[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19049-19054]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               IRAQ WATCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McCotter). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue the 
conversation here and switch gears here just a little bit with the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and continue the Iraq Watch 
and talk a little bit about the foreign policy issues that have been 
facing this Congress and facing the country for a few years now and 
trying to figure out a way in which we can try to correct this problem 
that we have gotten ourselves in.
  Let me just first say that the whole Congress, Republican and 
Democrat Parties, Independents, House and Senate, President, we are all 
very much in support of the troops who are out on the front lines, 
their families who are making tremendous sacrifices that many of us 
will never ever know.
  I have had the opportunity to be up to Walter Reed and visit some of 
these injured soldiers, and there is nothing more heartbreaking than to 
see a 19-, a 20-year-old kid who has lost his or her legs, an arm, and 
just think about all their hopes and dreams that have, in many ways, 
been washed away.
  So we are taking this opportunity here as Democrats to talk a little 
bit about how we got into this position, and I want to start on an 
issue that I feel extremely passionate about.
  When this all started after 9/11, the United States of America and an 
international coalition moved forward in Afghanistan, and we moved 
forward in Afghanistan because they were housing the Taliban and they 
were housing or harboring Osama bin Laden, who was the main perpetrator 
of 9/11 on the United States of America. So many of us are confused, 
myself included, why we went into Iraq in the first place.
  The reason is that we have only so many resources in the United 
States of America, and we attacked and invaded with an international 
coalition into Afghanistan. We ousted the Taliban government that was 
harboring al Qaeda and harboring Osama bin Laden, and we sent Osama 
running into the Tora Bora region on the Afghan-Pakistan border. We had 
this international coalition, and we were going into Afghanistan and we 
were going to rebuild this country, and we were going to make it a 
thriving democracy. We were going to have a democracy in that region.
  There is a great article in the Atlantic magazine this week, for 
those of you who are at home who want to read it and get the complete 
analysis and the timeline of how this happened. Then at one point, all 
of a sudden, all of the generals and all of the military planners in 
the United States of America began to shift their attention from 
Afghanistan to Iraq, and they took in troops. We now have 130,000 
troops in Iraq. In Afghanistan, we only have 17- or 18,000.
  The Special Forces were moved as well, and then even as it states in 
this article, the satellites that were focused on Afghanistan, that 
were trying to provide intelligence, were also moved, and they were 
shifted to Iraq. So how symbolic that we shifted our focus to Iraq and 
took away from what was going on in Afghanistan.
  Slowly but surely, Afghanistan began to unravel. We ended up with a 
full-blown war in Iraq, and here we are, many, many months away from 
that, stuck in a quagmire in Iraq that many of us have no idea how we 
are going to get out of. I am glad to see that Senator Kerry has issued 
a plan on how we are going to get out of there.
  We have to bring in an international coalition. That is the only way 
to do this. If we do not get troops in and support and money from the 
international community, the only thing left is to have a draft in the 
United States of America. If you ask the American people, would you 
rather have a draft or try to unite the international community, I 
think most Americans would say let us get the international community 
united to put troops into Iraq, but this current President cannot do 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Delahunt), who has been a real leader on this issue and more articulate 
than anyone else in this Congress on the problems and challenges in 
Iraq.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, we do not engage in hyperbole during the 
Iraq Watch hour, your generous words are a bit overstated, but I want 
to thank you for claiming the time this evening. I know my colleagues 
who are regulars on the Iraq Watch are coming. We are assembling.
  We want to review again what the current status of events in Iraq and 
the Middle East are so that we can inform ourselves and hopefully 
inform our colleagues and help educate the American people.
  I am sure you are aware that just recently there was what is 
described as a national intelligence estimate which painted a very 
bleak picture of the future in Iraq. The national intelligence estimate 
is a compilation of information drawn from the CIA and other American 
intelligence agencies. As I indicated, it presents a very, very bleak 
picture.
  It is outlined that there are three different scenarios. The one that 
is most disturbing is the possibility that Iraq not only will be 
fractured, but that a full-scale civil war could break out at any time, 
but I guess, as a Member of Congress, what is more disturbing is that 
it was just, I think, yesterday when the question was posed to 
President Bush, what about the national intelligence estimate and the 
very pessimistic perspective that was presented by our own intelligence 
agencies, that his response was, well, they are guessing, they are 
guessing.
  That certainly is disturbing to hear our leader, the leader of the 
free world, make that kind of a statement. I wonder if he reached that 
conclusion prior to our national tragedy of September 11 when he was 
presented what is called a Presidential daily briefing on August 6, 
2001, that was titled ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United 
States.'' I wonder if he was guessing at that point in time because he 
had that information, and now, now we are presented again with a 
national intelligence estimate that presents a far different scenario 
than what we hear from the President, from the White House, from the 
Vice President.
  Of course, tomorrow, the interim prime minister will be addressing 
this House. I think it is important to understand that this was a prime 
minister that was selected through a nonelective process. I am sure we 
are going to hear a lot of rhetoric. It will sound good, but it is not 
the true picture, I would suggest, of what our intelligence agencies 
tell us is transpiring in Iraq today.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we had the same situation here when we 
had the President of Afghanistan here, told us how great everything was 
going in Afghanistan, how there was not a drug problem in Afghanistan, 
we were going to have elections, on and on and on.
  I would be happy to yield back, but just the American people need to 
know that this is almost going to be a repeat performance of what we 
heard a few months ago.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, Mr. Speaker, the noted conservative columnist, a 
prominent Republican, William Buckley, recently made the statement that 
this administration has a dismaying capacity to believe its own PR.
  Well, you know, this is not about public relations. This is about war 
and peace and the loss of American military lives and untold hundreds 
of billions of dollars of American taxpayers'

