[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 41 (Thursday, March 17, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H1969-H1973]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          END THE WAR IN IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McKinley). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. KUCINICH. March 20, 2003, 8 years ago, the United States launched 
a full-scale attack on Iraq. Many of us remember watching the images of 
shock and awe as violence was wreaked against the people of Iraq and, 
in particular, the city of Baghdad. That moment at which America 
arrived to express its military might had antecedents that we should 
study this evening.
  I want to review, Mr. Speaker, the climate that was created for this 
Congress that caused this Congress to make a decision back in October 
of 2002 to go to war against Iraq--a war that was executed beginning 
March 20, 2003.
  It was 9 years ago to this date that Vice President Cheney said the 
following of Iraq: ``We know they have biological and chemical 
weapons.'' That was March 17, 2002.
  On March 19, 2002, Vice President Cheney said: ``And we know they are 
pursuing nuclear weapons.''
  On March 24, 2002, Vice President Cheney said of Saddam Hussein: ``He 
is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.''
  Later, on May 19, 2002: ``We know he's got chemicals and biological 
and we know he's working on nuclear.'' That was Vice President Cheney 
on ``Meet the Press.''
  August 26, 2002, speaking to the VFW's convention, Vice President 
Cheney said: ``Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now 
has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing 
them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.''
  September 8, 2002, again, on NBC's ``Meet the Press,'' Vice President 
Cheney said this: ``Based on intelligence that's becoming available, 
some of it has been made public, more of it hopefully will be, that he 
has indeed''--he's speaking of Saddam Hussein--``he has indeed stepped 
up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons; that he has 
reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon; that 
there are efforts underway inside Iraq to significantly expand his 
capability.''
  On September 8, 2002, on ``Meet the Press,'' Vice President Cheney 
went on to say of Hussein: ``He is in fact actively and aggressively 
seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.''
  March 16, 2003, a few days before the attack: ``And we believe he has 
in fact reconstituted nuclear weapons.''
  I mention this, Mr. Speaker, because, for those Members who were not 
in the House of Representatives at the time of the October debate and 
at the time that the attack commenced and for those who are just 
citizens watching these events unfold, there was created in this 
country a climate of belief, a certainty, as to the grave peril which 
Saddam Hussein of Iraq was alleged to represent. That was the Vice 
President.
  Now, the President, in various appearances and statements and in the 
legislation he presented to this Congress, the President made the 
following material representations with respect to Iraq. He said that 
Iraq was continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and 
biological weapons capability. He said that Iraq was actively seeking a 
nuclear weapons capability; that Iraq was continuing to threaten the 
national security interests of the United States and international 
peace and security; that Iraq had demonstrated a willingness to attack 
the United States; that members of al Qaeda, an international 
organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, 
its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on 
September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. That attacks on the United 
States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat 
that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to international 
terrorist organizations.
  President George W. Bush represented to this Congress that Iraq will 
either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the 
United States or its Armed Forces or provide them through international 
terrorists who would do so; that an extreme magnitude of harm would 
result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack; and 
that the aforementioned threats justified action by the United States 
to defend itself.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation as a Nation to defend ourselves. 
To provide for common defense is one of the foundational principles of 
this country in the preamble to our Constitution. Those who are charged 
with the responsibility of guiding the affairs of our Nation, the 
President and the Vice President--in this case, President Bush, Vice 
President Cheney--had a responsibility to be totally clear and honest 
with the American people. It is to their shame that they were neither 
honest nor candid with the American people and with this Congress.
  Here we are on the eighth anniversary of the attack on Iraq. And I 
think, Mr. Speaker, it would be instructive for this Congress to have 
the opportunity to review what it is we were told in early October of 
2002, when we voted as a Congress to authorize the President to take 
action against Iraq, action which commenced 8 years ago. Listen to some 
of these claims that were made. I will state the claims that were made 
and then I will rebut them.

