about
chemical and biological warfare, and I was of the belief that the
President, on issues of national security, would put politics aside and
would consider only the best interests of the country. Boy, was I
wrong.
It has turned out and become evident to everyone that the President's
intelligence was seriously flawed. It was inaccurate, it was distorted,
and it was exaggerated to create a false impression of urgency that
this country had an urgent threat and that weapons of mass destruction,
in fact, existed and that they posed a threat to the citizens of the
United States and, in my consideration, a threat to my constituents
here in the Washington metropolitan area.
We were shown classified information, documents, photographs and the
like, all of which were designed to create the impression that we were
facing an imminent threat. Assuming the President would not mislead the
country, I supported the war. That was a mistake.
But then it came to pass and became increasingly evident that there
were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that we were not facing
an imminent threat. So in May of 2004, in an appearance before the
Muslim Council in my district, I said I think my vote was wrong; I
think my vote was a mistake.
Subsequent to that, I heard people say, well, what about the fact
that we toppled Saddam Hussein? Well, that was a laudable goal, but it
was not worth 3,000 troops. Well, what about the fact we created
elections and they put their finger in purple ink and they had
elections for the first time? I said I agree, that, too, is a laudable
goal, but that was not worth 3,000 troops.
If you had asked me then to make this decision based on what I know
now, I would not have voted to support the use of troops.
{time} 2000
Because, you see, there are a lot of dictators in the world, some of
whom we not only deal with, some of whom we actually arm. There are a
lot of dictators that are cruel, that murder their own people, that
violate human rights. There are a lot of countries that don't have
democratic processes. And yet we do not make the decision that we ought
to engage with them militarily. So to my way of thinking, the only
justification, the only justification would have been the existence of
weapons of mass destruction and an imminent threat to the United States
that in fact did not exist.
What we have in fact seen is that our military presence has worsened
the situation. Areas that did not have terrorists now have terrorists.
They are called breeding grounds for terrorism because our presence
creates a cause for the terrorists, a motivation, if you will, a
catalyst, an antagonism. That is not solving the problem of terrorism.
That is not effectively fighting the war on terrorism. Our military
role has not been productive and effective; in fact, it is been
counterproductive and sadly ineffective.
It is time to withdraw our troops. We need to begin now to withdraw
our troops so that the Iraqis will take more responsibility for their
own security. In fact, Mr. Maliki says that is what he wants us to do.
He says, ``Give us the weapons, we will do it.'' He is not so excited
about having us. Clearly, the American people don't want to be in Iraq.
More importantly, the Iraqi people don't want us to be in Iraq. It is
time for us to pull out. We are in the midst of a civil war, one that
we cannot resolve, and therefore we are not playing a constructive
role.
We are now on the eve of another adventure in Iraq or, should I say,
misadventure, in which the President is proposing not to withdraw but
just the opposite, contrary to the recommendations of the joint chiefs,
contrary to the recommendations of the Iraqi Study Group. The President
is saying, Let's send more troops. He calls it a surge. Folks, it is a
troop escalation and an escalation of this war, and I will oppose it.
There is a saying that the old folks used to say: Fool me once, shame
on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Mr. President, you fooled me once. Shame on you. Fool me twice? I
don't think so.
I am opposed to any troop escalation. I am opposed to any surge. I am
opposed to any expansion of this war by military means. Yes, we have to
fight the war on terrorism, but it seems to me we need to use
diplomatic means to create an environment in which we can promote
peace. We need to involve the other countries in the region, be it Shia
or be it Sunni, who have an interest in a stable region. It is their
region. They don't want war as a way of life in their region. Let's
involve those countries, the Egypts, the Jordans, the Saudi Arabias.
Let them get engaged in helping resolve this war. Let us step back from
this war. We need to implement diplomatic solutions.
So this is not a question of withdrawing United States leadership. We
need to leave, but we need to leave diplomatically. We need to
understand that, in the modern world, the use of military force is
extremely limited, limited in its utility, because we are operating in
a different environment, a terrorist environment, an insurgent
environment in which additional troops
[[Page H742]]
only work for a temporary period of time. The insurgency withdraws,
melts away, and then reemerges, which is to say, the President's
proposal can only lead to a permanent U.S. presence of even more
troops, putting them in harm's way.
