[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 22]
[House]
[Pages 30183-30186]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            THE WAR IN IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Alabama). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Delahunt) is recognized for half the time to midnight, which is 15 
minutes. If the Majority Leader does not claim the remainder of the 
time, the Chair will recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts for an 
additional 15 minutes.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am joined here tonight by the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. McDermott), and I anticipate that another 
colleague of ours, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), will 
also be here. We are here tonight to discuss the situation, the mess, 
if you will, that unfortunately we find ourselves mired in, not just in 
Iraq, but in Afghanistan.
  But before we proceed, I think, in response to what I heard from Dr. 
Phil, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), my dear friend, I think 
we should warn the seniors that if this bill passes tomorrow, they 
better stay healthy because that prescription drug benefit will not 
take effect this year, it will not take effect in 2004, nor will it 
take effect in 2005. So make sure that if you are unhealthy, you go 
visit your State services; see if there is a program at the State level 
that can get you through to 2006. Because when you go to your druggist 
in the next several months or in 2004 and 2005, they are going to tell 
you, sorry, sorry, you do not have the benefit. And we hope that you do 
have the benefit in 2006, but, of course, if the Republican leadership 
and the White House continue to pass large, massive tax cuts for the 
wealthiest Americans, maybe you will not even have it then.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott), my friend and colleague.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) for having this session tonight. I come 
out here, it is 11:35 at night. You ask yourself, why does a 
Congressman come into the well at 11:30 at night to talk about Iraq. 
Well, today was an absolutely stunning day. And I will submit into the 
Record an article in the Guardian Newspaper from Thursday, November 20, 
entitled, ``War Critics Astonished as U.S. Hawk Admits Invasion was 
Illegal.''
  Mr. Speaker, now in an absolutely stunning statement today, Richard 
Perle, who has been the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, this is 
the board that talks to the President about what he should do with 
defense, today he said, ``I think in this case international law stood 
in the way of doing the right thing.'' Now, consider what that means. 
International law says what we are doing is illegal, but we are going 
to go ahead and do it anyway because we made the decision that what we 
think is more important than international law.

                   [From The Guardian, Nov. 20, 2003]

    War Critics Astonished as U.S. Hawk Admits Invasion Was Illegal

                 (By Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger)

       International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with 
     astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk 
     Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been 
     illegal.
       In a startling break with the official White House and 
     Downing Street lines, Mr. Perle told an audience in London: 
     ``I think in this case international law stood in the way of 
     doing the right thing.''
       President George Bush has consistently argued that the war 
     was legal either because of existing UN security council 
     resolutions on Iraq--also the British government's publicly 
     stated view--or as an act of self-defence permitted by 
     international law.
       But Mr. Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, 
     which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said 
     that ``international law . . . would have required us to 
     leave Saddam Hussein alone'', and this would have been 
     morally unacceptable. French intrasigence, he added, meant 
     there had been ``no practical mechanism consistent with the 
     rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein''.
       Mr. Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the 
     Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly 
     for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 
     1991 Gulf war.
       They're just not interested in international law, are 
     they?'' said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for 
     Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to 
     the war's legality last year. ``It's only when the law suits 
     them that they want to use it.''
       Mr. Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official 
     justifications for war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who 
     represented CND and also participated in Tuesday's event.
       Certainly the British government, he said, ``has never 
     advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or right 
     to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq''.
       The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined ``a 
     divergence of view between the British government and some 
     senior voices in American public life [who] have expressed 
     the view that, well, if it's the case that international law 
     doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the 
     authority of the UN, then the defect is in international 
     law''.
       Mr. Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the 
     White House. Its main argument has been that the invasion was 
     justified under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of 
     each state to self-defence, including pre-emptive self-
     defence. On the night bombing began, in March, Mr. Bush 
     reiterated America's ``sovereign authority to use force'' to 
     defeat the threat from Baghdad. The UN secretary general, 
     Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that 
     the security. . .