[[Page 19050]]

money. That is what this is about. To simply say that things are rosy, 
and they are guessing, I think does a disservice to our intelligence 
agencies.
  Again, to point to the article that was as recent as September 16, it 
was on the front page of the New York Times. It was entitled, ``U.S. 
Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future'': ``A classified 
national intelligence estimate prepared for President Bush in late July 
spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government 
officials said Wednesday. There's a significant amount of pessimism, 
said one government official who has read the document.''
  This is just unacceptable, to have the President of the United States 
say, in response to a question, that they are just guessing. And before 
we go any further, I think we should indicate that, while we happen to 
be Democrats, our concern is shared by many prominent Republicans, 
including men that serve in the United States Congress. So what I have 
done is I have extracted some quotes from our friends and colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle.
  On September 19, just several days ago, Senator John McCain said this 
on Fox News, ``I'd like to see more of an overall plan articulated by 
the President.'' Well, so would the American people.
  Senator Richard Lugar, another prominent Republican, chairman of the 
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, less than a week ago, in 
response to a question about the slow pace of reconstruction in Iraq, 
had this to say, ``Well, this is incompetence in the administration.''
  ``The fact is, a crisp, sharp analysis of our policies is required. 
We didn't do that in Vietnam, and we saw 11 years of casualties mount 
to the point where we finally lost. We can't lose this. This is too 
important. There's no question about that. But to say, `Well, we just 
must stay the course, and any of you who are questioning are just hand-
wringers', is not very responsible. The fact is, we're in trouble. 
We're in deep trouble in Iraq.'' That is Chuck Hagel, respected 
Republican from Nebraska.
  Chuck Hagel goes on to say, ``It's beyond pitiful. It's beyond 
embarrassing. It is now in the zone of dangerous.''
  Well, again, I think we have learned that much of what we hear coming 
from the White House is fodder for a political campaign. But let me 
suggest that the President should put aside politics, not continue to 
paint a rosy picture when those who ought to know, know that the 
reality is totally different. Do not mislead the American people. The 
American people were misled before. They were misled when it was 
presented to the American people right on this floor that there were 
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
  It was the American people who were misled when it was suggested that 
there were links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. That was false, 
and we know it was false because the independent commission, five 
Republicans and five Democrats, concluded that it was inaccurate.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from the State of Washington, 
a regular member and cochair of Iraq Watch.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on what Republican 
Senator Chuck Hagel said, because I think it is accurate. He said, 
discussing the situation in Iraq, ``It is beyond pitiful. It is beyond 
embarrassing. It is now in the zone of dangerous.'' And I want to 
reiterate that that is not just rhetoric; that is reality.
  The reason I know it is reality is because we just lost a man from 
Lynwood, Washington, last week, Corporal Steven Rintamaki, 21 years of 
age, who will never be coming home, killed in action in Iraq while 
serving proudly and with distinction in Iraq. Yes, indeed, this is in 
the zone of dangerous. And this country deserves an administration who 
will be forthright and truthful and is not looking through this 
situation with rose-colored glasses.
  What Chuck Hagel said, that we are now in the zone of dangerous, I 
think we can say in spades that that is the situation.
  I learned something tonight, Mr. Speaker, that is so disturbing I 
just have to share it. Osama bin Laden, who is still at large somewhere 
in the world tonight, after the President told us he would get him dead 
or alive; he is still at large. The al Qaeda network is still 
functioning and now attacking our troops in Iraq. And we have been very 
concerned for some time that this administration, in its action in 
Iraq, has taken its eye off the ball of destroying the al Qaeda network 
and diverted resources and attention into Iraq, thereby increasing the 
risk that al Qaeda would remain a threat. And, indeed, Osama bin Laden 
is alive tonight and is a threat.
  I learned something tonight. We knew about the administration moving 
resources from Afghanistan that could be used in the hunt for Osama bin 
Laden. The Predator aircraft, the drone that moves around, they moved 
that to Iraq before we got done looking for Osama bin Laden. We know 
that the administration has more people checking on people going to 
Cuba as tourists than they do trying to interdict monies going to al 
Qaeda. We know about those diversions in this prioritization.
  But let me tell you about one I learned about tonight. NBC news today 
reported that the administration three times had the opportunity to 
take out terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi who, right now, could be 
associated with some of the beheadings we have seen, actually, his 
network. Three times the President quashed efforts to take out Zarqawi 
before the war in Iraq started because they did not want to diminish or 
undercut their argument of why they needed to go to Iraq.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Massachusetts 
yield to me on that point?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I just wanted to point out to my friend from 
Washington, Mr. Speaker, that not only is this gentleman that he is 
talking about responsible for some of the beheadings, the reports are 
that he himself, he himself has been the individual that has actually 
carried out the beheadings of Americans.
  Mr. INSLEE. If the gentleman from Massachusetts will continue to 
yield.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I continue to yield to the gentleman from Washington, 
Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. INSLEE. In June, according to NBC news, in June 2002, the 
Pentagon drafted plans to attack a camp Zarqawi personally was using 
with cruise missiles and air strikes. The plan was killed by the White 
House because they did not want to undercut their argument publicly 
that we had to go into Iraq.
  Again, 4 months later, Zarqawi planned to use ricin, this deadly 
poison, in terrorist attacks in Europe. The Pentagon drew up a second 
plan to go after Zarqawi. The White House killed it again because it 
would interfere with the action, the public message that we had to go 
to Iraq.
  In January 2003, the pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and 
for the third time, the White House killed it because ``military 
officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was air 
tight. But the administration feared destroying the terrorist's camp in 
Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.''
  If this is true, this is a gross dereliction of duty. We have now 
seen multiple instances where this administration has moved forces that 
could have been used to destroy the people that killed almost 3,000 
Americans on September 11 and moved them in this effort to go into Iraq 
under the pretense that there were weapons of mass destruction and 
under the pretense that al Qaeda was responsible for September 11, both 
of which have been shown to be false.
  This bears scrutiny and investigation, and it demonstrates why we 
need a new fresh approach in the war against the fundamental nihilists 
who are still out there planning to attack this Nation.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Massachusetts will 
yield once again.

