[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 87 (Thursday, June 16, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4322-H4324]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRIBUTE TO CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER BRADLEY GAUDET AND REMARKS ON
AFGHANISTAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized
for 30 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, June 5, the State of Texas and
our Nation lost a true hero. Chief Warrant Officer Brad Gaudet was
killed in Afghanistan after his helicopter crashed near Kabul.
Brad was the best and brightest of what the First Congressional
District of Texas has to offer. Raised in Lufkin, Texas, and a graduate
of Stephen F. Austin University, he was truly a son of East Texas.
General MacArthur once said, ``Duty, Honor, Country: Those three
hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can
be, what you will be. They are your rallying points: To build courage
when courage seems to fail; to regain faith when there seems to be
little cause for faith; to create hope when hope becomes forlorn.'' For
Brad, these three ideas were not just to strive for. He understood
them, he embodied them, he lived them.
Brad, just 31 years old, was a husband, a father, a son, and a
brother. Outgoing and aggressive, Brad truly personified the Army's old
slogan, ``Be All You Can Be.'' The summer before his senior year in
high school, Brad joined the Reserves and went to boot camp. His family
joked that he was never more prepared for the upcoming high school
football season than he was that year.
Upon graduating from Stephen F. Austin University in Nacogdoches,
Texas, Brad enlisted in the Army and was sent to Fort Rucker in
Alabama. There he pursued his dream of flying and graduating from
flight school. The next stage of his military service brought him to
Fort Drum in New York, where he met the love of his life, Ginny.
During his second deployment, Brad achieved Pilot in Command rank, a
highly-skilled specialty officer which is very difficult to achieve for
those who are not commissioned officers. This speaks to his hard work,
his outstanding training, his performances, the respect his superiors
had for him.
A true family man, last month Brad rushed home from his third
deployment in Afghanistan just in time to help with the delivery of his
newly born daughter, Addyson. His family will always remember his great
sense of humor, his infectious smile, his kind heart, and his desire to
brighten anyone's day.
Today I want to extend my prayers and condolences to Brad's wife,
Ginny; his two young daughters, Tealie and Addyson; his parents, his
relatives and his friends. Their American warrior is home. He has met
his maker, his master. His duty is done and he is at peace.
George Orwell said, ``We sleep safely in our beds because rough men
stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us
harm.''
A grateful Nation is so very proud of this son of East Texas. We
grieve the loss of our warrior brother. We honor Brad for his courage,
his sacrifice and his selfless commitment to duty, honor and country.
He gave his all in service for the sake of safety, freedom and liberty.
May God bless the sacrifices and the last full measure of devotion
that Brad Gaudet paid, and may he bless us all because he was such a
patriot.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask occupants in the gallery
to please refrain from applause.
Mr. GOHMERT. I would like to address myself for a moment to
Afghanistan. That is where Brad Gaudet and so many Americans have
fought and have died. It was the place where the Taliban flourished.
They trained terrorists; they prepared for the chance to come kill
thousands of Americans in New York City; they came up with plans to
kill Americans in other places in the United States, so it was
important that we go take out the home bases of the Taliban.
For those that know the history of our fighting in Afghanistan, they
know that what we initially did was send in advisers and trainers and
people to help the Afghans to fight and take out the Taliban, and in
fact a group that proved most helpful was the Northern Alliance. Some
say it was run by warlords, but these tribal regions with their leaders
accepted munitions, accepted training, accepted what it took to bring
war upon the Taliban, and they whipped the Taliban, at least until
later when the Taliban resurged.
But after the Northern Alliance defeated the Taliban, we did
something that I was not aware of, until some of the warlords or
Northern Alliance leaders wanted to sit down with somebody from our
government and our State Department they said had refused to meet with
them.
These were the leaders of groups who risked their lives. Many in the
group lost their lives fighting the Taliban, and whipped them. And when
my friend Dana Rohrabacher said, Hey, these folks want to meet with
somebody from the U.S. Government, the State Department won't meet with
them, will you go with me, I said sure.
Initially we were going to try to meet near northern Afghanistan, but
when the Uzbeks found out, as I understand it, they didn't want to give
visas to these people. We thought maybe we would meet in India, and
they didn't want to give them visas. So at the last minute we arranged
to meet in Berlin. Five of the nine did meet.
Something that many Americans don't realize, the Taliban in preparing
for 9/11 knew that there was a man who was charismatic, who was a
powerful leader, who had the chance to bring together Afghanistan as a
nation, the Afghans as a people. Even though it is so very tribal, one
person had the chance to really pull it all together, and on either
September 9 or September 10 of 2001, he was boldly assassinated so that
when a day later 9/11 occurred there would be nobody that the U.S.
could really turn to as one individual to rally Afghans against the
Taliban.