                              {time}  1550

  We were told that, in 1990, in response to Iraq's war of aggression 
against an illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a 
coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to 
defend the national security of the United States and enforce United 
Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, the thing that was said then at that time in response: I 
pointed out that, in the Persian Gulf War, there was an international 
coalition. World support was for protecting Kuwait. There was no world 
support for invading Iraq.
  The resolution that President Bush submitted to this Congress which 
resulted in the invasion of Iraq 8 years ago said: Whereas, after the 
liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations-
sponsored cease fire agreement, pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally 
agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, 
chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them and 
to end its support for international terrorism;
  Whereas, the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United 
States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors

[[Page H1970]]

led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons 
and a large-scale biological weapons program and that Iraq had an 
advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to 
producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence previously had indicated.
  In advance of any attack, to answer what the President was saying, I 
pointed out more than 8 years ago: U.N. inspection teams identified and 
destroyed nearly all such weapons that President Bush referred to in 
his resolution. A lead inspector, Scott Ritter, said that he believes 
that nearly all other weapons not found were destroyed in the gulf war. 
Furthermore, according to a published report in The Washington Post, 
the Central Intelligence Agency had no up-to-date accurate report on 
Iraq's WMD capabilities.
  The President said: Whereas, Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation 
of the cease fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons 
inspectors, to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction 
stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the 
withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998.
  I pointed out back then, more than 8 years ago, that Iraqi deceptions 
always failed. Inspectors always figured out what Iraq was doing. It 
was the United States that withdrew from the inspections in 1998. The 
United States then launched a cruise missile attack against Iraq 48 
hours after the inspectors left. In advance of a military strike, the 
U.S. continued to thwart the weapons inspections.
  President Bush went on to tell this Congress: Whereas, in 1998, 
Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction 
program threatened vital U.S. interests and international peace and 
security. It declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach 
of its international obligations,'' and urged the President to take 
appropriate action in accordance with the Constitution and relevant 
laws of the United States to bring Iraq into compliance with 
international obligations.
  The President went on to assert to this Congress: Whereas, Iraq both 
possesses a continuing threat to the national security of the United 
States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf, and 
remains in material and unacceptable breach of international 
obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a 
significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively 
seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring 
terrorists.
  It was pointed out back then, Mr. Speaker, that there was absolutely 
no proof that Iraq represented an immediate or imminent threat to the 
United States. A continuing threat does not constitute a sufficient 
cause for war. The administration refused to provide Congress with 
credible intelligence that proved that Iraq was a serious threat to the 
United States and was continuing to possess and develop chemical and 
biological nuclear weapons; and there was no credible intelligence 
connecting Iraq to al Qaeda in 9/11. Iraq didn't have anything to do 
with 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda's role in 9/11.
  The President went on to assert to this Congress in the resolution 
which was a call to war against Iraq that Iraq persists in violating 
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to 
engage in the brutal repression of its civilian population, thereby 
threatening international peace and security in the region by refusing 
to release, repatriate or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully 
detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to 
return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait.
  It was said at the time that the language of this resolution was so 
broad that it would allow the President to attack Iraq even when there 
was no material threat to the United States. The resolution authorized 
the use of force for all Iraq-related violations of U.N. Security 
Council directives, and the resolution cited Iraq's imprisonment of 
non-Iraqi prisoners.
  This resolution would have authorized the President to attack Iraq in 
order to liberate Kuwaiti citizens who may or may not have been in 
Iraqi prisons even if Iraq had met compliance with all requests to 
destroy the alleged weapons of mass destruction; though, in 2002, at 
the Arab summit, Iraq and Kuwait agreed to bilateral negotiations to 
work out all claims relating to stolen property and prisoners of war.
  So this use of force resolution enabled President Bush to commit U.S. 
troops to recover Kuwaiti property.
  The President told this Congress: The current Iraqi regime had 
demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass 
destruction against other nations and its own people; that the Iraqi 
regime had demonstrated its continuing hostility toward and willingness 
to attack the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to 
assassinate former President Bush; and by firing on many thousands of 
occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in 
enforcing a resolution of the United Nations Security Council.
  It was pointed out back then, prior to Congress passing the 
resolution to authorize an attack on Iraq, that the Iraqi regime had 
never attacked nor does it have the capability to attack the United 
States. They couldn't attack us. The no-fly zone was not the result of 
a U.N. Security Council directive. It was illegally imposed by the 
United States, Great Britain, and France and not specifically 
sanctioned by any Security Council resolution.
  The President went on to say: Members of al Qaeda, an organization 
bearing responsibility for attack on the United States, its citizens 
and interests, including the attacks that occurred on 9/11, are known 
to be in Iraq.
  But back in October of 2002, when we were having the debate on 
President Bush's war resolution, there was no credible intelligence 
that connected Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to the participation in 
those events by assisting al Qaeda.
  The President told Congress back in 2002: Iraq continues to aid and 
harbor other international terrorist organizations, including 
organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens.
  It was pointed out back then, in response to President Bush's 
assertions, that any connection between the Iraq support of terrorist 
groups in the Middle East is an argument and was an argument then for 
focusing great resources on resolving the conflict between Israel and 
the Palestinians. It was not sufficient reason for the U.S. to launch a 
unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq.
  The President went on to say that the attacks on the United States of 
September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the 
acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist 
organizations.
  It was pointed out again that there was no connection between Iraq 
and the events of 9/11. Yet think about this: there was a consistent 
effort to try to link Iraq to 9/11 and to al Qaeda's role in 9/11, but 
there was no connection. The President kept on insisting there was, as 
did the Vice President.