[[Page 19051]]


  Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, some may ask, why are these Members of 
the House of Representatives standing here talking about past history? 
Why are they not talking about what is happening today? Well, sadly, we 
lost three more American soldiers today. Three more today. Every day we 
are losing American soldiers.
  But we are talking about what has happened in the past and the 
mistakes that were made in the past because the very people who are 
responsible for that terrible misjudgment or those misjudgments are the 
very same people who want to remain in power so that they can make 
decisions for the future. So, in a sense, as we talk about what 
happened in the past tonight, we are doing it because we are concerned 
about the future. We are concerned about the same people who made such 
terrible misjudgments, who misled the American people, want to continue 
to be in those positions of power.
  I would agree with my friend that we have misplaced our priorities. 
During the Republican convention in New York, the President spoke for 
63 minutes during his acceptance speech. And all during that convention 
there were multiple references to the tragedy of September 11, when so 
many Americans were killed. But it is almost beyond belief to know that 
the President talked for 63 minutes, and never once did he mention 
Osama bin Laden. There are multiple references throughout that week to 
Saddam Hussein, but not one reference on the part of the President to 
Osama bin Laden, the man who was responsible, the one who attacked our 
country, the one who masterminded that terrible day of September 11.
  It is as though he has disappeared. We do not hear his name mentioned 
even by the President. He is the one the President referred to in this 
very chamber when he said, ``He can run, but he cannot hide.'' The sad 
truth is, he ran, and he has successfully hidden. And in his hiding, he 
is planning the next attack upon this country. That is the sad truth.
  It is almost as if we have decided that Osama bin Laden is no longer 
important, this one who was the major person responsible for attacking 
us. It is almost beyond belief that we could find ourselves in this 
situation at this point in time after all that has happened. I just 
think we should remind ourselves that we have not yet apprehended the 
person who attacked our country.
  Sure, we have gone into Iraq. We have spent about $200 billion. We 
have seen about 6,000 or 7,000 of our soldiers injured. We have lost 
well over 1,000 American lives. Yet the man who was responsible for 
attacking us is a free man tonight, and he continues to be a danger to 
us.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, when we talk about 
failure, from the beginning, after our resources were diverted from the 
military action that was achieved in Afghanistan, the policy that has 
been promulgated by this administration can only be characterized as a 
sequence of failures and, additionally, a refusal to accept 
responsibility.

