[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 61 (Thursday, April 26, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2200-H2202]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     OUR FRIEND IN THE MIDDLE EAST

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, there's a lot going on in the world these 
days. I had an interesting trip to Afghanistan this weekend, a country 
into which we are pouring billions and billions of dollars and have 
military there that is keeping President Karzai in office.
  And he's a very grateful man. That was demonstrated when he told our 
government, this Obama administration, that Dana Rohrabacher, my very 
dear friend, one of the greatest patriots I know, would not be allowed 
into Afghanistan, as if he had that power, because he had been very 
critical of President Karzai.
  So we're spending billions and billions of dollars so that a 
cantankerous President of Afghanistan, who is only there because of the 
lives and treasure that Americans have sacrificed, can turn around and 
tell Americans, we don't want Members of Congress that actually control 
the purse strings to money flowing into this country, we don't want 
them here. It was rather interesting.
  And as might be expected, President Karzai had his facts entirely 
wrong. He was representing that Representative Rohrabacher had a bill 
that was attempting to partition, divide up Afghanistan. Entirely 
wrong. I knew that because I assisted with the bill and cosponsored it, 
proudly, because it was a resolution that basically was encouraging 
Afghanistan to allow elections of their regional governors. It 
encouraged elections.
  Somehow President Karzai found this very offensive, as a threat to 
him. And I can see it from his standpoint. If one puts one's self in 
his position, you realize, gee, I'm President Karzai. I get to appoint 
every regional governor. And gee, that would be a system, like ancient 
Rome, where you would be appointed to be governor, but you had to kick 
back to Caesar in order to keep your seat. Interesting.
  That is a plan fraught with the potential for corruption. That's one 
of the reasons that Dana and I, and so many others, think it would be a 
good idea, help strengthen the country, if the people in the various 
regions were able to elect their governors.
  President Karzai not only appoints the governors, he appoints the 
mayors. They don't get to elect them. He appoints them. You want to be 
a mayor of a city, you better go suck up to President Karzai because 
he's going to make the appointment.
  If you would like to be the chief of police, don't worry with some 
local city council in Afghanistan. Don't worry with the governor. 
You'll be appointed, that's right, by President Karzai.
  We're told by Afghans that actually it goes so much further than 
that. He even appoints many of the teachers. You want to be a teacher 
at an upper level? Afghans tell me that he appoints them as well.
  President Karzai gets to appoint a slate of potential legislators. He 
has tremendous control of the purse strings in Afghanistan, not someone 
to be countered with, you would think, unless perhaps you're from a 
government that assists the government of Afghanistan in meeting its 
budget needs.

                              {time}  2010

  As I understand it, Afghanistan has a budget of $12.5 billion. As I 
understand it, Afghanistan provides $1.5 billion of that $12.5 billion 
budget. That's all the revenue--taxes, fees, all kinds of things. 
That's the extent of their revenue.
  Gee, what would happen to President Karzai if all of a sudden this 
Congress did what the 1974 Democratic-controlled Congress did when, 
without any regard for those who had fought with us in Vietnam and in 
Southeast Asia, every penny was just completely shut off, when every 
penny being spent in Vietnam back in '74 was cut off? What happened 
after we left was an absolute horrible bloodbath of those who had 
assisted the United States in any way.
  So I don't think this Congress will be as abrupt as the Democratic 
Congress was in 1974, but it certainly has the ability to do that. The 
difference is, I think, there are enough people in this Congress who 
realize, unless we empower those who fought the Taliban in late 2001, 
after 9/11, and in early 2002 when they basically routed the Taliban 
with U.S.-embedded support and air support, unless we empower those 
allies by allowing them to elect their own regional governors, by 
allowing them to elect their mayors, taking some of the power away from 
a central administration where, regardless of whether or not reports 
may or may not be accurate about corruption at the highest level, then 
there is certainly corruption in Afghanistan.
  It is also interesting that this administration refuses to replace 
the inspector general, who is supposed to supervise and audit the money 
that's going into Afghanistan. Surely, that couldn't be because it's an 
election year. Surely, that couldn't be because, if we had somebody 
actually monitoring where all of the billions of dollars were pouring 
into Afghanistan are going, the report would indicate widespread 
corruption, which would reflect poorly on this

