[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 117 (Friday, July 20, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9649-S9651]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, on Wednesday morning of this week, 
following a discussion and debate--and we had a fairly robust debate--
about the issue of Iraq and the war in Iraq, on Wednesday morning of 
this week, the President's Homeland Security Adviser, Frances Townsend, 
was on the ABC ``Good Morning America'' program, and she said some 
things about al-Qaida, about terrorists, that reminded me of a period 
several years ago, prior to the start of the Iraq war. It reminded me 
of being in a room where top secret, classified briefings are given to 
Members of Congress--briefings by the now Secretary of State, briefings 
by the Vice President, briefings by the head of the CIA. Condoleezza 
Rice, Mr. Tenet, Vice President Cheney, and others participated in 
these top secret briefings.
  They told us things in those top secret briefings leading up to the 
decision about the authorization to use force against Iraq. They told 
us things we now know not to have been true.
  Did they know that when they told us? I don't know. We now know, of 
course, that their claim that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire 
yellow cake from Niger for nuclear weapons was bogus. Their claim that 
he was acquiring aluminum tubes to reconstitute a nuclear threat was 
not accurate. Their claim that he had mobile chemical weapons labs was 
not accurate.
  By the way, on that one, it only had a single source, a man we later 
learned who had the code name of ``Curve Ball.'' We also later learned 
that he was a fabricator and an alcoholic. Their claim was based on a 
single source we now discover to have been a fabricator. He was a 
former taxicab driver, for God's sake, in Baghdad. A single source gave 
rise to the description to the world and to this Congress in top 
secret, classified briefings that there were mobile chemical weapons 
laboratories in Iraq.
  The list of baseless or unsupported claims goes on. The 
reconstitution of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, 
connections with al-Qaida, we now know, of course, the facts were at 
odds with what we were being told about these and the other claims they 
used to support going to war.
  The reason I mention this is that at Wednesday's appearance by the 
President's Homeland Security Adviser, Frances Townsend, on the morning 
show on ABC, reminded me a bit of what we experienced several years ago 
from this administration. A description by Frances Townsend about 
terrorism and the terrorist threat and al-Qaida is completely, and was 
completely, at odds with what we know to be the truth.
  Let me go through a bit of what the President's Homeland Security 
Adviser said when she was being interviewed about the National 
Intelligence Report issued this week.
  First, the report said al-Qaida is rebuilding, retraining, and 
getting ready to strike in the United States again. In light of that 
report, Ms. Townsend was asked if she still believed the United States 
is winning the war against al-Qaida and terrorism. ``Absolutely,'' she 
said. ``Absolutely, we are winning.''
  She was asked about Pakistan and, specifically, about allowing al-
Qaida to have a safe haven in the country of Pakistan. She said: Well, 
it is a sovereign country, and the President of Pakistan has been a 
good partner in our war against terrorism.
  When asked, she said: The United States is ``safer'' today against 
al-Qaida because, she said: ``We have challenged them and we are on the 
offensive and the game is overseas.''
  It is almost as if the President and his top homeland security 
adviser failed to read the National Intelligence Estimate. It made 
clear that al-Qaida is rebuilding its operational capacity and 
terrorism is the number one threat to our homeland. Those are the 
facts. That's reality.
  But even if she failed to read the NIE, perhaps she could have been 
expected to read the newspapers, because they too have made it clear 
for a long time that al-Qaida is rebuilding and that the terrorists are 
getting ready to strike us again.
  Let me go through a couple of examples.
  On July 16, if one was reading in recent days, one would read an 
article by Joshua Partlow in the Washington Post. It said sectarian 
violence, a civil war, was the war in Iraq, not al-Qaida. It spelled 
this out with facts:

       The western Baghdad district of west Rashid confounds the 
     prevailing narrative from the top U.S. military officials 
     that the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaida in Iraq is the city's 
     most formidable and disruptive force. Over the past several 
     months, the [Shiite] Mahdi Army has transformed the 
     composition of the district's neighborhoods by ruthlessly 
     killing and driving out Sunnis and denying basic services to 
     residents who remain.

  Pretty clear. Shiite and Sunni violence, not al-Qaida.
  One might have read the newspaper reports on June 26, in the 
McClatchy papers:

       While the U.S. presses its war against insurgents linked to 
     al-Qaida in Iraq, Osama bin Laden's group is recruiting, 
     regrouping, and rebuilding in a new sanctuary along the 
     border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, senior military 
     intelligence and law enforcement officials said. The threat 
     from radical Islamic enclaves in Waziristan is more dangerous 
     than that from Iraq, which President Bush and his aides 
     called the ``central front'' of the war on terrorism, said 
     some current and former U.S. officials and experts. Bin Laden 
     himself is believed to be hiding in the region, guiding a new 
     generation of lieutenants and inspiring allied extremist 
     groups in Iraq and other parts of the world.