We have lost over 3,000 troops. The Iraqi people have lost tens of
thousands more, maybe even hundreds of thousands. It is time to
withdraw our military presence. It is time to advance the cause of
peace through diplomatic means and diplomatic leadership.
I want to thank the gentlewoman again for giving me this opportunity
to speak.
Ms. WATERS. I would like to thank the gentleman for that very clear
statement as one who voted to support.
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to direct
their remarks to the Chair.
Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman for
that very clear statement as one who supported the war in Iraq who has
withdrawn that support and is sharing with others his feelings about
why he supported it and why he no longer supports it.
Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from California, one of
my colleagues on the financial services committee, Representative Brad
Sherman.
Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I remember well the debate on this floor in 2002 about whether to
give the President the power he sought to take military action, if
necessary, against Saddam Hussein. But before that resolution even came
to this floor, we considered it in the International Relations
Committee. There, we were told that the administration would invade
Iraq only if the inspectors were not allowed to do their job. In fact,
Secretary Powell told us that before the whole committee. Then he told
me that privately.
Now, I did not completely trust the administration. So in committee I
offered a resolution that would allow the use of force only if the
inspectors were not allowed to do their job. A majority of Democrats in
the committee voted for that resolution. The Republicans pretty much
all voted against it; and it was defeated.
Then we all came to this floor, and Mr. Spratt of South Carolina put
forward a resolution that would allow the President to use military
force, but only under certain circumstances, such as force being
authorized by the United Nations. I voted for Mr. Spratt's resolution.
Unfortunately, it was defeated.
And, finally, the supporters of the President were able to say that
there was only one last resolution before us: either we gave the power
to the President that he sought, but that he promised to use only if
the inspectors were expelled or prevented from doing their job, or we
left ourselves in a position where Saddam was free to expel the
inspectors and to go all out with his weapons of mass destruction
program.
At that point, I voted for an overly broad resolution, a resolution
that gave the President more power than he claimed he would use, or
gave him power to act under circumstances all under when he said that
he would act only under a limited number of circumstances. That of
course is not what happened.
The President took that power, made little or no attempt to ensure
the inspectors were allowed to do their job, dismissed them, in effect
pulled them out of Iraq, and invaded at an early opportunity.
Obviously, if I knew then how the President would use the power granted
by this Congress, I never would have voted to give him that power.
Not only did he invade even though the inspectors were then able to
do their job and, as it turned out, they were right, there were no
weapons of mass destruction--but then, in secret briefings on this
floor, we had been told (and this has been reported in press, I am not
revealing anything), that the plan was to invade Iraq from the north
and from the south, so as to take control of the country quickly. What
happened was that Turkey at the last minute declared that our troops
couldn't go through Turkey, and our best division was sitting there in
the middle of the Mediterranean.
So we had a plan. The plan had been previewed to those of us in
Congress. The plan involved our best division. (I will just say one of
our best divisions; I don't want to cast anything but total glory on
all our divisions.) But one of our best divisions was left sitting in
the Mediterranean. Now, you would think if you had a plan and you
couldn't execute the plan, you would go draft a new plan. Instead, they
just took the northern half of the plan and threw it away and
implemented the southern half of the plan. Needless to say, we did not
take immediate control of Baghdad. Needless to say, there was chaos.
And the rest is history.
But there are a host of other mistakes made by the Bush
administration. They were detailed by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Skelton). They included an inadequate number of troops at the
beginning; disbanding the Iraqi Army when the Saudis, who have some
understanding of the area, had advised us to do the exact opposite; not
guarding the arms depots; and a host of other problems.
Now we are being asked to authorize a surge. An escalation is the
real word. And we are told that this is critical because Iraq is the
central front in the war on terrorism. Well, is that really true?
We are told that Iraq could become a place where terrorists could
meet and plot. Today they are meeting and plotting in North Waziristan,
in much of Afghanistan, in much of Somalia, pretty much anywhere they
want in Iran and in Syria and Sudan. They have plenty of places to meet
and plot. How many Americans are supposed to die on the theory that
denying the terrorists one place to meet will prevent them from meeting
in all the places they are meeting today?
