[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 63 (Monday, May 7, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2310-H2315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AFGHANISTAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have an article that is dated today, Monday, May 7, 2012, from the
Associated Press, Congress's Intelligence Heads: Taliban Has Grown
Stronger under Obama.
Senator Dianne Feinstein and Representative Mike Rogers, who I just
saw outside, a smart guy, former FBI agent, well respected in the areas
of law enforcement and the security of this country, well, as the
article points out, and there are other articles as well, I believe
Human Events also had one, but this article from the AP says:
The leaders of congressional intelligence committees said
Sunday they believed that the Taliban had grown stronger
since President Barack Obama sent 33,000 more U.S. troops to
Afghanistan in 2010.
The pessimistic report by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D Calif.,
and Rep. Mike Rogers, R Mich., challenges Obama's own
assessment last week in his visit to Kabul that the ``tide
had turned'' and that ``we broke the Taliban's momentum.''
The two recently returned from a fact-finding trip to the
region where they met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
``President Karzai believes that the Taliban will not come
back. I'm not so sure,'' Feinstein said. ``The Taliban has a
shadow system of governors in many provinces.''
When asked if the Taliban's capabilities have been degraded
since Obama deployed the additional troops two years ago,
Feinstein said: ``I think we'd both say that what we've found
is that the Taliban is stronger.''
I was in Afghanistan a couple weeks ago. I was in Afghanistan a
couple months before that. And as one of the Afghans pointed out,
former ally--well, they are still allies, as far as they are concerned.
This administration has thrown them under the bus--but they pointed
out, you know, from the Taliban's perspective, they have said we, the
Taliban, do not have to win a single battle. All we have to do is be
here when the United States leaves.
Now, a couple of weeks ago, of course, the administration, two
Cabinet members, were requesting that my dear friend, Dana Rohrabacher,
not go into Afghanistan for one reason--that President Hamid Karzai
didn't want him to come in. Now, apparently, Karzai, ignorant of what
is actually going on in Washington, had said that my friend,
Congressman Rohrabacher, proposed a bill that would partition or divide
up Afghanistan. Well, I worked with Congressman Rohrabacher on his very
good bill, and basically it is a sense of Congress that says we support
the Afghans' right to vote for their leaders.
Now, I understand Secretary Clinton inherited a State Department and
a situation in Afghanistan that was not of her making. I get that. And,
in fact, we sat by and even assisted as Afghanistan created a
constitution based on sharia law that has now resulted in the last
public Christian church closing. It's a system where the President gets
to appoint governors, mayors, chiefs of police, many of the higher-
level teachers, slate of legislators. He gets powerful control over so
much of the purse strings. So it was amazing to see the President over
kind of doing what appeared to be a victory lap around Afghanistan and
back home: gee, the Taliban's back is broken, things are looking good,
and we now have an agreement going forward with Afghanistan. Great
news.
[[Page H2311]]
Well, when you find out from Afghans that actually the Afghanistan
Government has a $12.5 billion budget and all the sources of revenue
that Afghanistan can come up with provide $1.5 billion of their $12.5
billion budget, and the rest comes from other countries, you would
presume largely from the United States, and when one considers the
billions of dollars that we are spending for humanitarian projects,
training farmers to farm as I've met with the teachers, American
teachers teaching Afghans to farm, and they were so depressed because
the billions we've spent, given basically to Afghanistan to create
farming projects so the people can maintain themselves when we're gone,
have not made its way to any of those projects in that region of the
country. There is one region where apparently some has made it to
projects, but certainly not all and probably not most of them.
So it would seem if you're the President of the United States and you
go to a country whose government has a $12.5 billion budget and they
can only come up with $1.5 billion of that and you're the big force
behind all of the other $11 billion, it would seem to me that there
shouldn't be a whole lot of negotiation that has to take place.