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I could interrupt, I think that is not 
only damning, but diminishes the prestige of the United States in terms 
of the world. There was a French man by the name of Alexis de 
Tocqueville that years ago as he was traveling through our Nation, our 
country, made the observation that America is great because America is 
good. And implicit in

[[Page 30184]]

that observation is the acknowledgment that the United States respects 
the rule of law. If we do not have the rule of law, we have a jungle. 
And just imagine in this time where weapons of mass destruction are a 
threat to every human being, we just abrogate conventions, treaties, 
and ignore it is a national law. To me that is a profoundly damning 
statement.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I think that says a lot about why we are 
in the problem we are in. Because Perle went on to say that 
international law would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone. 
He admits it. International law would have required us to leave Saddam 
Hussein alone.
  Now, how can the President of the United States come before us and 
present this as an imminent danger and all this stuff when the law says 
you cannot do it? He did not want to go to the United Nations. We 
understand why he did not want to go to the United Nations. Why? If he 
had had to stand up to international law, he would never have been able 
to do this.
  Perle went on to say, this is unbelievable, really, when you think 
about it, he said, ``A divergence of view between the British 
Government and some senior voices in American public life who have 
expressed the view that, well, if it is the case that international law 
does not permit unilateral preemptive action without authority of the 
U.N., then the defect is in the international law.''
  Now, that is like driving down the highway and saying, well, I am in 
a hurry, and the speed says I can only go 40. The defect is in that 
sign. It is in the ordinance. I should be able to go 60 when I am in a 
hurry. I should not have to pay any attention. This country was hell 
bent to get into war. And they got into war.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to be very clear 
it was not this Nation, hopefully not even our President. But it was 
some within the administration that had a plan, a plan that would bring 
democracy, if you will, to the Middle East. And therefore, in the 
aftermath of 9/11, they were looking for a rationale that would somehow 
create a situation where the United States would intervene militarily 
in Iraq. That is, at least, my opinion. And I know that is shared by 
others.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, well, I think you and I and the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Inslee) all voted no on this. So when I say our 
``country,'' I was really referring to the President. You are 
absolutely right. It was he and his advisors, a very small group around 
him known as neocons who believed from the day after 9/11, on 9/12 they 
started talking about how they could go to war in Iraq. And they had 
the most powerful military in the world and they knew they were going 
to win the battle, so to speak. But they had no plan for what they 
would do after that. They did not have one generator, one water 
purifier, one policeman, one anything ready to put on the ground to 
bring security and civil society back in Iraq.