Then we are told that there will be a humanitarian debacle in Iraq.
And, again, the prognosis for Iraq is not particularly good, but it is
by no means clear that we have not done all we can be expected to do to
help the people of Iraq avoid a civil war and achieve unity. And at
some point it may be necessary to say that Iraq's decisions need to be
made by the Iraqis.
Keep in mind that during Saddam's tenure, year in and year out, he
killed far more people than have been killed in the time since we
invaded. We have bestowed upon the Iraqi people not just the pain and
suffering that they have now, but also freedom from a Saddam Hussein
who in prior decades had killed not the thousands we see being killed
now but hundreds of thousands and millions. Our moral responsibility to
the Iraqi people was to do what was reasonable to help them reestablish
order. I think we have met much of our moral responsibility. We can do
more by providing economic and other aid. And we should keep in mind
that Iraq is just one of many places in the world suffering great
humanitarian crises.
Finally, we are told that we are going to empower and overjoy the
terrorists if they see us leave Iraq or see us fail to surge into Iraq.
Keep in mind, the smarter terrorists are thrilled to have us pinned
down there, and to have us bled dry there.
But, finally, even if all these things being put forward by the
administration are true, even if withdrawal from Iraq or failure to
surge into Iraq gives terrorists a place to gather, sets the stage for
humanitarian crisis, and overjoys the terrorists, there is no evidence
that we are now doing anything but delaying the inevitable by surging
over the next few months, or escalating over the next few months. So
since we are by no means winning or prevailing, surging is just doing
more of the same.
The President has asked us to compare the Global War on Radical Islam
with the Cold War, and I think it is an apt comparison. Iraq has some
real similarities to Vietnam. And the one thing we all remember about
Vietnam is being told that if we didn't prevail in Vietnam, the
communists would be on the beaches in Santa Monica. What did we finally
do? We withdrew from Vietnam, and doing so was a critical step in
winning the Cold War just 15 years later.
I would say that we should pick our own battlefields, we should learn
from the Vietnam mistake, and we should recognize that the way to beat
radical Islam may be to recognize that Iraq is not the central front
and that we have to do a lot of things in a lot of places in the world,
and cannot allow ourselves to be utterly fixated on Iraq.
[[Page H743]]
Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from California. And I yield to the
gentleman from New Jersey, Representative Steve Rothman, who serves on
the Appropriations Committee, he is on the Subcommittee on Defense, and
on the Subcommittee For Foreign Operations. This is not the first
evening he has been on the floor; he has made it clear, but he even
goes further tonight in helping to clarify and make it known where he
stands on this war.
Mr. ROTHMAN. I thank the gentlewoman from California.
Madam Speaker, my friends, I was asked by the gentlewoman from
California if I would share with my colleagues and with you, Madam
Speaker, the process by which I came to the conclusion that America
should withdraw all of its troops from Iraq without delay.
Like most Americans, Madam Speaker, when the President said to
Members of Congress and the entire country that Saddam Hussein intended
to bring weapons of mass destruction to the United States to destroy
us, to kill thousands of Americans, that got my attention, especially
since it was after 9/11.
I am from northeastern New Jersey, and a great number, too many, of
my constituents were killed at the World Trade Center. But nonetheless,
as an American, after 9/11 I didn't want to wait to get hit again. If
the President of the United States and his entire Cabinet were willing
to go before me in closed session, before the country in his State of
the Union address, before the United Nations with photographs and other
testimony that Saddam Hussein was sending Iraqi agents to America with
weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical, to be deposited
in our water supply system, to bring smallpox to our Nation, et cetera,
then maybe we needed to stop Saddam Hussein and stop him immediately.
{time} 2015
Then maybe we needed to stop Saddam Hussein, and stop him
immediately.
Again, we were told it was an imminent, immediate threat to the
national security of the United States: Saddam, using agents bearing
weapons of mass destruction and bringing them on our shores. And so I
voted to authorize the President to bring military action against
Saddam Hussein.
I think most Americans, Madam Speaker, agreed with me that we didn't
want to be caught again off guard, especially if our President told us
so unequivocally that these were the facts.