{time} 2000
What kind of person does not understand leverage? The President
accepted, of course, because it appears that the foreign policy that
we've run into from President Obama's administration is we've got
people around the world that hate us, want to destroy us, so we're
going to give them money. We're going to buy them an office in Qatar,
as we've offered the Taliban. We're going to be releasing their
murdering thugs that we've got in detention, and then maybe they will
like us enough to agree with us. That sounds like somebody that spent
too much time community organizing and not enough time studying
history. That's no way to negotiate.
If one wishes to approach an individual, and like in my situation,
being a Christian, we're supposed to help the needy--``blessed are the
meek.'' The Beatitudes are quite compelling.
The government has a different role. The government is to protect the
people. As Romans 13 points out, if you do evil, be afraid, because the
government does not bear the sword in vain. The government's role is to
protect people so individually they can live the kind of life that so
much of our heritage embraces. The government is supposed to protect
the people; it's supposed to punish evil, and it actually is supposed
to encourage good.
We've gotten so far off track. Back in the sixties, well-intentioned,
we began paying young women to have children out of wedlock, born out
of the best of intentions--deadbeat dads were not helping, so let's
help them out. Instead, what they did is lure young women away from a
high school education, in many cases--I've had many of them come before
my court--and lure them into a rut they couldn't get out of.
We have senior citizens on Social Security whose religious beliefs
embrace marriage as being the ultimate living situation between a man
and a woman. Yet they have guilt because they know they can't live on
what little they have, and they know that if they marry another person
that they're living with--I've heard from folks like this--that lives
on Social Security as well, then their Social Security will be reduced
if they get married, so they live together.
The President's own proposal, although he's been out saying he was
going after millionaires and billionaires, when you look at the
specific proposals--which he finally put in print so we can see in
print what he really believes--as he continues to say we're going after
millionaires and billionaires, the Buffett tax, that kind of thing, you
look at the specific proposal and he goes after everybody making more
than $125,000 a year if you're married, $250,000 if you're filing
jointly. If you're single, it can be $200,000 to $225,000. So, once
again, the President wants to promote living together rather than being
married, as evidenced by what he provides money for.
Now, we know that we've been told by this administration repeatedly,
look, if we just show the Taliban how good a people we are and how good
our motivation is, then they'll fall into line. I've said and will keep
saying: You don't have to pay people to hate you; they'll do it for
free. We are wasting billions. We have wasted trillions of dollars over
all these many years. So this administration continues to try to buy
the affection of the Taliban.
Let's see. This article was from CNN, and they reiterate:
The heads of the Senate and House intelligence Committees
Sunday said the Taliban was gaining ground.
The President added, the administration was in direct
discussion with the Taliban, saying the group can be a part
of the country's future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce
violence, and abide by Afghan laws.
We saw that same kind of effort by this administration. There was a
Taliban leader who was released with the consent of this administration
basically because it was the humanitarian thing to do, to let him go
die in peace. Well, he was released from detention. As the Afghans, who
have buried family and friends while fighting with American troops
against the Taliban initially--before this administration threw them
under the bus--they've said, hey, that Taliban leader that you
released, the U.S. authorized the release because he was going to go
die and this would be the humanitarian thing to do, guess what? He is
back in Afghanistan, and he was on Afghanistan's biggest television
station. He said three things. Two of them were that it is very clear
to the world that the United States has lost, and that's why the United
States--as everyone in the world knows who's paying attention--the
United States is begging the Taliban to come just sit down and
negotiate with us. Please, we know you murdered thousands of Americans.
We get that. That's okay. Just sit down with us. We'll keep releasing
your murdering thugs if you will just agree to sit down with us and
talk. Why, we'll even buy you a wonderful office in Qatar so you will
have international prestige to spread whatever goodwill you wish to
spread. Well, that would be known, Mr. Speaker--if the President would
pay attention--that would be known as radical jihad. That is what they
wish to spread.
Here's a news report today from foxnews.com from Kabul:
The U.S. has been secretly releasing captured Taliban
fighters from a detention center in Afghanistan in a bid to
strengthen its hand in peace talks with the insurgent group,
the Washington Post reported Monday.