                              {time}  2340

  And the mess we are into now is really about this. That is why it is 
so good that the gentleman brought this up tonight.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me just say this, I think all of us voted to 
intervene militarily in Afghanistan. And I know that the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee) did because we did have a right to intervene 
militarily there. We knew that al Qaeda had found a safe haven provided 
for bit extremist Taliban government. We had every right. 
Unfortunately, because of the impetus to intervene in Iraq and the 
decision to intervene militarily in Iraq, we now find ourselves with a 
real mess, parts of that $87 billion mess in Iraq. And the comments 
from both sides of the aisle, from people like Senator Hagel, Senator 
Lugar, people such as the chair of the Committee on Appropriations, 
Subcommittee on Defense, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), and 
others respected, deplore and have articulated their profound concern 
about the fact that Afghanistan, where we should be with substantial 
force, is on the verge of once again becoming a failed state.
  When the question is posed, did we ever win the war on terror, I fear 
that the answer will be we won it and then we lost it in Afghanistan. 
And I would request or ask my friend, the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Inslee) if he wishes to comment.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I do. And I have come here based on some 
conversations I have had in the last couple of weeks with the father of 
a soldier who was killed in Iraq, the wife of a soldier who was killed 
in Iraq from the State of Washington. I met about a week and a half ago 
with a soldier with a shattered leg over in Walter Reed, actually two 
soldiers with shattered legs; and that is one of the great, 
unfortunately, hidden tragedies of this war the number of terrible 
injuries that have come out of it. That has been kind of hidden, and I 
think it is unfortunate that folks do not understand how terrible these 
young men are being injured. In part because of our tremendous medical 
care, we have saved people that never would have lived in previous 
wars, but they come away with some terrible injuries.
  But the reason I came here tonight is just to say that the U.S. 
Congress owes it to these men and women in uniform who are serving 
proudly tonight to not ignore them and not give up trying to help 
resolve this mess, and that silence is not an option for the U.S. 
Congress. We took a vote but that was only the start of our obligation 
to these people who are serving in Iraq tonight. And I just have two 
messages that I hope the administration would listen to to try to get 
out of this mess.
  One is to finally develop a meaningful plan, to develop a 
recognizable, credible Iraqi government so that the Iraqi people could 
have some credibility in the government, so that hopefully at some 
point we can bring our men and women home; and they are still on the 
wrong path failing in that fundamental obligation. Our mission is 
doomed there until this administration has a workable plan to develop a 
credible government in Iraq. They have failed in that fundamental 
mission, in a stumbling, bumbling mechanism.
  I will state, we stood in a meeting room about a hundred yards from 
here very shortly before the war started and said, Where is your plan 
for postwar Iraq? Where is your plan for establishing a credible 
government in Iraq so that we can bring our troops home?
  Do you know what their answer was? We are starting to think about 
that. And that is not too much of a paraphrase of what they told us. 
And now they still are making a fundamental mistake of thinking that we 
can establish a government by our order as to who will be the governing 
authority without the involvement of the international community.
  We still need to get international folks of other countries involved 
in there to help develop a credible government. And until we do that, 
we are not going to win the hearts and minds of the people no matter 
how many thousand-pound bombs we drop.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. The gentleman raises the question about what the plan 
was before the war. There was a lot of talk in the government that they 
wanted to use a guy named Chalabi. And I asked some Iraqis in the 
United States here about whether Chalabi would be the right guy. They 
said he is hated by the Kurds. He is hated by the Sunnis. He is hated 
by the Shia. Maybe it is a good idea to put him in there because he is 
gone. We are putting all our eggs in Chalabi's basket.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I have some very bad news for the 
gentleman then. If we accept the idea or the conclusion that he is 
gone, because Ahmed Chalabi is not gone. There was a report today in 
the New York Times, and let me vote quote the relevant portion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Alabama). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) is recognized for an additional 15 
minutes.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am quoting from today's New York Times 
regarding this new temporary, tentative, possible plan.
  Another possibility some in the administration say is that Iraq could

[[Page 30185]]

evolve towards a political compromise forced by the exile Ahmed 
Chalabi, Chalabi might manage to stitch together pro-Iranian groups, 
Kurds and others into a government, a top administration official 
predicted recently that in that event Mr. Chalabi, who set up an office 
for his opposition group in Tehran before the American invasion of 
Iraq, could become the first prime minister.
  Well, I guess the question is, who is Ahmed Chalabi? Well, to go back 
to the comments that the gentleman made earlier regarding Mr. Perle, he 
and Mr. Perle are very close, are allied together. They have had a long 
relationship. Mr. Perle some believe is the, if you will, the author or 
the architect of this policy, described Mr. Chalabi in the most 
effusive of terms, as if he were going to be the George Washington of 
Iraq.
  What the American people are unaware of, however, is that Mr. Chalabi 
fled Iraq, went to Jordan, got into the banking business, and was 
convicted of the crime of embezzling some $70 million.
  Now, I am not particularly conversant with the Jordanian legal 
system, but I know this, that Mr. Chalabi has a sentence hanging over 
his head from a Jordanian court of some 22 years.
  Now, our relationship with Jordan has been a positive one, and we see 
some incipient signs of democracy there. When King Abdallah came here, 
I inquired of him, Were you ever consulted by the Department of State 
or anyone in the White House about the appointment of this convicted 
felon according to Jordanian law in terms of his appointment to the 
Iraqi governing council? And he said, No, Mr. Congressman, I was not.
  What a great way to create good will among our allies in the war 
against terrorism. Who is Ahmed Chalabi? And top administration is 
suggesting that he might be the next prime minister when he has 
absolutely no support among the Iraqi people, none at all. He lived in 
London after he fled Jordan for decades.
  I am really concerned about the mess we are in.
  Mr. INSLEE. If I may inquire, basically what we have is it sounds 
like the only international support the administration has had to try 
to help establish a new Iraqi government is a fellow from London, Mr. 
Chalabi, and that is not what we think we need when it comes to 
international support to try and establish a government. Because we 
know that ultimately to bring our men and women home, we are going to 
have to be in a position where there is a secure government that has 
some degree of trust to the Iraqi people. And the one thing we know is 
a decision, a unilateral decision by the United States to decide who 
that is is not working at the moment.