Well, after we deposed Saddam Hussein, removed him from power, Madam
Speaker, it became clear to us, most of us and most Americans, and most
people in the world, that virtually everything that the President of
the United States had told us about Iraq wasn't true. There were no
weapons of mass destruction. Saddam had no intention of bringing Iraqi
agents to slaughter Americans on our shore and that Saddam had precious
little if not zero contact of any significance with any foreign
terrorists or anybody who on their own wanted to do something against
America.
And so we realized after we deposed Saddam Hussein that we had been
led to go to war in Iraq on false statements. I don't believe they were
intentionally false, but they were false. And I believe that history
will record thereafter, after we gave the President the authority to go
to war in Iraq, he and his administration, Madam Speaker, committed
historic military and diplomatic blunders.
But, you know, I felt in my heart that, yes, at that point there were
no weapons of mass destruction. The reason for going to war had
evaporated. But what had we done? Yes, we did a great thing by removing
this evil murderous dictator from Iraq as an oppressor of his people.
But then because of the botched way it was handled, those people were
living amidst looting and insecurity and murder and terrible hardship,
and I felt that we had a moral obligation to help the Iraqi people
stabilize their country and perhaps give them a way to become a
democracy, to live in freedom.
Even though they were a multi-ethnic society that had never enjoyed
that kind of freedom, I felt that was our moral responsibility after we
had removed their dictator and created such chaos.
Madam Speaker, after the death of more than 3,000 American servicemen
and -women, after the more than 23,000 American men and women wounded
in Iraq, after more than 3\1/2\ years of our Nation being at war with
150,000 troops a year there, and after spending almost one-half a
trillion U.S. taxpayer dollars in Iraq, I believe we have met our moral
obligation to the Iraqi people; in particular because we have given
them a chance in these 3\1/2\ years to decide that they will live
together in peace, their own neighbor on neighbor, Sunni, Shia and
Kurd.
But the Iraqi people have not yet decided that they want to live in
peace. And, frankly, our standing there, being shot at and blown up,
has apparently not persuaded them to live with their fellow Iraqis in
peace.
And we have needs here in America. Homeland security needs, al Qaeda
is in over 60 nations in the world planning and plotting against us,
and that is a real threat.
Homeland security needs are unmet. We don't inspect 100 percent of
the containers coming into our ports; 5 percent. Cargo going on
passenger airplanes is not inspected. I could go on and on. Our borders
are not secure.
And our military, our brave and courageous and magnificent military,
the best in the world, has been depleted, our Army and Marines in
particular. Depleted by this 3\1/2\ year engagement in Iraq. They have
done heroically, but some of them are on their second, third and fourth
tour of duty in Iraq. It is time to bring our troops home. We should
leave 20,000 or 30,000 in the region in Jordan just in case a foreign
nation would want to intervene, but that is unlikely and I will explain
that in a second.
But bring our troops home and rebuild our military and deal with our
own homeland security needs and deal with our domestic needs in
education and health care, balance our budget, and get ready to face
the threats that are out there in the world that are real because we
still live in a dangerous world.
The President says if we do that, there would be a catastrophe in
Iraq. Well, Madam Speaker, over 30,000 died in Iraq last year. Thirty
thousand. If you do the math, they only have a country of 25 million.
We have a country of 300 million. If you do the math, those 33,000 dead
Iraqi civilians, that is equivalent to almost 400,000 civilian American
deaths last year.
If that was the case in America, 400,000 American civilians killed in
a civil war, wouldn't we call that serious?
What is going on in Iraq today is a disaster already. He says al
Qaeda will probably take over. Nonsense. Today you have al Qaeda, who
are primarily Sunni members of the Islamic faith. You have Sunni Iraqis
killing al Qaeda Sunnis. They don't like foreign fighters in Iraq,
whether they be American or al Qaeda.
And the Shia in Iraq are no fans of the Sunni al Qaeda, either. But
the folks that they don't like the most in their midst are Americans.
The President says we believe in democracy and we went to Iraq to
give them a chance for democracy. This is after there were no weapons
of mass destruction and all of the other reasons had changed. He says
we should be there to give them democracy, notwithstanding the fact
that we are bleeding our own Nation dry of human and other resources.