Who in the world who has ever studied history comes around and says
we're releasing the murdering thuggish war criminals to strengthen our
own end? We're letting our enemy have their murdering thugs back to
strengthen our hand. Perhaps a community organizer would think that.
The article says:
The strategic release program of higher-level detainees is
designed to give the U.S. a bargaining chip in some areas of
Afghanistan where international forces struggle to exercise
control. Under the risky program, the hardened fighters must
promise to give up violence and are threatened with further
punishment, but there is nothing to stop them from resuming
attacks against Afghan and American troops.
``Everyone agrees they are guilty of what they have done
and should remain in detention. Everyone agrees that these
are bad guys. But the benefits outweigh the risks,'' a U.S.
official told the Post.
In a visit to Afghanistan last week, President Barack Obama
confirmed that the U.S. was pursuing peace talks with the
Taliban.
You know, there was once a policy in this country that we did not
negotiate with terrorists, but that's the old days. This
administration's policy is, not only do we negotiate with terrorists,
we give them stuff.
{time} 2010
What do you want? Do you want more of your murdering thugs released
so maybe they can kill more of our Afghan allies or more American
troops? Eighteen hundred, is that enough? Do you want to kill more? We
hope you won't; but if you'll just say, we won't kill if you'll let us
go, then we'll let you go.
It reminds me of the naivete of Secretary Madeleine Albright and
President Bill Clinton who, in essence, told North Korea, look, we will
give you everything you need to make nuclear weapons if you'll promise
us that you will only use it to make nuclear power.
Really? North Korea basically said, really? All we have to do--you
know we're liars. You've caught us in lies repeatedly. But all we have
to do is tell
[[Page H2312]]
you we'll never use it for nukes, and you'll give us all this stuff?
Well, sure, yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah, you've caught us in so many lies?
What's one more?
So, guess who has nuclear weapons now that we worry about? The same
people the Clinton administration gave nuclear materials and
information, simply on the promise that they wouldn't use it to make
nuclear weapons.
What a lovely world it would be.
Back to the article from Fox News:
We have made it clear that they, the Taliban, can be a part
of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce
violence, and abide by Afghan laws. Many members of the
Taliban, from foot soldiers to leaders, have indicated an
interest in reconciliation. A path to peace is now set before
them, Obama said.
The upcoming NATO Summit in Chicago, the U.S. coalition
will set a goal for Afghan forces to take the lead in combat
operations across the country next year.
Look, Mr. Speaker, it makes sense that all of us should want peace.
All of us, I know in this body, want peace. But just as we've seen
signs around this Capitol since I've been in Congress saying war never
brought peace, there is a naivete of some people who think if you apply
individual blessedness, turn the other cheek, those kinds of things,
from a government standpoint, that other governments controlled by
terrorists, war criminals, mad men, that they will respond to that,
when the truth is that's an individual approach.
The Nation's government must be about providing for the common
defense, number one, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We
should be doing that. And that means when there are murdering thugs in
the world who have sworn to do everything they can to destroy the
United States of America, we have to take them seriously and take them
out, if necessary. We have that obligation to the people we were sent
here to protect.
When I took an oath to the United States Army, it was the same kind
of oath. We were supposed to serve and protect. And best of intentions,
good will does not defeat terrorists who have made clear they will not
stop until they're dead and, they think, in paradise, or we are dead
and our government gone.
Now, we know that the term Islamophobia, Islamophobe have come from--
been pushed by the Organization of Islamic Conference as a way to
further their goals. Anybody stands up to point out that there are
radical Islamist jihadists who want to destroy everyone who does not
believe as they do--we know that those people were behind 9/11, killing
3,000, over 3,000, innocent people, and that the only regret that those
individuals had was that more people were not killed. They'd hoped that
perhaps 50,000 55,000 would have been killed in the two World Trade
Centers.
You can't, as the United States Government, just turn the other cheek
when there are people coming into this country illegally wanting to
destroy us. They're not just people coming for jobs anymore. There's
the OTM, as they're classified.