                              {time}  1600

  The President went on to say that Iraq demonstrated capability and 
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the Iraq 
regime would either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack 
against the United States or its Armed Forces, or provide them to 
international terrorists who would do so. The extreme magnitude of harm 
that would result in the United States and its citizens from such an 
attack combined to justify action by the United States to defend 
itself.
  The picture that was painted for the American people, for the 
Congress at that time was that we had no choice but to get ready to 
attack Iraq; and yet, back then, prior to Congress voting on a 
resolution to authorize use of military force against Iraq, an attack 
having occurred 8 years ago, on March 20, 2003, we knew back then that 
there was no credible evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass 
destruction. There was no credible evidence that Iraq had the 
capability to reach the United States with such weapons.
  In the 1991 gulf war, Iraq had a demonstrated capability of 
biological and chemical weapons, but didn't have the willingness to use 
them against the U.S. Armed Forces. Congress was not

[[Page H1971]]

provided with any credible information which proved that Iraq had 
provided international terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.
  President Bush went on to assert that the United States could 
unilaterally enforce U.N. resolutions and that we could do so with 
military force. He went on to assert a chronology of international 
process; and when you look at where we are today, $3 trillion, 
according to Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, will be the minimum cost 
of this war.
  One has to ask, what was going on in this Congress at the time? When 
we were told by the President of the United States and by the Vice 
President of the United States that Iraq had weapons of mass 
destruction, it had the intention and capability of attacking the 
United States, the implication was that Iraq worked with al Qaeda to 
bring about 9/11. That's what they led this Congress to believe. That's 
what they led the American people to believe.
  But you know what, Mr. Speaker, way back then I didn't buy a word of 
it, and there are other Members of Congress who didn't buy a word of it 
either. We know that there was no proof. We knew that there was no 
proof offered by the administration at that time that would give us a 
cause to go to war against Iraq, but we executed the war against Iraq. 
This is a great tragedy upon the Iraqi people and upon the people of 
our Nation, too.
  We executed the war against Iraq that, according to Joseph Stiglitz, 
extrapolating from a study that was done by the Lancet organization, as 
many as 1 million innocent Iraqi people have died in that war. I want 
everyone here to wrap their thinking around this statement. Joseph 
Stiglitz in his book, ``The Three Trillion Dollar War,'' wrote it with 
his associate Linda Bilmes, citing the Lancet report on civilian 
casualties in Iraq, extrapolated from that report and the figure that 
comes up is approximately 1 million innocent civilians lost their lives 
as a result of the United States' attack upon, and occupation of, Iraq.
  People will criticize the Lancet study; and they will say, well, you 
know, that can't be true. But what they did was they looked at how many 
excess deaths occurred during that period, and they did a very 
comprehensive study; and they were able to come to this determination 
that these were all deaths that should not have occurred or they 
attributed them to the war. A million people. Why? Because this 
Congress was told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was 
going to use them against the United States of America.
  Could I ask how much time is left, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has approximately 35 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KUCINICH. So I was saying, Mr. Speaker, over 1 million innocent 
Iraqis died pursuant to the bloodshed and chaos that occurred during 
the Iraq war. How can anyone in public life who understands that not 
come into public forums and demand justice?
  This Nation was led to war based on lies. The U.S. has already lost 
4,439 of our brave men and women. We've had over 33,000 troops wounded. 
There are casualties on all sides here. And certainly some of the 
nations who closed ranks with the Bush administration, their sons and 
daughters also suffered as well.
  It's hard to believe, though, that we could have known all that we 
knew in advance of passing the legislation and it was passed anyway; 
know all that we knew in advance of passing the legislation, the 
legislation's passed, and we go to war anyway; know all that we know 
today back then and still be in Iraq today, March 17, 2011. And I 
quoted to you at the beginning of this from Vice President Cheney 9 
years ago. The Iraqis are still paying a price and so are the American 
people.
  I'm going to say something on this floor, Mr. Speaker, that seldom 
gets discussed here, and that is, that I sincerely believe that 
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld and others 
should be held accountable under international law for waging a war 
against people who had no quarrel with the United States of America at 
all.

