[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 146 (Thursday, November 15, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6391-H6395]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1810
VIOLENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tipton). 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. Mr. Speaker, violence is continuing to erupt in the
Middle East. Unfortunately, it remains true that for every action there
is a reaction. So when this administration decided to push its ally,
President Mubarak, out of leadership in Egypt, it was assisting in
creating instability around our other ally, Israel. And that
instability continues to grow.
One of the things that was helpful from Egypt while President Mubarak
was in charge, at least there were some efforts to restrict the
transfer of rockets into the Gaza Strip. So there were some tunnels
that would be found. The tunnels had to be kept small, so they were
able to get smaller rockets into Gaza. But now that there is a new
regime, apparently the bigger rockets are getting into Gaza, and they
pose more and more of a threat as they continue to be fired into
Israel.
The action is not only the fall of an ally, President Mubarak, but
the assistance in bringing to power in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood.
They want to see Israel gone, and they would also not mind seeing the
United States gone.
[[Page H6392]]
It's important when formulating foreign policy that the United
States, particularly the Obama administration, decide are we going to
be assisted with our own personal security here in the United States by
the actions that we take, or are the reactions that are going to be
caused by our actions actually going to cause greater threats to our
closest allies and to ourselves. And, unfortunately, that's what we're
seeing. In fact, I saw an article in May of 2010 which indicated that
this administration, the Obama administration, sided with Israel's
enemies in demanding that Israel disclose any nuclear weapons. We'd
never sided with Israel's enemies in trying to push Israel into doing
something against its own interests. When you're a very small country
surrounded by countries that want to see you go away, it is important
that they not know all of your defenses.
Going back in the Old Testament, you find history, King Hezekiah
showing all of their treasure and all of their defenses. All of their
defenses they had in their armory, he showed them to the leaders of
Babylon. As a result, ultimately that kingdom was lost to the
Babylonians.
You don't show other nations, even people you think are friends at
the moment; they may turn into enemies. It is important that your
enemies, and even your friends, not know all of your defenses. And yet
we sided with Israel's enemies, or at least this administration did.
The result we saw within 2-3 days, the flotilla head from Turkey to
challenge the blockade of the Gaza Strip. It was a legitimate, lawful
blockade that was trying to keep rockets out of Gaza that would inflict
death and terror upon Israel. A legitimate blockade. The only things
being kept out were weapons, rockets, things that would kill the
Israelis and terrorize our ally. But that's what happens. You have
challenges to a nation when that nation's enemies see their strongest
ally pull away and siding with that nation's enemies.
That's why it was so important, and I began pushing at that time, to
have Prime Minister Netanyahu invited to speak here in this Chamber.
And a year later, to his great credit, Speaker Boehner, at the urging
of many of us, invited Prime Minister Netanyahu, and he gave the best
speech I've heard here in Congress. It helps when a nation's enemy sees
their strongest ally siding with them.
On the other hand, when a nation's enemies see the strong ally, in
this case the United States, turning on an ally, as this administration
had with President Mubarak, and helping people who want to see Israel
gone from the map take power, it encourages Israel's enemies.
This administration also had relations with Qadhafi, who had opened
up--he had blood on his hands from prior years, not a good man, but he
had opened up his country, abandoned any nuclear weapons pursuit, and
become an ally. I have seen individual family members of Muammar
Qadhafi here in Washington to meet with administration officials. And
then, lo and behold, a year and a half or so ago, this administration
sides with the enemies. And at the time we knew al Qaeda was contained
within the revolt, and we sided with the al Qaeda-backed revolt to
drive out Qadhafi. That appears to have inspired the violence in
Tunisia.
And so we have seen Israel's enemies and our own enemies actually
grow in strength--Tunisia, Libya, Egypt--coming on to surround Israel,
and any threat to Western values that are found in Israel is a threat
to our own existence. And it's important that someone in this
administration make repeated note of that because the result here
recently has been further violence to our friend and ally, Israel.
So we have this report, November 15, 2012, three people were killed
as rockets fired from Gaza struck southern Israel escalating violence.
They died when a four-story building in the town of Kiryat Malachi was
hit. There had been about 200 rockets fired into Israel. Israel's Iron
Dome was able to intercept many of them, but couldn't possibly
intercept as many as 200.