  That is unbelievable. Al-Qaida is alive and well in Pakistan and 
Afghanistan. Let me say that again: It is ``recruiting, regrouping and 
rebuilding'' in this area. And bin Laden himself is believed to be 
hiding there, in that sanctuary. This is not Iraq, Mr. President. Did 
the President or his homeland security advisor read this article?
  Or perhaps one could go back to a New York Times article in February 
entitled ``Senior leaders of al-Qaida operating from Pakistan.''

       Over the past year terrorists have set up a band of 
     training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, 
     according to American intelligence and counterterrorism 
     officials. American officials said there is mounting evidence 
     that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, al-Zawahiri, have been 
     steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous 
     Pakistani tribal area of north Waziristan.

  Bin Laden and al-Qaida are ``steadily building an operations hub'' in 
Pakistan is the report.
  Now, to the adviser to the President in the White House on terrorism 
issues, let me say this to her: August 2001, the Presidential Daily 
Briefing Report put in the hands of President George W. Bush one month 
before the attacks of September 11, the title was: ``Bin Laden 
Determined to Strike in U.S.''
  That was in August of 2001, the PDB, put in the President's hands.
  What was the report in July 2007? The intelligence assessment from 
the

[[Page S9650]]

U.S. National Counterterrorism Center in July 2007 says this: ``al-
Qaida better positioned to strike the West.''
  Think of that. Six years have intervened--6 years. And the 
President's Homeland Security Adviser, one who deals with this issue of 
terrorism and counterterrorism, says that we are ``winning'' the war on 
terrorism; things are going just fine; things are better. Yet, in 6 
years, we go from this Presidential daily briefing entitled ``Bin Laden 
Determined to Strike in United States'' in August of 2001 to this 
assessment 6 years later: ``Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the 
West.''
  I ask the question: Are we really winning? I think we would expect 
the Homeland Security Adviser to be dealing with facts.
  Let me describe the facts as stated by the National Intelligence 
Estimate. The National Intelligence Estimate was released in both a 
classified and unclassified version. The unclassified version says:

       Al-Qaida is and will remain the most serious terrorist 
     threat to the homeland. . . .

  It went on to say:

       We assess the group has protected or regenerated key 
     elements of its homeland attack capability, including: a safe 
     haven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas, 
     operational lieutenants, and its top leadership.

  Now we have a report that says Osama bin Laden and his top deputies 
are in a safe haven. Six years after they murdered thousands of 
Americans, they are in a safe haven.
  There ought not be 1 square inch of ground on this planet that ought 
to be a safe haven for the leaders of al-Qaida. Ms. Townsend says, when 
asked about it, ``Well, Pakistan is a sovereign country.''
  What does that mean? Therefore, a safe haven for al-Qaida and bin 
Laden must be all right? No. Absolutely not. There is no sovereignty 
anywhere in this world for Osama bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, and the al-
Qaida leadership. There ought not be safe harbor or safe haven or 
sovereignty anywhere in this world for them.
  What have we done? Instead of deciding to destroy Osama bin Laden, 
al-Zawahiri, and the al-Qaida leadership, our country decided, based on 
information provided by the administration that I referred to earlier, 
to invade Iraq. It was information we now know not to have been true--
deliberate or not, I don't know, but information about yellow cake, 
aluminum tubes, chemical weapons labs, and about weapons of mass 
destruction which was not true. Based on that, we decided to take 
action against Iraq.
  The facts are these: Al-Qaida was not in Iraq before we invaded. It 
is there now. But, it is not the central feature in Iraq. Our 
intelligence estimates tell us that. The central part of Iraq is 
sectarian violence, with Shia killing Sunni, Sunni killing Shia, and 
Shia and Sunni killing American soldiers. It is a civil war, a 
religious war of sorts, with problems between the Shia and Sunni that 
date back many centuries.
  Now people ask this question, and reasonably so: Should we, 6 years 
after 2001, the devastating attack against our country that killed 
thousands of innocent Americans, should we expect or have expected that 
we would have brought to justice, dead or alive, the leadership of al-
Qaida and destroyed them? In my judgment, the answer to that is yes.
  The Homeland Security Adviser at the White House, Francis Townsend, 
says: Well, we are winning. I wish that were true, but it is an 
assessment that comes only by ignoring all of the facts. Just read the 
National Intelligence Estimate.
  This administration made a calculation that turns out to have been 
wrong on many fronts. Instead of fighting terrorism first, which I 
think most Americans would have understood and accepted and believed--
the most critical element in the fight to provide security for our 
future--instead of fighting terrorism first, this administration 
decided to take action in other areas. We now have more than 160,000 
American troops in Iraq. Many are going door to door in Baghdad today 
as I speak. It is the case that there is an al-Qaida presence in Iraq 
because Iraq has attracted terrorists. As I said, the intelligence 
community itself has said that is not the central feature of what is 
happening in Iraq. The central feature of what is going on in Iraq is 
the sectarian violence and a civil war.
  That is why the majority of this Congress decided it is time to 
change course. It has not been the case that the descriptions by those 
who want to change course in this Chamber have said let's decide 
immediately, precipitously, to withdraw all troops. That is not the 
case. Troops would remain to fight the terrorist elements that do exist 
in Iraq where they can be fought successfully, for force protection, 
and to train Iraqi troops. After all, the Iraqi troops will be 
necessary and the Iraqi soldiers and the police force will be necessary 
to provide security in the country.
  It is long past time for this country to say to the Iraqis: You now 
have a new government. Saddam Hussein is dead. He was executed after a 
trial for his crimes and atrocities. He is gone. He was a brutal 
dictator. But, Saddam Hussein is dead. You have a new constitution, you 
have a new government, and now the question remains: Do you have the 
will to take back your own country and provide for your own security? 
Are there sufficient able-bodied Iraqis to take back the security 
responsibilities for their country? If not, there is no amount of time 
in which American soldiers and this country can provide security for a 
country in the middle of a civil war.
  So we must change course. That change in course, in my judgment, is 
what will allow us to fight terrorism first. If we do not do that, we 
will, 6 years from now, continue to read about Osama bin Laden and the 
al-Qaida leadership in a safe harbor or safe haven, living free, 
escaping justice, and planning additional attacks against this country.
  My point is, what has happened, in my judgment, is wrong. The first 
and central fight is the fight against terrorism. We are not waging 
that fight because those who attacked this country previously are now 
in a safe haven planning additional attacks against our country. That 
comes from the National Intelligence Estimate, not me. That NIE 
represents the best assessment by our country's best intelligence 
professionals from 16 different intelligence agencies.