                              {time}  1610

  There have to be international laws that have to be followed by U.S. 
officials, and, in fact, there are: the Geneva Convention, the U.N. 
Charter. There are express prohibitions against waging aggressive war.
  It doesn't matter what this Congress blesses because of what we were 
told. The President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense, 
they all knew better. They are all trying to cover their tracks right 
now with various books and PR tours, but they knew better. They put the 
lives of our young men and women on the line for a lie. They put the 
lives of 1 million and more Iraqi people on the line for a lie. They 
put over $3 trillion of our precious resources here on the line for a 
lie.
  I challenge anyone in this Congress to prove me wrong on any of this, 
because it is impossible to prove to the contrary the statements that I 
have made today about assertions that were made to this Congress, to 
the American people for a cause of war against Iraq, and they were all 
lies.
  And now, Mr. Speaker, we are about to begin another year of 
occupation of Iraq. There is no question that occupation fuels 
insurgencies. There is no question that we are likely to be in Iraq for 
some time to come. Just in the last 24 hours, it was reported that 
while the U.S. troops who are there at this moment, 50,000 troops, are 
supposed to leave at the end of the year, there are problems with the 
negotiations, that Mr. Maliki, his government, is stalled on appointing 
ministers, that the U.S. wants a contingency force of 10,000 to remain, 
that the State Department is increasing contractor presence of 17,000 
at the cost of $2.5 billion. We are not going to be done with this war 
for God knows how long.
  We know the war in Iraq is being privatized. We know that all these 
private firms that are lining up to provide security in Iraq will be 
there for some time. As a matter of fact, it's in their interest to 
keep the environment unstable because they will keep making money.
  So this handoff to the State Department occurs with much skepticism. 
But at this very moment, Mr. Speaker, it's not clear that we are truly 
going to be leaving Iraq. I mean, you are either in or you are out. You 
can't be in and out at the same time. You can't talk about going and 
you still have 10,000 troops there or 50,000 troops there. We are told 
that it's the end of combat operations. Well, some of the insurgents 
aren't getting that message, because they are still attacking our 
troops.
  There have been 4,439 U.S. casualties, approximately 33,000 wounded. 
I have been to a number of funerals of young people who believed in 
this country, who loved this country, who saw service to this country 
as the highest purpose of their lives. I remember all of them, but 
there is one in particular that I want to share with you. It was a 
young man who, when he died in combat, his mother was notified that he 
would at last be made a U.S. citizen.
  I grew up at a time when we were dealing with the Vietnam War. And 
years ago, before I got into politics, I was a copyboy at a newspaper 
in Cleveland called The Plain Dealer. My job at The Plain Dealer, among 
the things I had to do, I had to go out on what they called art runs to 
pick up pictures of young men, primarily, who were killed in Vietnam. I 
remember driving the company's car up to a house. And, Mr. Speaker, all 
these houses after a while, they look the same. The houses were wooden 
clapboard houses that needed a little bit of paint, and the front door 
was flapping a little bit in the breeze. There wasn't a latch on it. 
When you walked up the steps, the steps would creek, and you would see 
faded white curtains in the window with a shade pulled down and a blue 
star in the window, signifying that they had someone who served.
  When I knocked on the door, people would invite me into their house, 
and I would sit on a worn sofa, a threadbare rug. At that time, they 
would have a picture of the President of the United States, often a 
picture of President Kennedy, who, by then, had been deceased, and a 
picture of Christ, you know, around the TV. I would sit down on their 
sofa, and they would go over the pictures. Then I would take one of 
those pictures to the newspaper so they could print it the next day to 
announce that this young person had been killed.

