[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 179 (Thursday, December 10, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Page S8594]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 BEING HONEST WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

  Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, earlier today it was reported that the 
President's Deputy National Security Adviser was asked about my call 
that the President and the administration speak clearly about the 
nature of the enemy we face--about my call that we be honest with the 
American people and with ourselves about the fact that we are at war 
with militant Islam, we are at war with jihadi Islam, and we are at war 
with violent Islam.
  In response, the White House was quoted in the World-Herald this 
morning as saying this:

       Our strong belief is to not treat these ISIL terrorists as 
     leaders of some religious movement. Even if you have a 
     derogatory adjective attached to it--radical Islam or Islamic 
     extremism--essentially you are saying they are the leaders of 
     a religious movement. And that is what they want. They want 
     to be seen not as terrorists and killers and thugs, as the 
     president said, but as leaders who speak on behalf of 
     religion. And that is why we have not identified them as the 
     enemy in this effort.

  This is lunacy. First, while the White House is insisting that no one 
use the word ``Islamic'' or note any connection between the war that we 
are facing and some subset of Islam--even as the White House insists 
that no one use the word, their own preferred adjective, ``ISIL'' or 
``ISIS,'' begins with an ``I.'' Every fourth grader in America can 
deduce without any assistance from Vanna White what the rest of the 
word that begins with an ``I'' is. Yet the White House insists that no 
one should use the word.
  They are dealing with a world they wish were so, as opposed to the 
world with which we are called to struggle. The world in which we live 
is a world where we are going to be facing a decades-long battle with 
militant Islam, with jihadi Islam, with violent Islam. We are obviously 
not at war with all Muslims, but we are at war with those who believe 
they would kill in the name of religion, and the White House insists 
that we muzzle ourselves and not tell the truth.
  Second, the White House's logic for why we shouldn't tell the truth 
to the American people or to ourselves is because the leaders of ISIL 
supposedly want to be identified with a religious movement. The leaders 
of the ISIL movement and the broader jihadi movement that is trying to 
kill Americans and all those who believe in freedom and in open 
society--the leaders of this movement also want to be martyred. Isn't 
the President's position that we should not kill them because they 
desire to be martyred? This is lunacy.
  We have to speak the truth not because it alone will somehow diminish 
ISIS or ISIL, but because speaking the truth is actually the only way 
we can begin to develop policies that will not lead to more failed 
States in the Middle East, which are producing the terror training 
camps of next year.
  Despite the fact that we are actually and obviously at war with 
militant Islam, there is a terrible leadership vacuum in this country. 
The American people know this, and, frankly, those of us who are 
getting our classified briefings and having to engage the leadership of 
our national security and intelligence communities know this leadership 
vacuum exists. Those who are trying to keep Americans safe--there are 
many wonderful, freedom-loving civil servants fighting to protect our 
kids, and they know and experience this vacuum of leadership every day.
  This vacuum is felt outside the beltway and everywhere in America, as 
is obvious in many of our towns. But even more dishearteningly and more 
dangerously, it is increasingly obvious to the professionals working in 
our intelligence community and in our national security structure that 
this vacuum is harming our national security and our intelligence 
community as they try to fight for our freedom.
  Here is why this matters. This vacuum prevents them from doing their 
jobs. They have no strategy to deploy, they have no rational policy to 
implement, and they have been asked to defeat an enemy that their 
Commander in Chief refuses to name. This is lunacy, it is absurd, and 
it is unacceptable.
  Mr. President: Please lead.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I appreciate the words of the Senator from 
Nebraska, Mr. Sasse, with whom I enjoy serving on the banking 
committee, and I appreciate his good work. I take a bit of issue with 
his comments. I know there are more than two options. But I hear the 
greatest criticisms of the President from those same people, urging--
not necessarily Senator Sasse in this case, but many of the leaders in 
this body on the Republican side who were some of the strongest 
advocates for the war in Iraq. Some of those same people are saying, 
back into the Middle East, sending combat troops.
  Going back to war is something that the American people--we all come 
to the floor claiming to speak for the American people, perhaps, but we 
know that is not good policy and that is not what most people in this 
country want to do. But I appreciate the comments of the Senator.
  Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Do 
you believe there is any connection between our enemy and Islam?
  Mr. BROWN. Excuse me?
  Mr. SASSE. Do you believe there is any connection between our enemy 
and Islam?
  Mr. BROWN. I am not here to debate this. I don't know exactly what 
that means: a connection between the enemy and Islam. I know that 
semantics matter, and I know the criticism of the President in this 
body is sort of front and center no matter what he does.
  When he gave what I thought was a coherent speech, often with 
restraint, where we have taken the--I think we have taken the fight to 
ISIL in this country. I think we have done it domestically. I think the 
President wants to do it internationally, and this body doesn't seem to 
have the courage to debate whether or not we actually look at an 
authorization resolution--an authorization for use of force. The 
President is still forced to rely on a resolution that President Bush 
pushed through that led to disastrous policies in Iraq. I don't think 
that was right.

  But I apologize. I want to speak on something else, Mr. President, 
and that is why I came to the floor.

                          ____________________