  One cannot solve a problem if one is going to ignore the facts or 
distort the facts. I said that Ms. Townsend on Wednesday morning 
basically misrepresented what is happening. It seems as if she has 
failed to see, or refuses to see, all of the evidence that exists, the 
evidence we have received in the National Intelligence Estimate and 
other evidence as well, that al-Qaida and bin Laden are stronger today 
than they have been for many years.
  They are getting stronger, not weaker; they are planning more 
attacks, not hiding; they are recruiting and rebuilding, not running; 
and they want to strike us again as much as they every have.
  But, they are in Pakistan, in a safe haven. They are in the border 
area near Afghanistan, not Iraq.
  It doesn't surprise me that this administration is on a course that 
is not the course that represents this country's best interests. 
President Bush has said on previous occasions that we will deal not 
only with the terrorists who dare attack this country, we will deal 
with those who harbor and feed them and house them. That was the 
President's statement. The President said that, as a part of our 
offensive against terror, we will also confront the regimes that harbor 
and support terrorists.
  When President Bush was asked about Osama bin Laden, he said:

       I don't think much about Osama bin Laden. I don't care much 
     about bin Laden.

  But, Bin Laden and al-Qaida represent the principal threat to this 
country. That is why Senator Conrad and I offered the amendment we did 
on the Defense authorization bill last week.
  The very day Ms. Townsend appeared on television, Wednesday, here is 
the New York Times' headline: ``Same People, Same Threat.'' That's 
right, ``Same People, Same Threat.''

       Nearly six years after the September 11 attacks, and 
     hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives 
     expended in the name of the war on terror, we are faced with 
     the ``Same People, Same Threat'' as attacked American on 
     September 11. I pose a single, insistent question: Are we 
     safer? This is what the New York Times reported:
       . . . After years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq and 
     targeted kills in Yemen, Pakistan,

[[Page S9651]]

     and elsewhere, the major threat to the United States has the 
     same name and the same basic look at 2001: al-Qaida, led by 
     Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, plotting attacks from 
     mountain hide-outs near the Afghan-Pakistani border.
       The intelligence report, the most formal assessment since 
     the September 11 attacks about the terrorist threat facing 
     the United States, concludes that the United States is losing 
     ground on a number of fronts in the fight against al-Qaida 
     and describes the terrorist organization as having 
     ``significantly strengthened over the past two years.''

  If ever we needed good leadership, thoughtful leadership, leadership 
that will act on the facts and understand the facts and not 
misrepresent the facts, it is now, at a time when a terrorist 
organization is planning additional attacks against this country. For 
this administration to say that things are fine, we are winning, don't 
worry, and there is a sovereign, apparently, safe haven for the 
leadership for those who plan to attack us, that is unbelievable, and 
it must change. If the administration won't change it, the Congress and 
the American people must change it.

                          ____________________