{time} 1820
``Hamas' political leader Khaled Mashaal vowed to continue the
`resistance' against Israel,'' Reuters news agency reported.
This ``resistance'' is just another word for ``violence.'' They're
inflicting violence on Israel and then turning around and blaming
Israel for defending itself and trying to continue to grow world
opinion against the tiny nation of Israel when it's not Israel that is
demanding the total annihilation of its enemies in surrounding
countries. They just want to live in peaceful coexistence. But this
administration has helped its enemies take over the countries
surrounding it.
And now we're aware of enemies coming into Jordan, beginning to
incite a potential revolt there against another ally who must wonder is
this administration going to turn on him next.
King Abdullah has not been someone with whom we've agreed on all
things, but he has kept a relatively very peaceful border with Israel.
So necessarily he would wonder, Because I've kept the peace with Israel
on their border, am I going to be targeted next? And the answer needs
to come very loudly and very clearly--and it doesn't seem to be much of
a muffle at all--that we support those who will prevent violence
against Israel, against their Western values, against their desire to
just live in peace and be left alone. And yet we've helped their
enemies build violence and potential for more violence around it.
This story from Sky News reported that the rockets hit near Tel Aviv
deeper into Israel. Palestinian militants target Israel with nearly 150
rockets, striking the outskirts of Tel Aviv as Israel continues
airstrikes.
And there has been a problem: Since this administration helped create
the environment in north Africa and in the Middle East where those who
want to see Israel destroyed could take power, more violence has
occurred, not less; more people's lives are in danger, not less.
There's less freedom of worship, not more. The things that we believe
in--freedom of worship of all people or no worship if people choose not
to worship--these kinds of things should be kept inviolate.
And yet we've seen, as this Nation took over Afghanistan, more
Americans have died in about half the time under Commander in Chief
Obama as died during the 7 years and 3 months under President Bush in
Afghanistan, American military. Over 70 percent of those killed in
Afghanistan have been under Commander Obama in about half the time.
We've seen violence escalating against Americans in Afghanistan. We've
seen the last Christian church, public Christian church pull out of
Afghanistan.
This administration should be encouraging freedom of worship,
encouraging the liberation of women, of children. And yet for all its
help, it's created environments in Libya, in Egypt, in Afghanistan, in
Iraq where there is more and more violence, more and more oppression
against women, against children, against Christians, against Jews,
against anyone who wants to worship other than in a radical Islamist
way.
Sometimes we wonder who's in charge in this administration because
somebody's got to figure it out. So I was glad to hear President Obama
say yesterday, Don't be accusing Ambassador Rice of going out and
lying.
And we know that something is not a lie unless somebody knows that
it's not true when they say it. The President apparently indicated that
she was given the information that was untrue, to go out and spread
those untruths. And if she didn't know that the statements she was told
by the White House to go out and tell were not truths, then she was not
lying. And she should be given credit for not lying if she didn't know
those untruths she was telling were not true.
But then it raises more and more questions. You know, who is in
charge there?
Woodward's book raises the issue of the President coming to meetings
over crises and not even knowing who's going to be coming to brief him
on things; whereas, a strong leader would come in and, I want to hear
from this person, this person, this person.
Who's making the decisions? Who does know what's true and not true in
this administration? Who can we depend on at 3 in the morning when we
have public servants who have been sent into harm's way to do this
administration's bidding, who is going to answer that phone and say,
The people
[[Page H6393]]
that we ordered into harm's way on our behalf are in trouble? Right
now, get them all the help we can give them. Who's going to answer that
call? Why does it take 8 hours to get the people ordered into harm's
way some help? We're stronger than that. We've got vehicles, planes,
things that can get there faster.
So why are people trying to cover up who makes those decisions? Who
decides not to help the people we have in harm's way? And if we don't
figure that out, how can we expect anybody to ever come forward and
sign up to put their lives on the line for their country?
We have the greatest military in the history of this country. The men
and women who have served this country throughout our history have been
extraordinary, but never with the power and the ability of the military
that we have now. It's extraordinary.
