[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13818-13820]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


             THERE IS A PRICE TO PAY FOR FREEDOM'S STRUGGLE

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, almost a century and a half ago, the 
abolitionist Frederick Douglass spoke:

       The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows 
     that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been 
     born of earnest struggle . . .
       If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who 
     profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are 
     men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want 
     rain without thunder and lightning.
       They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many 
     waters.

  We could find no wiser counsel as we approach the historic 
transitioning of Iraq to self-rule on June 30. Mr. Douglass' words 
which rang true in 1857 continue to do so through 2004. As one

[[Page 13819]]

dark chapter closes and a new, brighter one is set to open in Iraq, we 
recall his words that the freedom of man has not yet been fully 
attained, nor is it freely conceded. There is a price to freedom's 
struggle that tragically includes loss.
  In short, freedom is not free. As Iraq struggles to transition from 
dictatorship to democracy, we all suffer with the loss of each soldier. 
We all bear the pain of Iraqi men, women, and children suffering from 
terrorist attacks and Hussein holdovers. But not all shrink back from 
freedom's struggle upon hearing, feeling, and understanding its price.
  The risks and travails of securing freedom are too easily forgotten 
by a complacent humanity. Yet, we do not need to leap back centuries to 
comprehend the expense of freedom's attainment. Just a few years ago, 
we understood that freedom has a price.
  In 1983, the head of Solidarity in Poland, Lech Walesa, spoke of 
freedom's price when receiving his Nobel Prize:

       With deep sorrow I think of those who paid with their lives 
     for the loyalty to ``Solidarity''; of those who are behind 
     prison bars and who are victims of repressions. I think of 
     all those with whom I have traveled the same road and with 
     whom I shared the trials and tribulations of our time.

  Nor did the struggle for freedom end with the cold war. In his 1999 
address to NATO, Vaclav Havel of Czechoslovakia stated:

       The fact that a former powerful strategic adversary has 
     disappeared from the scene does not, however, mean that in 
     the world of today, human lives, human rights, human dignity, 
     and the freedom of nations are no longer in danger. They are, 
     unfortunately, still being threatened, and collective defence 
     of the democratic states of the Euro-Atlantic sphere of 
     civilization, therefore, still remains a valid concept.

  History did not end with the end of the cold war. Yet, despite the 
attack of 9/11, some want to believe that history has ended, or that 
struggling for freedom is unnecessary or obsolete. They believe either 
that mankind enjoys all the freedom that it is due, or that freedom 
cannot be preserved or expanded by means of force or combat.
  In either case, any would-be leader of the Free World cannot both 
profess such beliefs and still claim the determination to protect 
freedom in the post-9/11 world.
  Not for this Nation, not for this time, and not for this struggle.
  President Bush believes otherwise. He understands what Frederick 
Douglass meant when he said:

       Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and 
     it never will . . .

  While we have not yet witnessed the conclusion of this most recent 
struggle for freedom, we have seen the trials and tribulations this 
President faces.
  I believe President Bush is trying to wage the War on Terrorism 
against unprecedented and incredible words and deeds of disunity here 
at home. Every citizen is ensured the right to dissent. Every President 
who volunteers to serve in that high office understands and is sworn to 
uphold that right to dissent. While this Nation has had great leaders 
who have stood at the helm through many challenges to our national 
security, I wonder if they could have been successful without the 
support of those who put the best for their Nation ahead of the best 
for their party. For such is the unique challenge to victory this 
President confronts. Consider a historical comparison of the challenges 
this President faces now against those of a President in our recent 
past.
  In World War II, President Roosevelt stated the national goal of 
``unconditional surrender.'' In the War on Terrorism, President Bush 
similarly outlined the national goal of ``regime change'' in Iraq. The 
paramount national goal in wartime should be a unifying force in any 
nation. In World War II, it was. Republicans echoed President 
Roosevelt's demand for the ``unconditional surrender,'' not just of 
Japan, but of Germany and Italy as well.
  In the War on Terror, Democrats have echoed President Bush's call for 
``regime change,'' but not in Iraq. Instead, they called for ``regime 
change here at home.'' Democrats contend it is the President of the 
United States, not the dictator of Iraq, that's the ``regime'' that 
needs toppling for the world to be safe.
  Perhaps this is just political sloganeering, but can anyone imagine 
the Republican candidate for President in 1944 calling for 
``unconditional surrender'' here at home? That would have spurred a 
firestorm of criticism and probably doomed the candidate. In 2004, it 
has helped a candidate secure his nomination for President. Many of 
these critics justify cries of ``regime change at home'' because they 
believe the war was unnecessary. They believe that after the terrorist 
attack of 9/11, the war on Iraq was a diversion from the ``real'' war 
on terrorism.
  Shortly after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt announced a ``Germany 
First'' strategy. In his judgment, Germany was a greater threat than 
Japan because of its wealth, location, and advanced weaponry. It became 
the theatre of World War II that commanded most of the attention and 
resources in that war.
  Shortly after 9/11 and the opening operations against al-Qaida's 
puppet government in Afghanistan, President Bush announced that Iraq 
was a grave and gathering threat because of its wealth, location, and 
advanced weaponry.
  It therefore has become the theatre in the war on terrorism that 
demands our greater attention and resources. If today's critics had 
existed then, President Roosevelt's ``Germany First'' strategy would 
have been roundly criticized. Today's critics would have claimed 
Roosevelt had always wanted to ``get'' Germany. They would have claimed 
that his War Department had been planning war against Germany ever 
since the previous war. They would claim Roosevelt was engaging in a 
personal anti-fascism campaign that ignored and diverted attention from 
the search for the attackers of Pearl Harbor. He would be charged with 
making America less safe as he failed to focus all resources solely 
upon Japan. And if Roosevelt had listened to these critics, Britain 
would have fallen, and likely the Soviet Union too, and the Third Reich 
would have covered the better part of three continents--Europe, Asia, 
and Africa. A new Dark Age would have descended.
  For those who might have felt the ``Germany First'' strategy in World 
War II was misplaced or that the entire Germany effort was an 
``unnecessary war,'' one overwhelming discovery confirmed it was the 
right thing to do.
  The horrific evidence of a holocaust was exposed at the end of the 
war. That gruesome discovery of wholesale genocide granted finality to 
the righteousness and sanctity that belonged to those who led and 
fought in the war against the Nazis. But the difference between now and 
then is that the Iraq holocaust does not justify our action; in fact, 
by many critics, it is not even noted. Think of that. Mr. President, 
300,000 dead in Iraq and that is not a consideration for most critics 
of the war effort.
  I defy anyone to show me where these critics devote even one sentence 
to this holocaust in the paragraphs and pages attacking this war as 
wrong, unnecessary, immoral, and unjust.
  When did life become so cheap as to be irrelevant?
  Thankfully, Roosevelt ignored his few misguided critics and this 
President should follow his lead. America needs the will of Churchill, 
not the waffling of Chamberlain. America needs leaders like Roosevelt 
and Reagan who recognized evil and were willing to call it by its 
rightful name. They knew the time to talk was over and the time to act 
was now, rather than never. Upon such will, such resolve, and such 
simple honesty lies the strength and endurance of our Nation and its 
precious freedoms. President Bush is a man of such mettle.
  No one here or abroad doubts this President will act. He does not 
waffle, he does not double-talk, and he does not hide behind the 
timidity of others. Nor is he guided by his critics and their partisan 
agenda. He is a man for this time. Now, because of his leadership, on 
this June 30, the time has come for liberty to emerge from struggle and 
strife, and to again stride forward.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page 13820]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________