[[Page H2201]]

administration, throwing away billions of dollars not only to the 
Solyndras around the country but to corrupt administrations who are 
fattening their bank accounts while Americans don't have any.
  Many Americans struggle to have any money in their bank accounts, yet 
we're propping up an administration over there that thinks that, on a 
whim, they can say, I don't like this Congressman because he has been 
critical of my administration, so we're going to keep him out.
  I realize that Secretary Clinton inherited a very difficult situation 
that was not of her making, but it is important in dealing with matters 
of foreign policy and in dealing with matters of State that we not be 
duped by people who have made careers out of duping Americans and 
Russians and other nationalities.
  So we have a great ally in the nation of Israel. They believe in 
freedom as we do. They have a truly representative government, one in 
which the Prime Minister of Israel does not forbid the elections of 
other officials so that he will be the only one who has the power to 
appoint. Israel allows elections, and as others have pointed out, 
they're more likely more free than any of the other neighbors 
immediately surrounding Israel. Even Muslims in Israel have greater 
freedom to elect whomever they wish in fair and free elections. We have 
an ally in Israel.
  Now, I realize there are differences in views, whether the Old 
Testament, the Torah, the Tanakh have valid legitimacy these days. Some 
of us believe them and are proud to do so just as the Founders did. 
Heck, of the 56 signers of the Declaration, over a third of them were 
ordained Christian ministers who believed every word of the Old 
Testament.
  So I've been looking in the Old Testament for wisdom in application 
to our current situation because we know, back earlier this year, The 
Washington Post was told by this administration that the window during 
which Israel was going to likely attack Iran was between two different 
dates during a certain period. Well, that's not very helpful to an ally 
when we tell the world about when an ally may choose to defend itself. 
That's more a heads-up to an enemy of Israel's and the United States, a 
sworn enemy of the United States, led by people who have sworn to the 
destruction of the United States and Israel.
  So it's a little bit confusing to see how this administration could 
be going about betraying our friend Israel. It would seem, when this 
administration leaked to the media that our dear friend and ally Israel 
was going to utilize the relationship with Azerbaijan to attack, that 
such a release was not something you would do for a friend but, rather, 
a betrayal of a friend and ally.
  It appears that those were efforts to keep Israel from doing what it 
needed to do to defend itself when this administration is telling 
Israel, Hey, just trust us. Trust us. We'll take care of your national 
security, and yes, there is a window beyond which you could no longer 
do any good in trying to stop the nuclear proliferation in Iran and 
beyond which we in the United States could. So, if we can just force 
Israel past that window, then they would have to rely completely on the 
United States to do all in its power to protect Israel.
  If Israel looks at what has been happening already this year with a 
couple of betrayals of our friendship, that would not bode well that 
the top in this administration for this country will protect Israel at 
whatever cost. That has to be considered by Israel.
  Then we have this report. This was dated April 19, 2012, from the 
Middle East Media Research Institute. The introduction reads:

       An important element in the renewal of nuclear negotiations 
     with Iran in the talks in Istanbul April 13 14, 2012, was an 
     alleged fatwa attributed to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali 
     Khamenei, according to which the production, stockpiling, and 
     use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the 
     Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons. 
     Indeed, U.S. leaders, among them Secretary of State Hillary 
     Clinton and even U.S. President Barack Obama, along with 
     other representatives to the talks, the International Atomic 
     Energy Agency Board of Governors, and even highly respected 
     research institutes considered the fatwa as an actual fact, 
     and examined its significance and implications for the 
     nuclear negotiations with Iran that were renewed in Istanbul.
       However, an investigation by the Middle East Media Research 
     Institute reveals that no such fatwa ever existed or was ever 
     published, and that media reports about it are nothing more 
     than a propaganda ruse on the part of the Iranian regime 
     apparatuses in an attempt to deceive the top U.S. 
     administration officials and the others mentioned above.
       Iranian regime officials' presentation of facts on nuclear 
     weapons attributed to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as a fatwa, 
     or religious edict, when no such fatwa was issued by him, is 
     a propaganda effort to propose to the West a religiously 
     valid substitute for concrete guarantees of inspectors' 
     access to Iran's nuclear facilities. Since the West does not 
     consider mere statements by Khamenei or other regime 
     officials to be credible, the Iranian regime has put forth a 
     fraudulent fatwa the West would be more inclined to trust.