But when this administration creates rules of engagement that even go
one step worse than telling our people, When you're fired on, you can
defend yourself, but if you're not fired on and somebody raises a
weapon and they're going to shoot at you, they look like they're going
to shoot at you, you have got to wait to make sure they're going to
shoot at you before you shoot back, that's the kind of impression our
military has gotten in the field in the past.
But as I've talked to military members in Afghanistan, it's their
impression that the rules of engagement are such that now when they're
fired at, they can't fire back if they think there might be a civilian
somewhere that might get hit, because if they do and they hit a
civilian, even defending themselves in what in America would be self-
defense, sent into harm's way might get them sent to prison when they
get home. So they are tasked with an unenviable position of deciding,
Do I want to defend myself against death and risk going to prison when
I get home, being jailed by the country that I'm trying to defend, to
serve?
We've got to get some answers of who's making the decisions that are
getting our military killed, that have gotten an Ambassador killed,
that got two former SEALs killed. We have got to get some answers.
Who's covering this stuff up? Somebody is. We can't get the story
straight.
{time} 1830
General Petraeus is supposed to appear tomorrow.
We need an independent prosecutor to do an investigation, not with
the intention, as apparently Fitzgerald had, of ``getting somebody,''
so that he goes into the investigation into whether or not Valerie
Plame was outed and he finds out the answer and decides to do what he
can to get somebody inside the Bush administration, even though he knew
that Scooter Libby was not responsible and was set up. He should have
been truthful. You should always be truthful. But the prosecutor was
not honorable in the way that that was pursued. If he knew the answer
as to who had outed Valerie Plame, that it was not Scooter Libby, it
was not Karl Rove, he should have been honorable enough to own up to
that instead of asking for more money and trying to set up other
individuals.
So with those kinds of things going on, it's understandable how
people would expect that having an independent counsel might not be a
good idea. But when there are clearly conflicts of interest, when you
have an FBI that is investigating information that involves the
Director of the CIA, when you have an Attorney General that has
information that needs to go immediately to the Commander in Chief, to
the President of the country, we need to find out, did it go there, and
if not why not. And, if so, what in the world is the President doing
with this information because now he's saying they didn't get it until
after the election. Why so long? Where are the problems here? Why are
the stories different? Why are the stories that were told different
from the evidence those people had in their hands when they told their
stories? The answers need to be found, and there's clearly a conflict
of interest.
We do not need to return to the days of an FBI Director who
investigates, not to report to the Commander in Chief, but to gather
information so that he can get it and use it or provide it to someone
else who can use it to force people to do what they want.
So what happens when an FBI Director comes into office honorably,
with the best of intentions, as it appears J. Edgar Hoover did, to
battle organized crime that was such a blot on this country. When
you're in power too long, as Stalin, who should have known, said, With
power dizziness.
So there has to be accountability. It's what the Founders had in
mind. Checks and balances. We've seen with the Supreme Court's decision
in ObamaCare that they're going to allow unconstitutional laws to go
forward. They're not going to be the ones to rein in violations of the
Constitution that are contained in bad legislation: You guys in
Congress need to figure that out. Our Chief Justice punted on that one.
So it's back to us. Members of Congress have the purse strings. And
if the administration will not properly appoint a special prosecutor to
investigate, not with the intent of putting someone in jail but to see
if there is something that needs to be prosecuted, if they're not
willing to do that, then we need to cut off funds to those areas that
are refusing to do justice. Because an Injustice Department should not
be funded, at least the parts of it that are doing injustice. There are
parts that are serving nobly and well. Fund those parts.
We have the power of the purse to check and balance an administration
running amok. So when an administration takes actions to make sure that
people who are illegally voting have the chance to illegally vote, we
need to look at what areas we are funding there. Because if there's a
Justice Department that is assisting--complicit--in seeing that people
not legally allowed to vote, vote, then we have the power of the purse
strings to do something about it, and we should. And if the Senate
fails to rein in injustice, they need to be exposed, those who stand in
its way. Because that's the great thing about America. When Americans
get the truth, they stand on the truth and stand for justice. They
always have. But they've got to get the truth.
And sometimes these days it's hard to know what's true. When you have
an administration sending out different stories, and then we find out
that they knew all along that it was a violent, coordinated attack on
our Ambassador, that the two former SEALs that were killed were not
killed seeking cover, as this administration released that they were.