                              {time}  2350

  We believe and have been arguing now since the beginning of 
hostilities that involving the international community to help 
establish a definition who is going to be at the table when the 
constitution is adopted, when the elections are set up, are going to 
help get the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people which ultimately we 
need to succeed in this mission.
  So we are here again tonight urging the administration to learn from 
past problems and indeed mistakes. One of those mistakes has been 
acting with such unilateralism, and unilateralism to date has resulted 
in folks allegedly running Iraq with no security and no credibility. So 
we will continue to beat that drum, and we hope at some point the 
administration will learn from these past errors.
  I want to mention another thing, too, that I hope that Congress does 
not lose sight of its responsibility to the men and women in Iraq 
tonight. Those men and women deserve to know why Americans did not get 
the straight scoop before this war started, and we just began just the 
baby step for Congress to start to get to the root of why Americans 
were told things that were not true before this war started. We owe 
this to the people in the field right now in Iraq, and we are going to 
call on the administration to stop stonewalling on that investigation.
  We have been trying to get multiple documents. We are not getting 
that, and it is interesting to me, when a true patriot, Joe Wilson, who 
was an ambassador, who was called a hero by the first President Bush 
for serving as the last counselor in Iraq, who stood up to Saddam 
Hussein and maybe saved hundreds of Americans before the first Persian 
Gulf War, when he helped blow the whistle and indicate there had been a 
mistake in the State of the Union address that came from that podium 
out to the American people, when he helped demonstrate that there had 
been a mistake made by the President as to what he said when he said 
that there was this uranium in Africa, what did the administration do? 
Instead of thanking Mr. Wilson for helping correct a mistake that the 
President had made on a pivotal issue and on which they had hung the 
hat to start this war, instead somebody in the administration, and we 
better darn well find out who blew the cover on Mr. Wilson's wife as a 
CIA agent, and that is the type of attitude to date this administration 
has in getting to the bottom of why we did not get the truth before 
this war started.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. My colleagues are both lawyers. My understanding is 
they broke a law. It is a felony. Somebody broke the law.
  Mr. INSLEE. It appears that there could have been a felony committed; 
but even if there was not a felony committed, this administration, 
instead of thanking Mr. Wilson for correcting this grievous mistake 
that the President made in the State of the Union address, I do not 
recall he has ever thanked Mr. Wilson. Instead, they have hunkered down 
and they have refused to recognize that this war was started on the 
basis of false information given to the American people, and we need to 
know and the people serving in Iraq tonight deserve to know how and why 
that happened because it should not happen again.
  Now, if, in fact, it was a simple failure of intelligence by the CIA, 
and that the White House, all they did was convey to us the purest, 
most virginal intelligence given to them by the CIA, we need to know 
that; but if, in fact, that was not the case, if, in fact, it was the 
case that they took information and exaggerated it, stretched it, 
fudged it, told us things were certain when there was doubt, we need to 
know that, too; and this Congress has an obligation to get to the 
bottom of it. I hope that we have just started that process.
  With that, I need to bid adieu.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for joining us 
tonight and thank him for his input. I think he goes to the issue of 
credibility.
  Recently, there was a report by a conservative magazine, the Weekly 
Standard, that said case closed. They established a memorandum that was 
leaked. Somehow, in their calculation, it was conclusive as to links 
between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) circulated a memorandum 
to all of us here in the House with a statement from the Department of 
Defense. If the gentleman wants to give us a synopsis, I would be 
fascinated, and I hope those who are listening would pay attention.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. It basically absolutely contradicted what has come out 
of this Weekly Standard article, and in fact, the Weekly Standard is 
really the mouthpiece for the neocons, Perle and Wolfowitz and all 
these people who have been involved in this, and the Defense Department 
came out and said, this is wrong. I mean, they are trying to bury it. 
They are trying to stonewall it, and that is why we are out here 
tonight.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the White House for 
finally being honest with the American people as it relates to 
Afghanistan. Again, from this week, Wednesday, November 19, the new 
ambassador to Afghanistan, Ambassador Kahlizad, gave the 
administration's bleakest assessment yet of security conditions in 
Afghanistan, saying that a regrouping of the Taliban and al Qaeda, 
increased drug trafficking and even common criminals are hampering 
President Karzai and the transition to democracy. Taliban rebels have 
dramatically