                              {time}  2230

  It would be so much more credible for the President to stand up and 
acknowledge the serious consequences that occurred as the direct result 
of this policy.
  I thought it was interesting that the individual that he appointed to 
conduct the survey in Iraq to determine where at that point in time, 
because we were told that there were weapons of mass destruction, where 
they were located, called on the President and that man's name is David 
Kay, as many of us know, called on the President to come clean with the 
American people because he was concerned that if we did not do so, if 
the President did not do so, then the credibility of the United States 
would be eroded and that when another international crisis erupted and 
we had to seek out support from other nations, this time we would be 
looked at as having misled not only the American people but the rest of 
the world. And that is exactly what has happened.
  If anyone has traveled abroad, the antipathy and the hostility that 
has been expressed about this President and, tragically, about our 
Nation because of the errors and the lack of willingness to accept 
responsibility has hurt our national interests and our national 
security, when his own appointee who was highly regarded and highly 
respected was the chief weapons of mass destruction inspector appointed 
by this President said, Mr. President, come clean, tell the American 
people that we were all wrong. He said that here in this building in a 
hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And what does 
this White House do? They continue to shuffle. They reluctantly say, 
well, maybe that was a mistake. And then the Vice President continues 
to suggest that somehow there are links between Saddam Hussein and 
Osama bin Laden. The only link is that Osama bin Laden despised, 
despised and hated, Saddam Hussein, whom he considered a corrupter of 
Islam.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, it is true that in spite of all evidence 
to the contrary and in spite of the report of the bipartisan 9/11 
Commission that the Vice President continues to insist that there was a 
connection between Iraq, al Qaeda, and the attack upon our country.
  It is amazing to me that in spite of all of this evidence that the 
Vice President would continue to say that. I mean, it is contrary to 
every expert, every study, the 9/11 Commission. Even the President 
himself has disassociated himself from that contention. And yet the 
Vice President continues to make the accusation. Why did the Vice 
President say something like that that has been so discredited?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me suggest this as 
an answer. Because if one repeats it often enough, a large number of 
people, unfortunately, will accept it. That is why it is important to 
have in a leadership role during these very dangerous times an 
administration that will be forthright, that will be honest, that will 
admit mistakes, and that will listen to others. That is what is 
important.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, it takes strength and it takes 
confidence to be willing to admit a mistake. And, quite frankly, we 
have not heard the President or the Vice President admit any mistakes, 
any mistakes. Anytime there is bad news coming out of Iraq, and it is 
coming out on a daily basis, the word we get from the White House is, 
we expected that.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, they say that now. But 
they were not saying that during the course of the major combat phase. 
They were saying that we were going to be greeted as liberators, that 
people would be dancing in the streets. That is absolutely false. And 
yet they insist on maintaining the message. But it is not an honest 
message.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. It seems to me we are at a Y in the road; and as Yogi 
Berra said, when you are at a Y in the road, take it. But this 
administration is refusing to recognize the need for a change in policy 
in Iraq. Their message to the American people is more of the same. Same 
old, same old. We are doing just fine. It is hunky-dory in Iraq. So let 
us keep doing what we have done here for the last year and a half.
  I want to suggest there are four things that need a major change in 
our Iraq policy or we will face certain failure and more deaths, as my 
constituent did last week.
  Four things: number one, we have got to have a meaningful, timely 
training program to train the Iraqi forces so that they can take 
responsibility for their own country, which is the only way this is 
going to be successful.