Madam Speaker, what do the Iraqi people wish us to do? The point of
democracy is to allow people to express their will on how they wish to
be governed. The Iraqi people, 80 percent of them say: Americans, leave
our country. Eighty percent of Iraqis say: Americans, leave our
country. Sixty percent of Iraqis today say it is all right to kill
Americans.
Madam Speaker, when we leave Iraq, and I hope it is within the next
six months, caring only about the safety of our troops as we make this
strategic withdrawal and rebuild our military and get ready to face
others in the region, know that Iran will be very unhappy that we are
leaving. Iran will be very unhappy that we are leaving Iraq.
Why? Because then Iran will have to decide if they go fight on behalf
of the Shia members of the Iraqi civil war. Maybe Syria will have to
come in on behalf of the Sunnis fighting the Shia because Syria is a
Sunni nation.
[[Page H744]]
Maybe Saudi Arabia may have to get in. That won't happen.
When we leave, the regional players in the Middle East around Iraq
will finally realize this is their problem that they have to solve and
can't continue to stand on the sideline causing trouble.
I appreciate all the time the gentlelady has given me, and I
appreciate the opportunity to explain how now for just about a year
when I announced to my constituents why I believed it was time for us
to withdraw our troops from Iraq, that it is indeed time to do so. It
is in America's vital national interest that we do so. It is the smart
thing to do for our country. We have other needs to address, including
rebuilding our military and getting ready for real threats that face us
around the world. And the better results will occur in Iraq and the
region after we leave. I thank the gentlelady from California.
Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for all of the time
and effort he is putting into helping us get out of Iraq.
Madam Speaker, I yield to Mr. Bill Jefferson from Louisiana.
Mr. JEFFERSON. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Madam Speaker, this is a very important subject on which we speak
tonight. Most of what needs to be said has already been said by Members
who have gone before me, and I know the time is short.
However, I want to say a couple of things. I have had the privilege
of serving in the military of our country. I was first commissioned as
a military intelligence officer and then commissioned in the JAG Corps
as a judge advocate general officer. I take it seriously when the
Commander in Chief says we need to protect ourselves and defend our
country.
I have a district full of veterans. We have a large port facility
that is vulnerable to attack and penetration. I had long talks with
Colin Powell about these issues, and they were all very persuasive and
convincing about what we needed to do to protect ourselves.
I thought back about what we did when President Clinton came to us
about Bosnia and Kosovo when he told us that we needed to give him
authority to do what we needed to do to protect our country. I thought
it was fair to treat both Commanders in Chief the same. We should not
play politics over this issue. If we needed to protect our country, we
should.
We all know now there were no weapons of mass destruction, no
justification for the war, no nuclear weapons could be found there.
Nothing that the President told us was true was true. Whether he
intended or not, as has been said, the information was untrue; and,
therefore, we should not have based the war on it.
The other thing that is important is that most of us who voted on the
resolution decided and expected that the resolution would be followed.
Number one, that the President would go to the U.N. and talk to folks
and try to get a consensus.
And number two, that he would only go when there was a consensus
reached. He really just raced right past the U.N. and went right to
war, from the very beginning violating the obligations and trust he
asked us to repose in him.
Now we are in the middle of a civil war, and we are asked now to add
more troops, add a surge and escalate our efforts there. I don't
believe that the American people want to see that done. I surely can't
support that at this point down the road.
As we look at what we need to do in our country, there is so much
that needs to be done. I happen to represent a district that was
inundated by flood waters, not because of a natural disaster only, but
because the Corps of Engineers, a U.S. Government agency, failed to
protect our people and built levees that were not designed properly,
that were not constructed properly and that were not maintained
properly. Consequently, they failed and our city drowned.
It is time for our government to face up to domestic
responsibilities, particularly for Hurricane Katrina. And all of the
money that we are going to spend now on a surge in Iraq, I would like
to see a great part of it spent to bring our people home and restore
our communities and rebuild back the confidence that people ought to
have in us right here in America.
Madam Speaker and Congresswoman Waters, all of you who have done so
much in this area, I thank you for giving me a chance to come here and
say these few words tonight. I know our time is very short.