So some of us who will call radical Islamic jihad what it is, a
policy of a minority, a small minority of Muslims, they want to call
some of us Islamophobes. Islamophobes. Give me a break.
Two weeks ago I was in Afghanistan. Karzai didn't want our friend,
Dana Rohrabacher, to go in. Dana, ever the patriot, he was persuaded by
Secretary Clinton not to push the issue because talks were in such
delicate shape at the time.
Delicate shape? We pull out, don't give any more money, and Karzai
collapses. He'll either be out of the country with money he's stowed
away, or he'll be subjugated by the Taliban if we pull out and don't
provide any assistance. And we have to go begging him for talks? Excuse
me? Delicate talks?
We know that President Karzai is Pashtun. He can deal with the
Taliban. It appears he's dealing with them somewhat like Maliki is
dealing with the Iranians who want to take over Iraq, caving, as
necessary, to keep his position.
There are ways to execute foreign policy that don't cost thousands of
American lives, that don't have to exist on the good intentions of
people who are sworn to murder and destroy us.
The enemy of our enemy is our friend. And that was seen, once again,
a couple of weeks ago in Afghanistan. Congressman Rohrabacher had hoped
to be at the meeting with our Northern Alliance friends. Most of them
are part of the National Front now. I would hope that one of them would
be elected President of Afghanistan.
My friend, Massoud, his older brother, might have been the one person
to unite the country; but the day before 9/11 the Taliban knew that, so
they assassinated him. Massoud's father-in-law, Rabbani, was
assassinated last September.
General Dostum, many consider the great hero of late 2001, early
2002, when the Northern Alliance tribes defeated the Taliban on
horseback, fearless warriors. And this administration thanks them by
publicly calling them war criminals. These were our allies. These are
the enemy of our enemy.
Yes, Muslim. No Islamophobe here, because I recognize the enemy of my
enemy is my friend.
{time} 2020
Those people fought with us and for us. There is something very
strong in the bond--or should be--between the people of the United
States who fought, buried family or loved ones, and those in the
Northern Alliance who fought with us and who buried family or loved
ones, friends. There is a bond there. But instead of embracing that
bond and utilizing that bond, those who fought for us and with us, who
did most of the fighting when the Taliban was initially defeated, have
been thrown under the bus.
So when they were gathering on Sunday 2 weeks ago and when they
wanted to meet with someone, three Members of Congress went. At first,
we were told, Well, gee, there's just not enough security to get you
there.
Then I pointed out to the person coordinating the security for our
five Members of Congress, Sir, do you see that gate out there at the
embassy? You're going to have to take me down before I get out the
gate.
He said, Sir, we're not authorized to take down a Member of Congress.
I said, Well, then, you will not stop me. I'm going to see our
friends. Massoud, who is the head of security, has assured me they're
going to have bulletproof vehicles to pick us up, and I'm going with
them.
Amazingly, thirty-or-so minutes after our next meeting, we had
American security taking us to the meeting. We were quite safe there.
They made sure of that. They didn't want anything to happen to their
American visitors.
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and Congressman Michael Burgess, we
would have had to have taken an additional vehicle had more than three
Members gone. So John Carter, being the gentleman, said, Mike Burgess,
why don't you go. Mike Burgess and Michele Bachmann and I went to see
our friends--Mohaqiq and numerous other leaders of the National Front.
Now, it's interesting. They pointed out--and you've probably heard--
about Karzai saying, Gee, he believes so much in our Constitution--and
the Constitution says, if you serve two terms, you can't run for a
third term--that he may resign a year early. He said, Your people, your
leaders in America seem to be eating that up.
The truth is that the people who are advising Karzai are all trying
to figure out--How can we get around that prohibition from running for
a third term?--and they think they may have it. They think that, if he
resigns a year early and if somebody else takes over Afghanistan for a
year, with or without an election, then he could say, Gee, I never
served two terms. I didn't make it two terms. I resigned before the
second term was up, so now I can run for a third term. Gee, the U.S. is
going to have troops out by 2014. Therefore, I could run in 2014. The
U.S. will not be around with any strength to enforce such an agreement
of my not running. And, gee, what if the people really want me to run?