You had one on the top of a building using a machine gun, fighting to
the end to protect others. That's not a man seeking cover. That's a man
giving cover to others. That's a man laying down his life for his
country. And this administration did not serve him as he served it.
We need to get to the bottom of what's going on. Whatever it takes,
lawfully, ethically, we need to get to the bottom of it. We need to
require that if this administration is going to continue getting
funding, it better start protecting those who are protecting it. And if
that means that in order to protect those who are in harm's way, then
let's fund those who are in harm's way protecting us and not fund the
rest until they are committed to protecting those of us who are in
harm's way. We can do that.
Social Security, despite the lies that were told by some in the last
couple of years that, oh gee, if there's a shutdown, Social Security
recipients, you're not going to get a dime. Garbage. Those are lies.
And people need to know if and when those things start getting told,
they are lies, whoever would tell them, because the law has been passed
previously that if there is a government shutdown, Social Security
recipients will get their Social Security checks. They will be coming.
Because the money will continue to come in. Just because there has been
a government shutdown in the past did not mean that people didn't have
to send in their tax payments. They have to come. You commit a crime if
you intentionally refuse to pay taxes.
So the money comes in. Social Security checks will go out. We've had
bills in the past, and we'll have them as soon as we start a new
Congress, that will ensure that those Americans who are standing in the
gap, who are in harm's way for us, those men and women wearing
uniforms, should never have to worry about whether or not
[[Page H6394]]
their paycheck will be forthcoming; that regardless of what kind of
games get played here in Washington, they're going to get paid. They
ought to know that. We ought to pass that bill like we have with Social
Security to make sure those in harm's way don't have to worry about
that.
And then the message needs to be loud and clear that an
administration that refuses, whether it's intentional or neglect,
negligence, that fails to ensure the protection of those protecting us,
you're not going to get funded until we get commitments to make sure
it's done in the future. And when you obfuscate the truth and you keep
us from finding out who made these decisions that got our people
killed, what in the heck were they doing over there in the first place?
Our embassy's not in Benghazi. What was going on? Who gave the order
for Ambassador Stevens to be there in harm's way? Until we can start
finding out those answers, it's going to be impossible to make sure
that we protect those who are protecting us in the future. And what
kind of message does that send to our allies?
{time} 1840
In Israel, a year ago, a minister told me that they routinely get
visits from Chinese diplomats who say: Hey, have you figured out you
can't trust the United States yet? Because we'll be your great ally.
We'll be a lot better ally than the United States has been. All you've
got to do is let us know when you figure it out. You can't trust the
United States; they'll break their word, you can't count on them. When
you find that out, let us know. We'll keep coming around because you'll
find out at some time.
Listen, there never needs to be a time again ever when a United
States ally is betrayed by the United States. When we make an agreement
with an ally, with a friend, that agreement needs to be kept. People
need to know that this country keeps its word. Even when it hurts, we
keep our word. And that seems to be a problem lately.
You want to go back to when America began to grow economically and
become a power economically? After the War of 1812 that dragged on for
2 years really destroyed so much, including the fire in this very
building--this section was not here yet, but the central part of the
Capitol, fires were set. The smaller Federal offices out here in what
we now consider the Mall, they were burned. The White House was set on
fire--even though the interior was completely destroyed, the exterior
shell was left in place. But that also was true of much of the country,
devastated. But there were loans that had been taken out by Americans
from British banks before the War of 1812. Those in British banks might
have suspected that as a result of our war with Great Britain, 1812 to
1814, that at the end of the war we would not pay our debts. But
instead what happened, those American forefathers, foremothers, they
agreed, look, we made a promise to pay back our loans to the banks in
England, we're going to stand good for our word, despite the fact that
their country destroyed so much of ours.
And it was after the world took note that Americans had such
incredible honor, that even after a war with Great Britain they would
stand behind their commitments to pay back their loans to the British
banks, people said: Wow, this is a country we can do business with, and
American economic power began to grow to where it is now the strongest
economic power in the world.