[[Page 19052]]

What do we find this administration has done in regard to retraining 
the Iraqi Army? We are now a year and a half after the invasion of 
Iraq, a time period where we knew, if somebody was thinking about it, 
that we were going to have massive retraining needs to train about 
250,000 troops. That was going to take some work to do that. One would 
think people would figure that out. But it is a year and a half after 
the invasion of Iraq, and this administration still has less than 40 
percent of even the people responsible for training the Iraqis working 
for us to get this job done. We only have half the capability, 
according to an article of September 20; 230 of the 600 we knew were 
going to be necessary are on the job.
  This administration has dropped the ball on a fundamental thing that 
is required for success in Iraq, which is to train their security 
forces. And why did they do this? I know why they did it. Because they 
told us we were going to be greeted with open arms, rose petals, and 
the Iraqi equivalent of champagne. Why would we have to train all these 
soldiers and police officers? It was going to be a cake walk.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. And, Mr. Speaker, we would not have to pay for it.
  Mr. INSLEE. And we would not have to pay for it either, Mr. Speaker. 
So here we are a year and a half after the invasion, this 
administration still has less than half the infrastructure we need to 
get this job done. So that is number one that needs a significant 
change in policy.
  Second, we need an administration who will say we have got to have 
elections sooner rather than later. When we had a brief window where we 
were not getting bombed and RPG'd for about 3 months early in this 
campaign, we had a chance for elections. But the President sent Mr. 
Bremer over there, and he put the kibosh on elections. Sistani wanted 
elections. They would not allow them. And here we are in this pickle.
  And this is why this is important. They are telling us, Mr. Allawi is 
going to tell us tomorrow, that we are going to have great elections on 
January 31 in Iraq. That is great except for one problem: there are 
huge swaths of Iraq today, in late September, that are not under the 
control of the Iraqi government. Fallujah, Ramadi. We heard about a 
battle a couple of miles south of Baghdad yesterday. How are they going 
to have elections to get this job done? They are not prepared to get it 
done, and the only way we are going to do this is to only have about 50 
percent of the country voting.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, does the gentleman 
know what they call those large swaths of territory?
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, those 
large swaths are called no-go zones. And that means that nobody from 
the Iraqi government or we go to.
  What is happening tonight with those no-go zones? The Iraqi 
insurgents are planning to kill Marines and building up their 
capability of doing it, and we are not going after them. I am 
concerned, I am concerned, that one of the reasons we have adopted 
these no-go zones is because this administration wants no casualties, 
which none of us want ever, but he particularly may not want them 
before November 2. We never want casualties ever, but to allow these 
insurgents to build their forces which they are later going to throw 
back in our faces and shoot at our Marines and soldiers is most 
troublesome.
  There is a third thing that needs to change, and I want to note it. 
We need to get busy allowing the Iraqis to rebuild Iraq. If we listen 
to what these insurgents are saying, they are angry because they do not 
have electricity, and they blame us for it. Frankly, I do not think 
they should be blaming us for it. They should be blaming Saddam Hussein 
for it. But they do blame us. We need to get a reconstruction program 
that is working. And the reason it is not working, the reason we have 
spent less than 10 percent of the money that we voted on a bipartisan 
basis on a variety of occasions to apply, the reason that money has not 
been spent, $18 billion have been appropriated, less than $2 billion 
has been spent. Why have they not spent the money? For this reason: 
this administration has insisted that instead of hiring Iraqis to do 
the construction and Iraqi businesses and Iraqi employees, they want to 
hire their pals at Halliburton; and they insisted that American 
contractors, many of whom happen to be significantly connected to the 
administration, do this.
  And the Iraqis are the ones who are unemployed. Those are the people 
we should be hiring to get this job done. Every Iraqi that gets a job 
is one less Iraqi willing to join the insurgency. But, no, this 
administration wanted to make sure Halliburton got the money.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, on one point, returning soldiers have 
told me that Halliburton is literally importing Filipinos to do much of 
the work in Iraq. As the gentleman said, the Iraqi people are 
unemployed. They have no source of support for themselves and their 
families. They are just unemployed with no incomes. And yet Halliburton 
is importing Filipinos and workers from other parts of the world who 
will provide cheap labor for them while the Iraqis go unemployed. That 
is just one example of the terrible policy that this administration is 
following right now.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I believe the reason that Halliburton is 
doing that is that they do not want to deal with the difficulty of 
hiring Iraqis. With all due respect, we have to get the Iraqis involved 
in their own economy, or they are never going to be on board in a new 
government. And this administration, in their lust, in their lust, to 
continue their relationship with Halliburton, has squandered this 
opportunity to get Iraqis involved in their own reconstruction. And it 
has hurt us big time in the insurgency that is now raging across wide 
swaths of Iraq.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman means no-go zones.
  Mr. INSLEE. No-go zones, Mr. Speaker. And the problem is the no-go 
zones are not going to be no-go zones permanently. At some point we are 
going to have to ask American sons and daughters to go into Fallujah, 
and they are going to be fired at by insurgents. And the problem is 
those insurgents tonight are building bunkers and recruiting and 
building taps and they are building car bombs. They think many of them 
are assembled in Fallujah and driven around the country, and we are not 
rousting those groups out. And we are going to have to face their guns 
when they are emboldened and empowered and in a tougher position. That 
is terrible military doctrine. It is a mistake. And it is going to cost 
American lives. And I think that it is one of those things that needs 
change.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman goes to his fourth 
point, these no-go zones are made up of the largest cities in Iraq. The 
largest cities in Iraq are no-go zones right now. The gentleman is 
right. We are not going into those cities now. But the elections are 
scheduled for the end of January next year. And there is every 
intention that we are going to go into those cities before the Iraqi 
elections. If they have the Iraqi elections and much of the country 
cannot participate, it will be considered an invalid election. People 
will not be able to accept it. So we know that the intention of this 
Pentagon, President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld, is to go into these 
no-go zones before the end of January.