We know there has been corruption in those votes over there, but the
system that's set up in Afghanistan is a system that creates conduits
for fraud. We could strengthen Afghanistan if we would simply allow the
people to elect their regional-provincial governors, elect their
mayors, let them pick their own chiefs of police, not the President
[[Page H2313]]
Karzai cronies. That's a system that's fraught with the kind of danger
you found, fraud you found in the old Roman Empire, where they would
appoint a governor of a region, but of course you had to kick back to
the one who appointed you. That's the kind of system they have right
now in Afghanistan.
In talking, there are some who say, Well, there are some supplies of
the Taliban's coming through northern Pakistan; but most people are
saying, We think the Taliban is getting most of their supplies through
southern Balochistan. The Baloch have been terrorized for decades by
northern Pakistan. Before 1947 48, when lines seemed to be arbitrarily
drawn in creating countries, Balochistan had never been a part of
Pakistan. For decades now, it has. The people have been terrorized.
After Congressmen Rohrabacher and Steve King also met with Baloch
leaders, the idea struck me: since these Baloch leaders are tired of
being terrorized by northern Pakistan, by the leaders in Islamabad,
they could be quite self-sufficient in having natural resources, which
is much of what the nation would need to survive on its own; and
they're our friends. There may be a lot of Muslims. This non-
Islamophobe knows that the enemy of our enemies is our friend. We can
support them. We can help each other. So that's why Congressman
Rohrabacher and I proposed a bill that would support the creation of an
independent Balochistan. As one person in the region over there said,
Wow, if Balochistan were independent, that would change everything.
Now, I know this President is not gifted on foreign policy--I get
that--but it doesn't mean he can't learn. Then you look at Pakistan.
While this administration is trying to play footsie with Pakistan and
while they're trying to play footsie with China, who was it they let in
to see our stealth helicopter? China. Who was it that they harbored in
their country--the greatest enemy, public enemy number one, of the
United States--and kept there, supposedly, for years? This
administration wants to placate them, how they can, just like it's
trying to do with the Taliban and our other leaders. Maybe we can buy
them off. Maybe we can do something to show them how sweet and kind we
are.
Those types of people see that as weakness. It's like blood to a
shark. They're drawn to it, and they will devour us if we don't show
strength rather than weakness.
So an independent Balochistan gave me an interesting idea.
Congressman Rohrabacher and I had done an op-ed that was published, and
it was my conviction that we stick in there a line about the potential
for an independent Balochistan. Interestingly, after that was
published, there was an article published in the Pakistan Daily News. I
thought I had a copy of it here. I must not. Oh, here it is. It was
published back in January. It says this in the article in the Pakistan
Daily Times:
In another interesting development, Louie Gohmert, a U.S.
Republican Representative, proposed that, in order to beat
the Taliban, the U.S. should carve out a new, friendly state,
Balochistan, from within Pakistan, to stabilize Afghanistan's
western border.
The article goes on:
Even if Mr. Gohmert does not necessarily speak for
Washington, it is logical to assume that he made this
observation after picking up the buzz in American political
circles. The U.S. wants a consulate in Quetta, but so far,
Pakistan has resisted this request. The geo-strategic
location of Balochistan and its potential in minerals, gas
and oil is something that interests the world's sole
superpower.
So says the Pakistan Daily Times.
{time} 2030
They say the Baloch resistance movement is one of the few, if not the
only one, that has not been declared a terrorist movement by the U.S.
The U.S.'s soft attitude towards this resistance movement does not
necessarily mean that they are enamored of the complaints and
aspirations of the Baloch, but that the Americans have their own vested
interest there. They may now want to snip away at the roots of the
Pakistan military's dual policy in the war on terror by a flanking move
in Balochistan.