[[Page H1972]]

  And I remember how incredible it was to be there at that moment when 
the family was in such incredible agony and grief and to get the 
feeling of their loss, just to feel it. Even thinking about it right 
now, I can feel it.
  I went out and picked up so many pictures over the course of a year 
or so, just while I was doing that job; and it was just the same thing 
over and over again, people talking about how proud they were of their 
young person who served and wanting everyone to know how much they 
loved the country and how much they loved service.
  Those memories stay with me. I mean, all of us who had friends who 
fought in Vietnam and didn't come back. They included people who I 
played baseball with, people who I just used to pal around with. And 
when you know people who get killed in war, it becomes personal. When 
you have family members who are out there and are exposed to that 
environment, it's very personal.
  So here I am in the United States Congress. Here we are, 2011. And I 
think back to those times, and I think, you know, if we're sending 
these young men and women to put themselves in harm's way, we had 
better be right. We cannot afford not just to not make a mistake, but 
there cannot be any deception involved in things like that.
  So, you see, when I talk about the importance of holding people 
accountable for the deceptions, I come from a place of great sadness 
about the tragedy of war generally, but the compounded tragedy of war 
specifically when it is based on something that is really not true.

                              {time}  1620

  Whether those of us in Congress voted for the war or not, we all have 
grave concerns for the safety of our troops. But there's a sense in 
which the troops themselves become hostage to the war. We had so many 
moments where we were told that we should vote to continue to fund the 
wars to support the troops.
  Now, Iraq, March 20, 2011, the eighth anniversary. Afghanistan, 
already the longest war in our history, more than 10 years. How can we 
afford the lost lives anymore? How can we afford the deaths of innocent 
civilians? How can we afford the trillions upon trillions of dollars?
  There's a point at which we have to ask ourselves some fundamental 
questions. If we didn't go to war to make America safer, why did we go 
to war against Iraq? I maintained then and I maintain now that oil 
certainly had something to do with it.
  We have to ask ourselves, why are we still in Iraq? Why are we still 
in Afghanistan? Why are we continuing incursions along the Pakistani 
border? Why are we still debating whether to become involved militarily 
in Libya? Don't we, as Americans, get to the point where we just say 
maybe it's time we started taking care of things at home first?
  Fifteen million Americans out of work. Think of how many jobs you 
could create with trillions of dollars. Fifty million Americans still 
don't have health care. Over 10 million Americans have lost their 
homes. So many Americans go to bed hungry. So many Americans can't 
afford to send their kids to decent schools. So much of our public 
education system is failing because they don't have enough resources.
  And yet, we are spending trillions of dollars now on wars, one war 
based on lies, the other one based on a fundamental misreading of 
history. I mean, who in history has conquered Afghanistan? Well, maybe 
somebody can go back to Genghis Khan's time and answer that question, 
but you can't answer it in this century or the last century.
  Now, the House just had 2 hours of debate today on the issue of 
Afghanistan and the war powers resolution. I'm pleased to see that more 
voted in favor of withdrawal this year than voted last year. It's a 
good sign, particularly since about two-thirds of the American people 
favor getting out of Afghanistan in the near future.
  I mean, it's easy to understand why the American people feel that 
way. The American people have to be feeling, how can we afford these 
wars? How can we afford to spend $1 million a year to equip a soldier 
in Afghanistan, or Iraq for that matter? Don't we have things to take 
care of here at home?
  Mr. Speaker, I look at our cities, and all across this Nation, we 