                              {time}  2245

  But they are not doing it now, and I think my friend has indicated 
why we are not doing it now. We are not doing it now because it is 
going to be a tough thing to do. We are 41 days in front of our 
elections, and so basically we are letting these no-go zones fester.

[[Page 19053]]

  Even members of the Taliban now are moving into some of these no-go 
zones. So we have the terrorists, the insurgents, building up their 
networks within these no-go zones, and when we do go in, it is going to 
be terribly difficult to dislodge them, to overcome them and overtake 
them. But every day that passes that they have these sanctuaries, 
basically, they are able to increase their strength, to increase their 
ability to resist once we do decide to go into these areas.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think I would 
suggest this, that what we are seeing in Iraq, because of the 
incompetence of this White House and this administration, is a 
burgeoning number of safe havens for terrorism. Yet we hear that there 
is progress being made on the war on terror. How absolutely false that 
is.
  Again, if I can just take 2 minutes, I do not want to leave the 
impression that we are speaking here in partisan tone, because so many 
prominent Republicans, colleagues of ours, share this view. If I may, 
just indulge me for a moment to read some quotes.
  From the former vice chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee 
on Intelligence, Doug Bereuter, highly regarded and well-respected. 
Upon leaving here he sent a letter to his constituents. In it he said, 
``I have reached the conclusion now that the inadequate intelligence 
and faulty conclusions have been revealed; that, all things being 
considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action, especially 
without a broad and engaged international coalition. Our country's 
reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are 
weakened. Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is 
no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without 
creating future problems in the region and in general in the Muslim 
world.''
  That is somebody who served on the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence in this House.
  A former advisor to Mr. Bremer, who was personally recruited by Dr. 
Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor, had this to say about 
3 weeks ago. His name is Larry Diamond. ``We are significantly worse 
off strategically than we were before. There are really no good 
options.'' Another Republican.
  Let me quote William Buckley once more. ``If I knew then what I know 
now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed 
the war.''
  Someone who works in this building on the other side, ``Our committee 
heard blindly optimistic people from the administration prior to the 
war and people outside the administration, what I call the dancing in 
the street crowd, that we just simply will be greeted with open arms. 
The nonsense of all that is apparent.''
  The lack of planning is apparent. What we had here was a volatile 
combination of the ideology, the so-called neoconservative influence in 
this administration, combined with a magnitude of incompetence that if 
it occurred in the private sector, heads would have rolled, people 
would have been fired and a new team would come in.
  Mr. INSLEE. If the gentleman will yield, you mentioned a pretty 
explosive word, which is ``incompetence.'' When we have our sons and 
daughters at risk for their lives, over 1,000 of whom we have lost now, 
it is a pretty serious charge to suggest that an administration has 
been incompetent in the prosecution of this mission.
  So I just want to quote a Republican Senator in this regard, or two 
Republican Senators in regards to points two and three that I talked 
about in saying that we need a major change in American policy in Iraq.
  On point two, the issue of rebuilding Iraq, when Senator Lugar, 
Republican Senator, was asked----