The Pakistan Daily Times says:
Before this loud thinking is embraced as policy by
Washington, for our own territorial integrity, we should do
away with our double game in the war on terror and
politically settle Balochistan's issues. By helping the
Afghan Taliban and other jihadi groups, we have only weakened
our own country. It is time that the military realizes this
folly. Indiscriminate killing of the Baloch by the military
and its intelligence agencies cannot and must not be
tolerated. The political leadership must talk to the Baloch
resistance. Only through negotiations and a dialogue can the
Balochistan issue be settled peacefully.
The enemy of our enemy should be our friend. That is why when
Congresswoman Bachmann, Congressman Burgess, and I got to the home of
my friend Massoud, with all these other National Front leaders there
waiting, and I got out of the vehicle, they knew my heart. They know we
are friends who have the same enemies. And there was embracing all
around because it truly was good to see them, to see them alive, and to
see them in their own country in Massoud's own home. They fought with
us, they fought for us, and they bore the brunt of the battle against
the Taliban in late 2001 and early 2002 when they were routed
initially. We added over 100,000 troops, got over 100,000 under this
President, and things are not going as well as they were when the
Northern Alliance was fighting them with simply a matter of hundreds of
Americans embedded with air support. It's not going as well as it was
then.
Occupiers in Afghanistan--Russia for example. Going clear back to
Alexander the Great, we know he died leaving that area, that things
didn't go as well as he might have hoped. They've learned that
occupiers don't do all that well in Afghanistan. Empower the enemy of
your enemy. Don't try to buy off your enemy that is sworn to destroy
you. Empower the enemy of your enemy.
I mentioned earlier about the Taliban leader that we released who is
now back with the Taliban. I mentioned one of the three things he said.
He said, It's apparent to everybody that the U.S. has lost because
they're begging us to come negotiate. Another thing he pointed out,
which is consistent with sharia law, is that anyone who has not been
supportive of the Taliban in the past needs to first come to the
Taliban--and under Karzai they've been able to be more public, and they
have a public presence. He says, Come to us, ask for forgiveness, ask
for our protection, and you may be spared. From my understanding of
sharia law, you can avoid being killed under sharia law if you come ask
forgiveness and ask for protection in just such a way as this Taliban
leader--fresh from his U.S. reprieve--is out there saying.
And again, the Taliban position is, we probably can't defeat the U.S.
in a single battle. We don't have to--we've just got to be here when
you leave. And the heartbreaking aspect of that, for those of us who
have attended too many funerals of Americans who have paid the full
measure of devotion, is that if we leave and we leave a situation where
the Taliban is empowered again, other Americans will have to come down
the road in the future and fight the Taliban, and more American lives
will be lost. It's not necessary.
Had President Carter realized in 1979, when he welcomed the Ayatollah
Khomeini back into Iran as a man of peace, had President Carter
realized that Americans would be dying in America to protect America
because radical Islam had then been given a country in which to be
nourished, you would hope he would not have taken the same steps and
would not be as bitter toward so many as he is today after his failed
presidency.
Perhaps even President Reagan--with the best of intentions--if he had
realized that we were in a war, but only one side knew we were at war,
when our precious Marines were killed in an explosion in Beirut,
perhaps we wouldn't have run out so quickly. But for Heaven's sake, as
American buildings, embassies, individuals were attacked--and in 1993,
the first attempt on the World Trade Center, another act of war, was a
signal letting us know that since 1979 these people had been at war
with us. There was the Khobar towers, the USS Cole, further acts of
war. We've been at war; we just didn't know we were. Then we come to 9/
11, and we're totally shocked, totally unprepared because we did not
realize there was a war going on. We just didn't know we were in a war.
[[Page H2314]]
Now this administration seeks to go back to September 10, and it is
cleansing its training materials of any reference to Islamic jihad. It
is bringing in noncitizens. It is bringing in Members of the Muslim
Brotherhood to advise it. It is bringing in officers of named
coconspirators in the Holy Land Foundation trial supporting terrorism.
It's bringing in people who have ties supporting terrorism. It's
bringing them in to dictate our policy toward radical Islam. What have
they said? The first thing you've got to do is eliminate any reference
to Islam, any reference to jihad. So this administration, from the
Department of Justice, Department of State, Department of Defense,
intelligence agencies, has been very compliant. That is ongoing. As one
intelligence official said, we're blinding ourselves from the ability
to see our enemy.