{time} 1520
They took him out before they committed their act of atrocity against
Americans. They knew what they were doing. They planned well. But our
American soldiers know what they're doing. And when we sent special
forces and intelligence folks to help, they were able to whip the
Taliban. And I didn't realize until we met with these Northern Alliance
leaders that after they initially whipped the Taliban, we demanded that
they disarm. According to them, they were told, Look, we're the United
States of America. You have nothing to fear. We're here. We'll make
sure that you're not harmed. You fought for us. You whipped the
Taliban. It was our mutual enemy. And so turn in all of your weapons.
I said, You turned in everything? They said, Well, we've got some
small arms. We can't fight the Taliban with the little bit we've got
left. We gave all of that back--plus some of our own. And the Taliban
has re-surged. The war has gone on much longer than it should have.
There were reports of corruption. The poppy production has surged much
more than anything else there in Afghanistan. And what they had heard
was that our government was negotiating directly with Karzai, the
leader of Afghanistan, and with Pakistan. And what they had been
hearing was that our government was negotiating indirectly with the
Taliban itself. They want to destroy America. And the word that they
had gotten was basically that the United States just wanted out, and if
they would let us get out without a major incident, between the
Taliban, Karzai, Pakistan, they could just divide things up however
they wanted.
I want our troops, I want our people, I want our resources out of
Afghanistan. But we've got to make sure that people like Brad Gaudet
and so many others that have given their lives haven't done it for
nothing. But it seems that that initial success may have given us a
good roadmap to how you succeed in Afghanistan. Equip the
[[Page H4323]]
people that are our friends, who have the same enemies as we have, and
let them do the fighting. Things went well when that's the way it went.
We provided trainers, advisers, gave them some intelligence, and they
whipped the bad guys for us. What would be wrong with getting back to
that point instead of what the rumors are that this administration is
prepared to do--let the Taliban take back up where they left off once
we leave.
If the Taliban gets a foothold again, as they want to do, if al Qaeda
gets a foothold and if radical Islam gets a strong foothold in
Afghanistan again, does anybody really think they won't come after us
again? They have pledged that we're a great Satan, that we must be
eliminated. The most free country in the world, the greatest country in
the history of mankind, and these people want it destroyed because it
didn't fit into their narrow scope of having a global caliphate where
one religious leader dictates to everybody. We kind of like our
freedom, where those of us who are Christians are free to worship and
those who wish to worship any other way are free to do so. That's
America. But it's not time to just cut our losses and leave.
It's time to act smartly. I am very much afraid this administration
will continue to reward our enemies and to turn against our allies and
friends. You can't keep maintaining foreign affairs and any credibility
in the world when you turn against your friends, thinking that your
enemies are going to like you better because you showed you would turn
on your own friends. Your enemies don't like you any better when you
turn against your friends. In fact, what happens is they not only don't
like you, they no longer respect you. Because some in the world, they
don't like us--they hate us--and they think we ought to be destroyed,
but they respect our power. And once they see that a Nation will turn
against its friends and hurt its own friends and allies, they know this
country should not even be respected. As I've said many times, we don't
have to keep paying people to hate us. They'll do it for free. It's
time to quit paying our enemies to continue to nurture hatred against
us. It's time to be a true friend to our allies.
We heard one of the greatest speeches I've heard in my 6\1/2\ years
in Congress from that podium right there, and it didn't come from any
State of the Union. It came from the leader of Israel. We heard from
Palestinians. They thought the speech was a declaration of war. It
means they didn't listen to the speech because, as Prime Minister
Netanyahu made clear, as soon as the Palestinians are willing to tell
their people there will be a Jewish State of Israel, peace can be
worked out very quickly after that. But no one wants to say that on the
Palestinian side. So, as Patrick Henry said, men cry, ``Peace, peace,''
but there is no peace, and there will be no peace in the Middle East.
Here, we think that gee--at least this administration--we heard our
friends, our enemies will love us. They've been trying that since the
Clinton administration when the Clinton administration classified an
anti-Khomeini and Ahmadinejad, as of now, group called the MEK, their
initials. They're an antitotalitarian regime group, and they're over
3,000 residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq. We as a Nation gave them our
sovereign promise we'll make sure you're safe and secure. When we
turned things over to the elected government of Iraq, we were assured
by that government that they would take care of that promise and they
would keep the residents at Camp Ashraf safe. Yet nearly a week ago,
when a group of six of us met with the Prime Minister of Iraq there in
Baghdad and tried to discuss the issue of the Iraqi military going to
Camp Ashraf and killing perhaps 35 residents of Camp Ashraf, wounding
perhaps a hundred or more from reports from a video Dana Rohrabacher
had seen--I had not--he said it's very clear these were unarmed
civilians killed by the Iraqi military. That's not the promise we made
to those people in Camp Ashraf. It's not the promise that the Iraqi
leaders, including Maliki, made to those Iranians in Camp Ashraf. Yet
the Iraqi military killed civilians in Camp Ashraf.