[[Page 30186]]

stepped up operations in recent months and, the ambassador said, common 
criminals and al Qaeda followers are increasingly active. This is most 
disturbing news.
  There was an interesting and, again, unfortunate story coming from 
the United Nations. This week reported in the New York Times, the 
United Nations refugee agency announced Tuesday that it was temporarily 
pulling 30 foreign staff members out of large areas of southern and 
eastern Afghanistan and closing refugee reception centers in four 
provinces, officials said. The suspension of operations comes after 
three attacks on the United Nations offices and staff members in the 
last week by suspected Taliban fighters.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman is doing is shining 
the light on the fact that we never finished the job.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. We never finished the job in Afghanistan.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. They never put up a sign that said mission 
accomplished for Afghanistan.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. The gentleman is absolutely right.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. And left a mess and went on to Iraq, and now we have 
got two messes on our hands. The gentleman is absolutely right, what is 
happening in Afghanistan is a terrible mess.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. To think that our military, as it has in Iraq, 
performed so professionally and admirably in Afghanistan, and now we 
are on the verge of seeing Afghanistan becoming a failed state.
  Nicolas Kristoff, a columnist in the New York Times, says, and again 
it is this week, in the 2 years since the war in Afghanistan, opium 
production, and he has given us three choices, virtually been 
eliminated, declined 30 percent, soared 19-fold and become the major 
source of the world's heroin. That is what is happening in Afghanistan 
today.
  In two provinces that are religiously conservative parts of 
Afghanistan, the number of children going to school has quintupled, has 
risen 40 percent, has plummeted as poor security has closed nearly all 
the schools there. The right answer is the last one.
  This is truly potentially a disaster. President Karzai's brother, 
Ahmed Karzai, who represents the government in one of the southern 
provinces, was very blunt to an AP reporter this past Monday: it is 
like I am seeing the same movie twice, and no one is trying to fix the 
problem. What was promised to Afghans with the collapse of the Taliban 
was a new life of hope and change. Those are the words of President 
Bush, but what was delivered, nothing. There had been no significant 
changes for people. Karzai says he does not know what to say to people 
anymore.
  We better pay attention to Afghanistan because with the focus now on 
Iraq, the media is taking the glare of the cameras away from a totally, 
potentially disastrous situation. They are scheduled to have elections 
in Afghanistan next June. It is estimated that the need would be for 
70,000 police security forces. Does my colleague know how many have 
been trained? Does the gentleman know how many have been trained? Seven 
thousand, 7,000. This is, again, a potential foreign policy disaster, 
not just for this President but for this country.
  With that, if the gentleman has anything further to say.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I think we have said enough for tonight, 
but this issue will not go away.
  One fact that I will finish with, this week now, more people have 
died in Iraq since the war began than died in the first 3 full years in 
Vietnam. So if we do not think we have got a developing mess on our 
hands, just remember how we eased into Vietnam, and this is where we 
are going if this administration does not begin to develop a plan.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Twenty-six people died today in Turkey, the victims of 
an act of terrorism. Some 400 were wounded. In the northern part of 
Iraq, not in the so-called Sunni Triangle, 12 died as a result of acts 
of terrorism in northern Iraq.
  We are in a mess. Let us get our act together. Let us support our 
President, but let us do it in consultation and make sure that America 
can continue to be proud and claim that it is great because it is good 
and it has a moral compass.

                          ____________________