What's going on these days will be the subject of historic articles
that will continue for centuries to ask how this Nation could be so
naive and/or stupid that we would be at war and not know it for 30-plus
years, and that in the fight of such a war, we would bring in people
who support our enemies' actions to tell us how to fight the war. There
will be articles and history books that will repeat the question: How
could they not see what they were doing was going to bring either an
end to America or devastation to America, one or the other?
{time} 2040
Well, we know that in the news this week, we have such people down in
Guantanamo, the 9/11 detainees, as they're referred to. I have got a
couple of articles here. The New York Times is talking about the
detainees showing defiance, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other
detainees: ``9/11 mastermind, four cohorts to be arraigned.'' That was
last week. ``Mohammed Joined By Four Codefendants in Deferring Pleas,''
a couple of days ago. There's another article: ``Outrage as
9/11 Defense Counsel Insists Women Cover Themselves.'' What happened to
the freedom the people in our military are fighting for? Amazing.
``Lawyer Defending 9/11 Suspects Wearing Burqa in Court `Out of
Respect.' ''
Well, there is a great article--and it certainly wasn't recent--that
points out that these detainees are ready to plead guilty. They're
ready to come in and plead guilty. And this is a New York Times
article: ``Five Charged in
9/11 Attacks Seek to Plead Guilty.'' Most people had not seen that
title. All they've been hearing about is how they're disrupting the
pleadings. This trial could go on for years and years. They're making a
mockery out of it. And the reason people haven't seen the title of this
article, ``Five Charged in
9/11 Attacks Seek to Plead Guilty,'' by the New York Times is because
it was published December 8 and 9 of 2008. In 2008, these detainees
indicated they were willing to plead guilty.
These detainees--particularly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed--had been
through a lengthy questioning by the judge. He had spelled out his role
in different things, not only in the 9/11 plot but his role in other
terrorist acts. He had filed a 6-page pleading where he sets out that,
if we have terrorized you, then praise be to Allah. He said, in
essence, in that pleading, if you are Jewish or American, you deserve
to die; you are an infidel. And he prayed that Allah would help them to
continue to terrorize America.
But a sad thing happened on the way between those guilty pleas in
late 2008 and here, going on 4 years later. Virtually nothing has been
accomplished. In fact, we are further back from where we were in
December of 2008 because we had the H&O policy--the Holder and Obama
policy--of, Gee, we're going to give you the chance--this isn't what
they said. But anybody who has eyes to see and ears to hear could
understand that what the Taliban, what al Qaeda, what radical Islamic
jihadists would hear is, We're going to give you a show trial. Why
would you want to plead guilty?
So these guys, as of December '08 said, Whoa, this guy Eric Holder--
hey, he's represented terrorists. He will identify with us. The
President, the community organizer he is, he's going to help us. So
they're going to give us a way that we can have a show trial. In fact,
the Attorney General wants to give us that show trial in downtown New
York. Wow. Allah be praised. We're going to get to go back to the scene
of the crime and create all that chaos and all the heartache for the
people of Manhattan.
Well, Congress, fortunately, said, that's not going to happen. They
are going to be tried at Guantanamo. But the damage had been done by
the H&O policy--the Holder and Obama policy to give them a show trial--
had taken hold. It had developed the imaginations of the 9/11 plotters
and planners. So now we're having a show trial. This time in
Guantanamo. Fortunately, not in the middle of where so much grief and
anguish took place in New York City.
Some had said at the time, Hey, this is New York City. You are an
outsider. You have no business saying anything about what we do in New
York City. This was an act of war against our country. The whole
country suffered together and came together as one on 9/12/2001. It
does pertain to the whole country.
As our friend Representative Weiner from New York chastised me, he
said, We all want to see them put to death in New York, and you have no
right to say otherwise. Well, having been a judge and chief justice, I
know those kinds of statements would be exhibit A or B of any motion to
transfer venue, that they can't possibly get a fair trial. They were
not well reasoned comments.