have cities that are falling apart. Our infrastructure's falling apart. 
It's fair to say that we have trillions of dollars in infrastructure 
needs that are unmet. They're not being met because we're being told, 
well, we don't have enough money. As a matter of fact, some States are 
using the deficit to be able to crush workers' rights.
  But we know that when it comes to these wars, these wars are 
contributing to the deficit. In one way or another, we end up borrowing 
money to keep these wars going. How can these wars be more important 
than everything else in America?
  We know right now that occupations fuel insurgency in Afghanistan. 
Our presence there has caused the Taliban to become stronger. Our 
actions there help ensure the Taliban will have even more support.
  General Petraeus himself, with respect to Afghanistan said, well, al 
Qaeda doesn't have much of a presence anymore. What are we doing there? 
How can we keep affording the kind of money that we're spending there?
  The American people are saying it loud and clear. They want out.
  But what I wanted to do this evening, though, is to bring us back to 
the time that Congress was faced with the decision about going to war 
against Iraq; that we were told things by Vice President Cheney, we 
were told things by President Bush.
  Now they want to blame it on some character called Curveball. Look, 
when I was growing up if somebody was throwing you a curveball you knew 
what that meant. It meant that it wasn't coming at you straight. It was 
coming like this, okay?
  It was almost somebody in the CIA was telegraphing to all of us, hey, 
this guy's a curveball. Be very careful about this pitch that he's 
making.
  But anyhow, this character, Curveball, when it comes to WMDs, he said 
he made it all up. He said that he had a problem with the Saddam 
regime. He wanted to get rid of them, and he had the chance.
  Now, there are those who would say, well, see, it was this guy. He 
said this. We were fooled. Right. Yeah. No. Those who were charged with 
the responsibility of taking this country into war against Iraq, they 
weren't fooled. They cooked the books with respect to the intelligence. 
They had the intelligence shaped to fit their preconceived designs to 
go to war. For them to try to maintain they were fooled would be an 
interesting defense.
  The former head of the CIA in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, wasn't 
fooled. He warned against the reliability of Curveball. But the 
administration at that time, the Bush administration, offered no 
alternatives to the Congress.
  So instead of accepting the truth that Iraq didn't possess WMDs, the 
Bush administration decided to pick and choose their facts in order to 
sell a war to the American people, at a cost of trillions of dollars.
  When I think of the road that we have gone down, when I think, Mr. 
Speaker, that someone in the Bush administration, way back when we were 
about to attack Iraq, announced that he thought the Iraq war would cost 
$100 billion, Larry Lindsey, he was fired for that. One hundred 
billion. Imagine now, this war's going to cost 30 times that, if not 50 
times it, when you look at the long-term effect of caring, for the rest 
of their lives, for the soldiers who come back maimed.

                              {time}  1630

  Let's bring it back. On March 20, 2003, the United States Armed 
Forces at the direction of President George W. Bush commenced a very 
vigorous and violent attack upon the nation of Iraq and its people. 
That was the beginning of the Iraq war, and it was the beginning of the 
United States assault on and subsequent occupation of Iraq. And he did 
it because this Congress approved of it; and this Congress approved of 
it because we were told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that 
Iraq had the intention and capability of hurting the United States, and 
Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and al Qaeda's role in 9/11. Mr. 
Speaker, all false.
  Now, the Bible says you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set 
you free. We are taught that truth crushed to the ground will rise 
again. We are waiting to be freed from the lies that

[[Page H1973]]

