[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 118 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5438-H5439]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE PRESIDENT BEATS THE DRUMS FOR WAR

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Poe) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Speaker, the drums of war are being beaten by 
the President who, ironically, won the Nobel Peace Prize. The ``Peace 
President'' wants to fire missiles into Syria because tyrant Assad is 
violating the rules of war by allegedly using chemical weapons. The 
President's goal is not to remove Assad, not to destroy the chemical 
weapons, but to send Assad a message.
  To be clear, there is no imminent national security threat or 
interest for the United States by us starting this war. And make no 
mistake, shooting rockets into another country is an act of war.
  War has consequences. What if the outlaw Assad chooses then to use 
chemical weapons again or chooses to shoot back? He could retaliate 
against the United States, one of our embassies, the Navy that fired 
the rockets, or other U.S. military installations, or even specific 
troops, or retaliate against his neighbor, Turkey, or Israel, using our 
aggression as an excuse. In any of these situations, this limited war 
escalates with more U.S. response, intervention, and involvement.
  Now, who are the players in this war that is taking place already? On 
one side you have Syria, tyrant Assad, with the aid of Russia, with the 
aid of Iran that news reports say has 10,000 Iranian troops in Syria, 
and Hezbollah. Hezbollah, as you remember, Madam Speaker, is a 
terrorist group.
  Then, on the other side, you have the Free Syrian Army. You have 
patriots. You have mercenaries, paid soldiers from other countries. You 
have criminals that have come in to just pillage the land and use this 
as an opportunity. You also have al Nusra, an al Qaeda affiliate. You 
also have al Qaeda from Iraq. Now, last time I recall, the United 
States is already at war with al Qaeda. They are the enemy of the 
United States.

                              {time}  1015

  And it looks like now you've got the terrorist group Hezbollah on one 
side and the terrorist group al Qaeda on the other side. And we want to 
get involved in this civil religious war to send a message not to use 
chemical weapons?
  Of course, you not only just have these players, but you've got 
Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar lined up on the side of the 
Free Syrian Army. Turkey is a next-door neighbor to Syria. A year ago, 
a Turkish F-4 built by the United States was flying along the Syrian 
border, and it was shot down. We don't know who shot it down.
  Meanwhile, the United States already has, along with its NATO 
parties, patriot batteries on the Syrian border facing Syria that are 
in Turkey. The Dutch, the Germans, and the Americans have manned those 
batteries. Why? To make sure that our NATO ally is protected from 
incoming rockets. If we escalate this regional conflict in one country, 
it may escalate to other regions, like Turkey. Then we've got real 
issues because Turkey is a NATO ally. We are obligated to help them if 
they get into a war with Syria.

[[Page H5439]]

  And then about the terrorists. As I mentioned, they are really on 
both sides. And we hear from the administration, with all due respect, 
that the minority of fighters on the rebel side are al Qaeda. I 
respectfully disagree with the Secretary of State. What seems to be 
happening is the Free Syrian Army is going through Syria liberating 
Syrians, and al Qaeda is in the background, coming in and occupying the 
territory and imposing strict Islamic sharia law. We can see this play 
out. If the rebels eventually are successful, then we may have a second 
civil war between the Free Syrian Army and al Qaeda.
  All of that may be down the road. And why would the United States 
want to get involved in this situation?
  So today, Madam Speaker, I have filed a resolution stating that no 
U.S. funds will be used for this war with Syria. This religious civil 
war is not our war. So no money for the ``Peace President's'' war. And 
if he starts a war with Syria, I suggest the President return the Nobel 
Peace Prize. If he really wants to send a message, he should follow 
Samuel Goldwyn's advice: ``try Western Union.''
  And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________