Now, people are beginning to wonder: Should we end the dollar as an
international currency because we're not sure you can trust the United
States? It's time people quit wondering whether they can trust the
United States. There's only one way that will happen, and that is when
we have an administration--and this one's been reelected for 4 years,
so it has to be this one--stops playing games, stops covering up truth,
stops giving mixed signals, and is forthcoming: Here are our policies;
we have made agreements; we stand by our agreements. King Abdullah, we
may disagree with you on a bunch of things, but we have agreements, and
we will keep our agreements. This administration needs to make those
things clear.
When someone attacks an ally of ours with whom we have agreements, we
stand by our agreements. That's the way you prevent wars. Because what
we're seeing right now in Israel, with this enhanced and heightened
violence that's beginning to occur, people have seen this
administration pulling back from our commitments to Israel. That's the
way it appears to Israel's enemies. So of course the rockets have
gotten bigger that they've been able to smuggle in and construct there
in Gaza. The rockets are flying farther into Israel--right now up to
their capital at Tel-Aviv--because this administration has not stood
firmly enough with our ally. We need to make that clear.
This Secretary of State should not be authorized by the President to
tell Egypt, sure, the Muslim Brotherhood appears to be back in charge;
sure, Israel is our ally; sure, you want to see Israel wiped off the
map; but here's a billion and a half dollars. That's not the message
that should be coming. The message that should be coming from this
administration is: not one more dime until you start keeping your
agreement to protect the border of Israel, not another dime. That ought
to be the message. Because Israel is our ally. And if you, Egypt, are
going to be our ally, you're going to have to protect our allies as
well. That's not an entangling alliance; that's a country that stands
by its agreements. Don't make agreements unless we intend to keep them.
Yet we've seen this administration repeatedly throw our allies under
the proverbial bus. It's got to stop. People have got to know in other
countries they can trust our word.
And just like the West African told me when I was there 2 years ago,
you've got to tell the people in Washington to quit getting weaker. We
were so excited when you elected a black President, but we've seen
America get weaker. You've got to tell people in Washington to quit
letting your country get weaker, because if America grows weak, we have
no chance of peace in this life. That was echoed by others, other West
Africans.
It's time to stop growing weaker. It's time to stop breaking our word
to our allies. It's time to make clear to Israel's enemies that Israel
is our friend, you better back off or you're going to have us
militarily to answer to.
Is it any surprise more rockets are flying at Israel? This
administration wins 4 more years and the violence just gets greater
against Israel, Israel then forced to defend itself when they just want
to live in peace. They want the countries around them to stop demanding
their obliteration from the map.
If the U.N. is going to persist in helping those who want to see a
member of the United Nations wiped off the map, then the U.N. does not
need to continue to have the United States as a member. That's the way
it ought to be. It ought to be clear. We joined the U.N. The U.N. has a
charter that will protect its member states. And if you're going to
assist those who want to obliterate Israel, then we will no longer be a
part of the United Nations because it's not united, it's anti-Semitic.
It's not united, and we will not be part of an un-United Nations.
It's time to get serious because people are dying around the world,
including our own Ambassador. It's time to quit covering for the truth.
Let us get down to what the truth is. Let the chips fall where they
may. Let us find out who did what wrong so we can correct it for the
future. And I hope and pray there was no criminal activity--certainly
there was negligence, but you don't know until we get a proper
investigation.
An Attorney General cannot properly investigate himself. An Attorney
General cannot properly investigate his boss. One department, the FBI,
cannot properly investigate another agency unless that department's
ultimate boss, the President, is aware and coordinates. And now that we
know that did not happen--according to the President, he knew nothing.
Like Sergeant Schultz from the old Hogan's Heroes, I know nothing, I
know nothing, not until after the election. My administration kept me
from knowing anything that was going on so I didn't make these
decisions, somebody else made those decisions. I didn't know anything
until after the election. They kept all this stuff from me, so I had
plausible deniability. I didn't know of this stuff.
[[Page H6395]]
{time} 1850
It's time somebody knew, but we're not going to get to the bottom of
it until we have an independent investigation by someone with the power
to do that properly. And if the executive branch will not do what the
Constitution would require in a conflict of interest situation like
this, then we need a select committee to do the investigation, get to
the bottom of it, just as the Watergate committee did.
Let the chips fall where they may, because when people, in government
and out of government, see that the government is actually interested
in truth, then government gets the truth. People have more faith in the
government, and we have a better country. And I hope and pray that day
will come.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________