As I tried to explain to Prime Minister Maliki, when he said for us
to be concerned and to try to do something about the killings would be
a violation of their national sovereignty, I tried to explain that
actually it does involve sovereignty, but the U.S. sovereignty was
involved in promising their safety at Camp Ashraf, and his sovereignty
was involved when they promised the safety of those residents at Camp
Ashraf.
{time} 1530
So we have a vested interest with all of the American lives and
treasure that were laid down and invested in Iraq. We have a very
strong vested interest in seeing that justice is done and in seeing
that people who made promises to us keep those promises, because if we
don't see to that, then how can we expect anyone to trust us? How can
we expect anyone to truly negotiate fairly with us, expecting we'll
keep our word?
Sometimes you make bad deals, but if you're going to keep your word
and if you're going to be known for being a country and a people of
honor and a people of their word, you've got to keep your word. As a
former judge and chief justice, some things I've seen have been unjust,
but when we can do something about it to help us keep our word to those
who've trusted us, we've got to do it. We can't look back.
So we were a bit surprised when our group of six Members of
Congress--four Republicans and two Democrats--flew up to Erbil and met
with folks up there. It's always good to see troops around, American
troops. They're the best I've ever seen. The 4 years I spent in the
Army, starting in the late 1970s, left me concerned that, if we were
attacked back in those days, we were in a lot of trouble. But the
military I see and I meet and I visit with--those from my district and
from all over the country--so impress me and so impress those around
them. We have an incredible military, these days, of our service men
and women.
When we left Erbil in northern Iraq and were flying out, we got word
that our Embassy had been contacted by Prime Minister Maliki, and was
told that our group was not welcome in Iraq any longer. I have attended
far too many funerals of people from Texas and other funerals of
Americans who laid down their lives and, in doing so, provided people
like Prime Minister Maliki the chance to come back from exile, to be
elected in that country and to be a leader, that I don't think it's too
much to ask for a little gratitude. We're not asking for anything in
return.
I know there was some discussion--it wasn't from me--about, Gee,
maybe you could help us, instead of doing deals with China for your oil
after we secured your country and got rid of the tyrant Saddam Hussein.
Maybe you could deal with us. I'm not asking for those things. I'm just
asking for a little gratitude for the lives and the treasure that were
expended to give people in Iraq the freedoms they have today.
I expect people who have become leaders in Iraq to keep their word to
us, because if they can't be trusted, if they won't keep their word,
well, they can lock me out of their country all they want to, but we
have the power of the purse.
I didn't join in the lawsuit against the administration over the War
Powers. I think they're well-intended dear friends who are involved in
that suit this week. I didn't engage in that as a party for one reason,
which is that this body has the power constitutionally of the purse. We
don't need a War Powers Act. We don't need any interpretation by the
Supreme Court of whether the War Powers is effective or whether the War
Powers is not, because we have the ultimate weapon in this body called
the power of the purse.
If the President wants to send our American treasure and our American
military, which composes 65 percent of NATO's military, what a joke to
say, Hey, we're turning it over to NATO. We won't be involved anymore.
We're 65 percent of NATO's military. If we're going to have a President
who sends people over there, not because Congress thought it was a good
idea and not because a majority of the American people did but because
the Arab League asked us to and because some in the U.N. thought it was
a good idea, then Congress has the ultimate power, and we don't need
the War Powers to do it. We don't need the Supreme Court's okay. All we
need to do is shut down every dime being spent in Libya until
[[Page H4324]]
such time as we can be sure that whoever takes over Libya will not be
worse for the United States than the crazy murderer who is there now.
We need to be sure of that.
I know the President made the mistake one day of saying he had
visited all 57 States. I'm well aware that there are not 57 States in
this country, although there are 57 members of OIC, the Islamic states
in the world. Perhaps there was some confusion as to whether he'd been
to all 57 Islamic states as opposed to all 50 U.S. States. Nonetheless,
we have an obligation to the 50 American States, not to the 57 Muslim
Islamic states.
Our oath that we took is in this body--in this House--and it's to the
people of America. It's not to the Muslim Brotherhood, who may very
well take over Egypt.
Once they do, they'll be bent upon setting up a caliphate around the
world, including in the United States, and this administration will
have been complicit in helping people who want to destroy our country
out of the ignorance to think, if you help your enemies, they're going
to like you better. Not only do they not like you, as I said, they
disrespect you when they see how foolhardy you are.
It's time to quit involving this country in warfare around the world
unless we can be sure that such warfare helps us keep our oath to the
United States of America.
And to quote my dear friend from Texas, also a former judge, ``And
that's just the way it is.''
I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
____________________