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McCotter). The Chair would remind 
Members to refrain from improper references to the Senate or its 
Members.
  Mr. INSLEE. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me rephrase. When a prominent 
Republican individual who served in public office in a post that 
involves a 6-year term was asked why only $1 billion of $18 billion 
appropriated last year for Iraqi reconstruction, why less than 10 
percent of that had actually invested in Iraq, he said, ``Well, this is 
the incompetence of the administration.''
  ``This is the incompetence of the administration.'' That is what this 
has been. We need someone competent running the operation in Iraq.
  Point three, the point we have been saying, that our military people 
are going to be endangered as a result of not training people and 
getting into these no-go zones, another prominent Republican, who once 
recently ran for President and suffered grievously at the hands of a 
fellow Republican in South Carolina, said ``it was a major error in 
allowing insurgents to keep control of the City of Fallujah after 
vowing to oust them.''
  The same quote: ``As Napoleon said, if you say you are going to take 
Vienna, you will take Vienna,'' this unnamed prominent Republican 
person in a 6-year post said.
  The fact of the matter is, these are major policy failures of this 
administration. It is costing us in lives, and we need a change.
  Unfortunately, this administration has one prominent rule in Iraq, 
and an economic policy, for that matter: Do not bother me with the 
facts. I told you guys it was going to be roses. I told you we were 
going to be treated as liberators. Despite the fact we have this 
horrendous problem in Iraq, we are not going to change our policy one 
wit.''
  We need a fresh policy in Iraq, and, one way or another, we have got 
to get it.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. If the gentleman will yield, as I am standing here 
listening to the two of you talk I have a chilling thought, and that 
thought is this: In spite of all that has gone wrong, even today it 
seems as if military decisions are being affected by political 
considerations.
  Now, I understand what a serious charge that is, that military 
decisions would be affected or mandated or influenced by political 
considerations. But why would we allow these no-go zones in Iraq to 
remain no-go zones when we know that that cannot continue, that we have 
got to change that situation before the end of January, if in fact the 
Iraqi elections take place as planned, and the administration insists 
that they will take place?
  That means that at some period of time between now and the elections 
in Iraq in January we are going to have to deal with these no-go zones. 
And if it is true, and I believe it is, that as each day passes the 
insurgents who are occupying these areas increase their strength, 
increase their ability to resist our Armed Forces or the Iraqi forces 
once they do go into those areas, then it leads me to the only 
conclusion that I think is rational or logical, and that is that 
military decisions are being influenced by political considerations, 
namely the November 2 election in this country, and that is terribly 
troubling.
  I think the American people ought to understand what is going on 
here, because it involves the well-being of our soldiers, and I think 
it involves the credibility of our government as we reach out to the 
world for partners and partnerships.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Reclaiming my time, of course it does. The gentleman 
talks about our soldiers. I do not think there is any community in this 
country that expected the need to call upon our National Guard and our 
Reserves to the extent that they did, particularly when the Deputy 
Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wolfowitz and Secretary Rumsfeld dismissed 
General Shinseki, who at that point in time was the head of the United 
States Army, his estimate that 200,000 to 300,000 troops would be 
needed. They said that was a wild exaggeration.
  Mr. Wolfowitz, that neoconservative who in many ways was the 
intellectual author of this adventure, dismissed it, because as Dick 
Lugar said, we were going to be treated to flowers and the Iraqi 
equivalent of champagne and dancing in the streets. How long did that 
last?
  But now, but now, oh, no, now we are calling up on a regular basis 
for deployment after deployment our Reserves,

[[Page 19054]]

to the point where Lieutenant General James Helmly, who heads the U.S. 
Army Reserves, said just this past week that the war in Iraq is 
creating great stress on the Reserves, and he is concerned that they 
will have a tough time meeting their recruiting goals next year. He 
also noted that the Reservist jobs in Iraq are just as dangerous as 
regular troops. There is no more a secure rear area. Our truck drivers 
and our military police have become frontline troops, again 
underscoring the incompetence of the planning in terms of the military 
planning and the reconstruction phase of this inept administration.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. If my friend will yield, just one example of the 
incompetence was the fact that our soldiers were sent into Iraq without 
body armor. We hear a lot of talk in this Chamber about body armor. We 
have heard a lot of accusations that somehow a particular person 
running for President other than the President himself is responsible 
for voting against body armor. But the fact is that initially, when our 
troops went into battle, they were sent into battle without body armor. 
Thousands of them were there without body armor.
  I wrote Secretary Rumsfeld about that and asked him to give me a date 
certain when they all would be well-equipped with this armor, because I 
had heard from a young soldier, who happened to be a West Point 
graduate, one of my constituents, he said, ``Congressman, my men are 
wondering why they don't have body armor?''
  The fact is that that decision was made to send our troops into 
battle without body armor, and the war started months before the vote 
on the $87 billion that is now being used to accuse others of depriving 
our troops of this vital equipment. That is just one example. But we 
also know that they were sent there without armored Humvees and in 
insufficient numbers. These are examples that I would consider 
incompetent leadership. Incompetent leadership. It continues to this 
very day.
  Now, the President was asked this past week how he could defend his 
statements about how well things were going in Iraq in light of the 
recent report from the intelligence community saying things were not 
going well.
  He answered this way. He said, ``Well, they laid out three 
possibilities: One, things would be lousy; two, things would not be so 
good; and things would be better.''
  Well, ``things being better'' was not one of the possible outcomes, 
as we heard from the intelligence community. The best that they said we 
could expect was just more of the same, of what we have right now, and 
the worst was out-and-out civil war within Iraq. There was no better 
scenario.
  The President seems incapable of just speaking forthrightly and in a 
candid manner about the real situation to the American people. So we 
hear this happy talk, and every day, more and more and more of our 
soldiers are being lost.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think what we are 
saying is please, Mr. President, just give it to us straight, okay? Try 
a little bit of Harry Truman. Lay it out there, the good, the bad and 
the ugly. The American people can handle it. The American people 
deserve to know. Unfortunately, this particular White House has an 
obsession with secrecy.