                             {time}   2020

  It goes on to talk about, and I'll just read from this:

       U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton clarified that she 
     had discussed the fatwa with ``experts and religious 
     scholars,'' and also with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip 
     Erdogan. At the NATO conference in Norfolk, Virginia, in 
     early April, she stated: ``The other interesting development 
     which you may have followed was the repetition by the supreme 
     leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, that he had issued a fatwa 
     against nuclear weapons, against weapons of mass destruction. 
     Prime Minister Erdogan and I discussed this at some length, 
     and I've discussed with a number of experts and religious 
     scholars. And if it is indeed a statement of principles and 
     values, then it is a starting point for being 
     operationalized, which means that it serves as the entryway 
     into a negotiation as to how you demonstrate that it is 
     indeed a sincere, authentic statement of conviction. So we 
     will test that as well.''
       During his visit to Tehran in late March, in an interview 
     with Iranian state television, Prime Minister Erdogan said, 
     ``I have shared the Leader's [Khamenei's] statement with U.S. 
     President Barack Obama and told him that in face of this 
     assertion, I do not have a different position, and the 
     Iranians are using nuclear energy peacefully.''
       On April 7, 2012, Kayhan International reported, citing 
     Press TV, that Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had 
     told the Turkish Kanal D TV that there is no possibility that 
     ``Khamenei's fatwa forbidding the possession and use of 
     nuclear weapons might be disobeyed in Iran.''

  So we can all celebrate. There's has been a fraudulent false report 
of a fatwa by Khamenei. So, gosh, nobody in Iran would violate this 
fatwa making it against the Islamic religion to develop nuclear 
weapons. When the truth is, if Israel is not going to defend itself by 
itself, as President Obama said it absolutely must on more than one 
occasion, if it is going to rely on the representations of this 
administration to, Trust us, we'll take care of you, we got your back, 
then Israel may want to note how easy it is to deceive this 
administration into believing what it wants--that Iran would not 
develop nuclear weapons.
  It is important to note that this administration has been praised in 
messages coming from the Islamic Society of North America and other 
groups actually named coconspirators in funding terrorism in the world. 
They've been praised by these named coconspirators in funding terrorism 
for their cleansing of training materials of our FBI, of our 
intelligence, of our State Department. We have gone through and 
eliminated words like ``jihad,'' words like ``Islam,'' words like 
``radical,'' replacing them with things like ``violent extremism.'' 
When the trouble is, it is so easy to deceive national officials in any 
country where they refuse to study the enemy who has sworn to destroy 
them. If you will not study the enemy who is sworn to destroy you and 
your country, then you will continue to be easily duped.
  So we have these named coconspirators for funding terrorism out there 
praising this administration and their meetings inside the hearts of 
the administration at the State Department, in the White House, in the 
Justice Department. They've been praised for eliminating all of these 
references to such inappropriate things as ``Islam.''
  Well, this weekend, despite efforts by some in this administration to 
prevent it, a few of us met with our allies, members of the national 
front, one of which could be elected the next President of Afghanistan. 
These are people who, while we in America were burying Americans, they 
were burying family members who had fought with us against the Taliban. 
These are the enemy of our enemy, the Taliban. They