So here we are, going on 4 years later. Justice has not been done. A
travesty has been done to all the families of the victims of 9/11. They
can forgive. They can turn the other cheek. But as a government, our
role is different. We are to provide for the common defense. We are to
punish evil. We are to encourage good. And that means, any nation in
the world who has a government that wants to declare war on us, then be
advised: Many of us don't believe--like in Iran, we don't believe we
should go to war with Iran, but we'll take out the government that
wants to go to war with us. Obviously this administration feels like we
can buy time and has even given hints that they think they can live
with a nuclear Iran. Well, a lot of people would not live with a
nuclear Iran. A lot of people would die because of a nuclear Iran. It
does not need to be allowed to happen.
One other comment, though. There is a great article today out about
one of the banes of my existence, and that was TARP. George W. Bush is
a great man. He got a bad rap, was accused of lying when he did no such
thing. He didn't bother to defend himself when truckloads of yellow
cake uranium were taken out of Iraq, feeling that history would judge
him fairly. But he trusted a pitiful Secretary of the Treasury, Hank
Paulson, and we had something called TARP.
There is a great article in Human Events from today. ``Inspector
General report ends myth that TARP 'turned a profit.''' And David
Harsanyi goes on and points out very clearly that the money hasn't been
paid back, as promised. Some of it has been paid back by other
giveaways and gifts and loans by the Federal Government. And the
government, printing money to pay debt and then having interest on the
new money they've printed, is somehow making a profit. When the truth
is, as the article points out:
It's tricky to track $700 billion of emergency funding that
was haphazardly dropped into the economy by a panic-stricken
government, when accounting for the Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac bailout, the American taxpayer is probably owed somewhere
in the neighborhood of $237.7 billion--
But we were told it's all been paid back. Yeah, right.
--though some estimates are far higher. And it will be more.
The Treasury Department says that a large part of the money
lost via TARP is the result of the housing and car bailouts,
also not paid back. When the next Fannie and Freddie rescue
comes--as a number of reports have indicated will be needed--
taxpayers will be on the hook.
{time} 2050
Most of the banks that were ``too big to fail'' when TARP
was implemented are now even bigger. The report to Congress
points out that a recent working paper from Federal Reserve
economists ``confirms that TARP encouraged high-risk behavior
by insulating the risk takers from the consequences of
failure.''
That's why you never set aside free-market principles to save the
free market. If you have to do that, the free market is not worth
saving. But it was
[[Page H2315]]
worth saving and there were free-market principles that could have been
followed to get us out of that mess to avoid encouraging further risk
taking.
And I would commend, Mr. Speaker, people to Mike Franc's work at the
Heritage Foundation that disclosed that despite the rhetoric of the
President, how he's going after fat cats on Wall Street, the Wall
Street executives and their immediate family donated to President Obama
four-to-one over Senator McCain. And they've done extremely well under
this President. It's almost as if there is a deal: Look, I'll call you
``fat cats,'' I'll call you all kinds of names--millionaires,
billionaires--I'll trash you, but you'll make more money than ever and
then I'll put taxes on those that make over $125,000, and then I'll say
I'm going after major oil, Big Oil, and probably nobody will read the
bills.
I read it. I read the President's own words. He's going after
independent oil companies. He's eliminating their deductions, not the
major oil. He's not going to hurt major oil, from what he's proposed,
but he'll put the independents out of business. The majors will make
more money than ever because 95 percent of all wells drilled in the
continental U.S. are drilled by independent oil and gas producers. So
he says he's going after major oil, but they'll make more money than
ever if he gets his way.
One other thing: This is an election year, and my colleague from
Texas was really going after Texas over the voter ID. I would point out
to my friend from Texas, and any others, Mr. Speaker, that the fact is
that bill in Texas says, if you can't afford a State ID card, we'll
give you one. There are people that volunteer to even get you there to
get it done. Let's avoid fraudulent elections further.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________