But I want to see our emphasis placed on our domestic responsibility
now in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. That is where our country
needs to focus.
If it was the Iraq war, after the wheels came off the war machine,
that has brought about the change in this body, and if that was a major
reason for what has happened here, I believe on the domestic front,
Hurricane Katrina was just as important to the changes that we have
seen in our Congress now. Therefore, our response must be as intense
and as direct on what we do to adjust ourselves in that war as we do to
come back here and take care of our people back home.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak
tonight. I look forward to our getting together to get this war behind
us and bring our troops home. I applaud diplomacy in this area, and I
look forward to getting our focus back on our people at home,
particularly on our Hurricane Katrina survivors and evacuees.
{time} 2030
Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for that very clear
statement.
And now, Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oakland,
California (Ms. Lee), who has given so much leadership on this issue.
She has been with us constantly, urging us to get out and coming up
with the prescription for how to do it.
Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, first, let me thank the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters), the founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus, for her
leadership and for this special order tonight, because this is
historic.
First of all, let me just say that with regard to the Out of Iraq
Caucus, Ms. Waters knew, and this was early on, that Members of
Congress, whether they supported or opposed the war, needed a space in
this body, needed a framework to begin to discuss ways to get out of
Iraq. She saw early on that Members of Congress knew that they were
misled; that the information and intelligence was distorted; and that
whether, once again, they believed then and voted for the resolution or
not, that they wanted now to have that dialogue and that debate. So she
really did open up the space for the debate which we see now occurring,
which is extremely important because the debate, quite frankly,
especially with regard to this war, has been shut down. So thank you,
Ms. Waters, for your leadership.
Let me also say that tonight we heard from many Members, and I have
to thank them for their courage and their very clear statements. They
trusted, as they said, the Commander-in-Chief, and the Commander-in-
Chief violated their trust. Three thousand of our young men and women
now have died and countless Iraqis have died.
The President the other night said that he has made some mistakes,
and some of us thought that he was going to talk about how he was going
to rectify those mistakes. Instead, he talked about how he was going to
continue to escalate this war and continue to dig this country deeper
into a hole. He also said, very recently, and his staff, Mr. Snow,
said, that if the critics of his policies have a plan on what to do, to
come forward with it.
Quite frankly, I believe, and have said this over and over and over
again, the President got us into this mess and it is up to him to get
us out. But if he wants us to come up with a plan, then we have a plan.
We did just that. We introduced, Congresswoman Woolsey, Waters, and
myself, H.R. 508, which develops a plan to begin to bring our troops
home within 6 months. It also provides for reconstruction of Iraq in
terms of our assistance, and it ensures that there will be no permanent
military bases in Iraq.
What is going on right now, and we need to call this what it is, is
an occupation and it is a civil war. The Iraqi people do not want us
there as occupiers. The American people are sick and tired of this war,
and we need to bring our troops home.
[[Page H745]]
Let me just remind you that when this authorization to use force was
presented to the Congress, Mr. Spratt, as was said earlier, offered an
alternative resolution, and I offered an alternative resolution, which
basically said that, look, the United Nations has the responsibility
for the inspections process to occur. Let the U.N. process move
forward. We received, I believe, about 72 Members, some of which came
down and spoke tonight on my resolution. And many Members have told me
now that they wish they had voted for that resolution because we would
not be in the mess we are in now.
Finally, let me just say once again to Ms. Waters, thank you for your
leadership. I want to thank you for your voice and for making sure that
the debate finally is occurring in this Congress, and I urge members of
the public and others who believe that what the American people said in
November gives us our marching orders to move forward, that they know
that we are hearing.
We are going to continue with this debate. Many of us are going to
say no to this escalation and no to this $100 billion supplemental. We
want our troops home, we want them protected, and we think the funds
should be used to do just that.
Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlewoman from California for all the work
she is doing.
We heard earlier from Members who had voted for the resolution to go
to war, who have since changed their minds. Fifteen Members signed up
for tonight, but some had to leave. They waited as long as they could.
And so we will continue to bring to the floor those Members who have
changed their minds.