[[Page H2202]]

should be our friends, and they are my friends.
  Therefore, when I saw my Muslim friends there at the home of my 
friend Massoud, there were big hugs all around. This administration 
calls them war criminals because some of them fight as viciously as the 
Taliban that they fight against, but they were friends. They fought 
with us. They did much of our fighting for us before we became 
occupiers in Afghanistan.
  Yet, when this administration throws our allies under a bus, it means 
for them to stay there. Well, some of us believe that if we ever hope 
to have other allies, then it is critical that we treat our allies with 
respect. We don't stab them in the back. We don't throw them under the 
bus. But that's a lesson hard learned.
  There are international reports that say President Karzai may be 
willing to resign a year early. That's been heard different places 
around the world. Gee, wow, isn't that wonderful if Karzai would resign 
a year early. But in meeting with my friends who have talked to some of 
Karzai's circle, they point out: Do you in America not understand that 
when this President Karzai says he's looking at retiring a year early, 
it's not because he is some big-hearted, wonderful, democracy-loving 
person? If he loved democracy, he'd let us elect our governors. He'd 
let us elect our mayors. But he wants to appoint them, and he's not 
ready to give up power. But the Afghan constitution apparently says 
that if you've served two terms, you cannot run for a third term.
  So, this President Karzai is looking at a way, when perhaps if he 
resigned a year early, then he could argue, I didn't serve two terms. I 
served 1 year short of two terms, therefore I can run for a third term.

                              {time}  2030

  Being as how the President of Afghanistan appoints the governors, the 
mayors, the chiefs of police, so many of the positions of power in 
Afghanistan, it's quite conceivable that he could ensure that he got 
elected again next time if he ran a third time. And if he were to be 
allowed to run a third time and get elected, that puts him beyond 2014, 
which means the United States will not be around to enforce the 
promises that President Karzai made.
  Oh, it's a hope and prayer that this administration will quit living 
on the false promises of people who say they're going to help us, but 
are sworn publicly and privately to destroy our way of life. And there 
are those we continue to hear say, Look, Israel is just occupiers. 
They're occupiers in this land. The Palestinians have more claim. But 
as Newt Gingrich pointed out, the term ``Palestinian'' is a very recent 
word that found usage. If you go back, as one reporter did, who ended 
up being let go, she marveled that these people ought to go back to 
Poland or wherever they came from, when actually if you look at where 
they came from 1,600, 1,700 years before Mohammed existed in the city 
of Hebron, a King named David ruled for 7 years. He then moved the 
capital up to Jerusalem, and a beautiful capital it was.
  Some have said, ``Well, where is the evidence of the Israelis being 
in Jerusalem?'' Well, we know that Mohammed never went to Jerusalem. He 
had a dream, as I understand it at one point, that he had gone there; 
but he never physically went. That's for sure. But here is the current 
city of Jerusalem. This is the city of David here, south of the Temple 
Mount, Mount Moriah, where Abraham went. It's interesting, because 
people have said, gee, where is the archeological evidence? And we see 
people around the country in Hebron where Jesse was buried, where his 
tomb is, in what I call Shiloh and they were calling Sheloh. The Ark of 
the Covenant, they've found the location, it certainly appears, where 
it was kept for over 300 years, long before there was a Mohammed.
  People have said, well, where is the evidence? It is beginning to 
show up in droves. Quite interesting, as the archeologists have begun 
to look, they've realized, you know what, the city of David may have 
been south down the hill from where the current Temple Mount is. They 
began excavating, and they found all kinds of dramatic evidence of 
Israel's existence. It's dramatic. There is no question from the things 
that are being found and the way they're being dated and the dates that 
are coming to light that Israel existed in the land where it has its 
country now. Not just in part, but throughout the West Bank. That was 
Israeli territory many, many centuries before a man named Mohammed 
lived.
  I'm not attempting to push my religious beliefs on anybody else. 
These are simply the facts of history that we have to look at and 
understand. Until we have an administration that stops blinding those 
who are supposed to protect us, we're in big trouble. So it is 
important that we pay tribute to our dear friend Israel, stop the 
betrayals, and say thank God for the nation of Israel and the dear 
friend that they are to the United States.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________