                              {time}  2300

  We know that. Everybody knows that. But if I can, just for one 
moment, get back to that $87 billion that has emerged as an issue in 
this election. I voted against the $87 billion. I do not know how 
either of my colleagues voted; they voted against it. I dare say we 
voted against it because rather than providing the money to the Iraqi 
government as a loan, this White House, this President, insisted that 
we just give it away to the Iraqi government. It was a big give-away. 
There is no other major donor to the reconstruction effort in Iraq that 
did not require the monies that are donated or given to be done on a 
basis of a loan so that their taxpayers would be repaid.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, if we go 
back and recall the circumstances surrounding that $87 billion, 
remember when the President went on national television and announced 
to the American people he was going to ask for an additional $87 
billion, his approval rating fell like a rock, because the American 
people were upset that the needs here at home were being so woefully 
neglected, and here the President was, coming, asking for an additional 
$87 billion.
  So many of us thought that the fair thing to do was to take that 
portion of the $87 billion that was going to Iraq for the rebuilding of 
schools and clinics and roads and bridges in Iraq, and to make that 
available as a loan that would be paid back to this country once Iraq 
was stable and they had these huge oil sales which was going to make it 
possible for them to repay that loan. And the White House said, no, no, 
no. We will only make this money available as an out-and-out gift.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. A give-away.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Yes, a give-away. So they went to Madrid to this so-
called donors' conference and they came back and they were trying to 
convince us as a Congress and as the American people that all of these 
other countries had ponied up, had given their fair share. And what did 
we find out, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has 
said here, all of these countries that made monies available made them 
available in the form of a loan. They will, in fact, at some point be 
repaid for whatever they give, but not the good old USA. We gave our 
money away, and now the President is criticizing those of us who fought 
to have this given as a loan, implying, I guess, that somehow we did 
not care about the troops. Which is, quite frankly, a little 
outrageous.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, there is 
another aspect of this $87 billion that we need to point out, of whose 
money the President wanted to spend. He wants to spend our 
grandchildren's money. Because every single one of those $87 billion he 
committed to Iraq, which had to be spent in some sense, but instead of 
us paying for it and dealing with it with taxes, he wanted, and he 
consciously decided to make it all deficit spending. We had a proposal 
to pay for it so that our grandchildren would not have that deficit 
spending obligation on them.
  Now, why is this? I think this is symptomatic of why we need a new 
administration with a fresh policy. Winston Churchill said, all I have 
to offer you is blood, sweat, toil, and tears. This President said, you 
can fight this battle on the cheap. It will be sugar candy, roses, and 
champaign corks all the way. And as a result of that, we got $87 
billion deficit spending, 1,000 dead, and a silent draft that is going 
on now drafting our people to serve longer times than they really did 
sign up for when they went into the military. That is why everybody in 
this chamber is hearing stories about 50-year old people who left their 
career for a year, came back, now have to go back for another year, and 
goodness knows how many years, because they have not committed the 
troops that are necessary to get this job done like General Shinseki 
told them.
  This President wanted to fight this war on the cheap. It has cost us 
in lives, it has cost us in deficit spending, and we need a new policy. 
We do not say this just to be critical; we say this to get a new policy 
in Iraq. Unless we get that, we are heading into deep, deep trouble.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier this evening, the only 
people sacrificing for this war are the soldiers and the people who 
love them. They are the only ones who are sacrificing, and that is sad.

                          ____________________