Tonight not only do we have Ms. Lee, who just joined us, but we have
Representative Keith Ellison from Minnesota, one of our newer Members
who has been consistent on getting out of Iraq. I yield to the
gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentlewoman from California. And I was told
early on, Madam Speaker, that the gentlewoman from California wanted to
feature Congress people who had voted for the war in Iraq and then had
subsequently changed their minds. I was persistent in trying to be a
part of tonight's special order, and I thank the gentlewoman from
California for allowing me to, because I just wanted to point out that
back in 2003 I had no idea that I would ever be standing in the halls
of Congress, but I did know in 2003, in March, that this war was wrong
and we needed to stand absolutely against it.
But I respect those Members of Congress who came forward tonight and
pointed out that this war is wrong, was wrong, and we have to get out
of Iraq now.
Today--after 6 long years of subsidies to big oil companies with
outrageous profit margins--we made a bold change for America.
Today we gave America an energy policy that will move the Nation
towards a day in which no young American will ever again have to fight
another oil war for any President--especially this one.
The President finally admitted last Wednesday night what most
Americans have known for a long time.
His Iraq policy is a failure.
I rise today to strongly oppose this President's solution to that
failure--a surge of American troops.
Surge in Bushspeak is plain and simple--an expansion of the same
disastrous policy in Iraq.
The vast majority of our country's top military and foreign policy
experts disagree with the viability of the President's approach.
This list includes the current Joint Chiefs of Staff, current
military commanders in the region--General Abizaid and Casey, the
Baker-Hamilton commission and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel told it like it is last week: ``I
think this speech given last night by this President represents the
most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.''
As a Vietnam Veteran he should know.
Our military leaders state we must view Iraq policy as a three-legged
stool.
Each leg of the stool represents a key strategy to support
reconstruction of Iraq--one leg represents our military strategy, one
economic and one political.
All 3 legs have to be present, and strong, to ensure Iraqi success.
If one strategy is over-emphasized--and others don't even exist--the
stool and our strategy falls apart.
The President's plan is--at best--a one-legged stool--our military
involvement. A one-legged stool cannot stand.
Nor should it--when it is built on the lives of 22,000 young
Americans.
I am not a military expert, but experts of counterinsurgencies look
at Iraq and recommend a military force of a quarter million, to a half
million troops for any hope of success.
[Let me be clear I am not for any increase in our troop levels in
Iraq]
But, 22,000 troops don't even come close to making this critical
military benchmark.
Ted Carpenter of the Cato Institute stated last week:
. . . A lesser deployment would have no realistic chance to get the
job done. A limited surge of additional troops is the latest illusory
panacea offered by the people who brought us the Iraq quagmire in the
first place. It is an idea that should be rejected.
This is a reckless and irresponsible proposal. To allow the President
to place these selfless young Americans in a virtual shooting gallery
is wrong.
Since last night, 3,012 of America's most promising young men and
women have lost their lives in Iraq--and over 22,000 more have been
grievously wounded.
We have squandered more than $350 billion of our Treasury in Iraq
with no end in sight.
Three hundred fifty billion dollars would fund 48 million kids a year
of Head Start; it could provide 17 million students 4 year scholarships
at public universities; we could build 3 million additional housing
units; or we could hire 6 million more public school teachers for one
year.
Instead, we've dug 3,012 graves and mortgaged our children's future.
Enough is enough.
Monday, we celebrated Dr. Martin Luther King's life and work. In one
of Dr. King's last speeches in which he criticized our Vietnam policy,
Dr. King stated that: ``a time comes when silence is betrayal.''
That time has come--and our continued silence will be our Nation's
betrayal. The immediate withdrawal of our troops is the only new way
out of Iraq:
Lt. Gen. William Odom, of the Hudson Institute said, (and I quote):
``The wisdom and moral courage to change the course for strategic
purposes is what we need today, not mindless rhetoric `about staying
the course.' `Cutting and running' from Iraq is neither cowardly nor
imprudent. It is the only way to recover from what is turning out to be
the greatest strategic mistake in American history.''
I concur wholeheartedly.
I thank the gentlewoman from California for her courage and
persistence in the pursuit of peace; the pursuit of a saner and safer
world for our children, and all the children of the world.
____________________