took us into war, but we cannot be free until we have a reconciliation 
with the people of Iraq. And we can't do that until we have truth. 
America is going to have to go through that period. We will never 
recover from 9/11 if we continue to move down the rabbit holes of war 
that were based on lies or based on a misreading of history and a 
misapplication of power.
  So where do we go from here? Well, we have to get ready to leave Iraq 
and we have to get ready to leave Afghanistan, and we have to stop 
bombing the borders along Pakistan. And we have to start working with 
the international community on matters of security. And if we need to 
continue to track down anyone who is associated with mass violence 
against the people of our country or any other country, that should be 
a matter of international police action.
  And we must stop the policies of interventionism. We must stop the 
reach for empire. It is destroying our Nation. It is destroying us 
morally, and it is destroying our capacity to be able to meet the needs 
of the American people for jobs, for housing, for health care, for 
education, for retirement security. We have to challenge the underlying 
premise about war being inevitable. Because as soon as people start 
beating the drums of war, there is an entire marching band and Shouter 
Society at the Pentagon and their people in the contracting business 
who are ready to try to make a case for war at any time and any place. 
We have to begin to critically analyze the mentality that issues forth 
that causes us to put so much of our resources on the line.
  General Eisenhower warned about it. He served as President of this 
United States two terms, and he recognized in his valedictory that we 
should beware of the military-industrial complex, we have to be careful 
about what we are being told and the motivation of those from outside 
this Congress who are telling us certain stories about why we should go 
to war. It is time for us to try to come into resonance with our power 
to achieve diplomacy.
  I am not naive about the world, but I also understand that if we do 
not try to exercise our capacity to relate to people in other places, 
people who may have different ideologies, different religions, 
different colors, creeds; if we do not try to pursue that, then we are 
destined to have more wars. But if we pursue what President Franklin 
Roosevelt called the science of human relations, then we have the 
possibility that we can move toward making peace, not war, inevitable.
  It is that type of thinking that led me to bring forward a proposal 
to create a Cabinet-level Department of Peace. I know there are people 
who say, ``Oh, peace. Right. Okay, Dennis. We got it. You want peace. 
Next.'' And they try to project peace as impractical.
  Mr. Speaker, you want us to talk impractical? How about a war based 
on lies that cost this country over $3 trillion? That is impractical. 
How about a war that cost the lives of over 1 million innocent Iraqi 
civilians, a war that cost the lives of thousands upon thousands of our 
troops, and tens of thousands of our troops injured? That's 
impractical.
  We need to summon our capacity and our capabilities to be able to 
take this Nation in a new direction that does not include a quest or 
reach for empire; that pulls back its military resources which are 
spread all around the world to the cost of tens of billions of dollars 
annually, and we need to start coming home, create peace at home. Let's 
look at gun violence in our society. Let's go to domestic violence, 
spousal abuse, child abuse, violence in the schools, gang violence, 
racial violence, violence against gays.
  If we started to focus on addressing violence in our society, the 
causal nature of it, not just the symptoms of it, not just the effects 
of it, we may put ourselves on a path where we could in our Nation 
create what many years ago people called a New Jerusalem, a shining 
city on a hill, the potential to be able to have all of our material 
concerns met, and be able to have peace.
  Frankly, I don't know any other way that we can do it except working 
towards peace. But we have to build structures of peace in our own 
Nation, in our own neighborhoods. That is what legislation to create a 
Department of Peace is about, not creating a new bureaucracy.
  Think about it. If we spend more than $1 trillion every year for wars 
in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Pentagon budget all combined, wouldn't 
you think we ought to have a few bucks available to talk about how we 
can create a more peaceful society so we don't doom future generations 
to continue to support these endless wars?
  We have to start redefining who we are as a people, and this is as 
good a time as any to begin to do it. We are on the eighth anniversary 
of the initiation of the war against Iraq, March 20, 2011.
  In the last hour, Mr. Speaker, I have sought to create a review of 
the record of what was said at the time to bring about the war, how the 
President and the Vice President at that time did not tell the truth to 
the American people, did not tell the truth to Congress; how the 
consequences have been extraordinary for the people of Iraq, for the 
people of the United States; how many innocent civilians died; how we 
have to find a way to reconcile with the people of Iraq, how we will 
have to find a way to reconcile at some point with the people in 
Afghanistan the innocents who have died. How we have to recognize that 
there are some things in the world that are beyond our control, that we 
can't tell other people what kind of political system they should have. 
We cannot try to redesign the world according to what our idea of a 
democracy is.
  Wouldn't it be nice if here in the United States we actually focused 
on creating the fullness of the democratic process, which we were 
assured would have the chance to unfold with the independence of the 
United States and with the creation of our Constitution?
  Mr. Speaker, I intend to keep bringing forth the truth of what 
happened that resulted in the United States being taken into war 
against Iraq based on lies, and I intend to keep bringing forward 
alternatives so that we can not just get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, 
but stop this reach for power abroad which comes at the expense of our 
vital needs at home.

                          ____________________