[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19354-19356]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   THE ADMINISTRATION POLICY IN IRAQ

  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, it has been another interesting week in 
the public debate on Iraq. Yesterday, a joint session of Congress was 
convened to hear the address of the Interim Prime Minister of Iraq, 
Iyad Allawi.
  I have heard many foreign leaders address joint sessions, and I have 
found many of those addresses compelling, powerful, historic. Last year 
we heard the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Tony Blair, give a 
riveting speech, where a leader of a famous center-left democratic 
party forcefully supported our President and his administration on a 
question that has always been best served when the parties join 
together: the question of war and security.
  We all remember the speech Prime Minister Blair gave, and the 
rationale he reiterated for joining his nation's forces to the cause of 
the coalition's liberation of Iraq. Prime Minister Blair and I come 
from two different political traditions, and we represent two different 
political philosophies, but I respect him and I admire him. His speech 
was one of the best speeches I have heard given in a joint session.
  But yesterday's speech by Interim Prime Minister Allawi was truly one 
of the most historic speeches by a foreign leader before this Congress.
  Prime Minister Allawi was direct in his gratitude for the U.S. 
contribution and sacrifice to liberate his country from tyranny. He was 
compelling in his declaration that the Iraqi people are determined to 
move forward in assuming their security and in conducting free and fair 
elections. And he committed his Government's partnership to fighting 
terrorism in that region and throughout the world. The House Chamber 
was fully packed by my colleagues from both parties. The Prime Minister 
received much applause and, to the best that I could see, that applause 
came from all of us. I am happy to recognize this because Prime 
Minister Allawi is not the Republican's ally in Iraq, he is America's 
ally in Iraq.
  As we know from his biographies in the press, the Prime Minister has 
worked with American administrations before this one, including a 
Democratic administration. He is not beholden to Democrats or 
Republicans. He is beholden to the cause of an Iraq that is free from 
terror and tyranny. And he has the scars to prove that.
  This is why I was so appalled to hear some of the criticisms of Prime 
Minister Allawi that emanated from the other side yesterday. None was 
so appalling as this statement, quoted in today's Los Angeles Times, by 
Joe Lockhart, a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign:

       The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the 
     United States.

  Now, what a thought to put out. What a condemnation of a man who 
risks his life every day for freedom in Iraq and freedom throughout the 
whole Middle East and freedom throughout the world.
  ``The last thing you want to be seen as is a puppet of the United 
States,'' said Mr. Lockhart who, last I checked, was not known for his 
foreign policy expertise. He continued:

       You can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today 
     moving the lips.

  Now, Madam President, this quote will be read in Iraq today. The 
reason it can be read in Iraq today is because today Iraq has freedom 
of the press.
  The reason there is freedom of the press today is because a brutal 
totalitarian dictatorship was deposed by a U.S.-led coalition. The 
reason there is freedom of the press today is because the United States 
has sacrificed over 1,000 of our young men and women to free a country 
from a dictator who tortured his people, gassed his subjects, invaded 
his neighbors, associated with terrorists and al-Qaida, built and hid 
weapons of mass destruction, repeatedly violated international law 
requiring him to reveal the whereabouts of those weapons of mass 
destruction, never allowed international inspectors to confirm the 
destruction of those weapons, and never--never--ceased his virulent and 
hostile rhetoric against the United States, and who caused the death of 
at least 300,000 of his own fellow countrymen who now or did lay in 
mass graves.
  Madam President, you know what is underneath the shirt of Prime 
Minister Allawi? Scars from an ax attack by Saddam's henchmen. And do 
you know what is underneath those scars? A brave and patriotic Iraqi 
heart, beholden to no one but the cause of a free Iraq.
  The Democratic spokesman's statement was a calumny, pure and simple. 
It was a cheap and pathetic shot from a man whose only combat 
experience is bullet points in 10-point font. It was a cheap jab to a 
man who barely survived an ax attack ordered by a tyrant we have 
deposed, and who has been four times--four times--targeted by the 
terrorists and gangsters who kill our troops and the Iraqi people and 
who would kill us if they could.
  But let me be plain. The statement was worse than a calumny. It was a 
deliberate attempt to undermine our mission in Iraq. And I am sick and 
tired of some suggestions I have heard in the press recently that we 
cannot speak plainly about these matters.
  Prime Minister Allawi is as legitimate a politician as anyone in Iraq 
today. He has fought for the cause since before Joe Lockhart chose the 
pencil as his weapon of choice. He can list more fallen, tortured, 
vanished comrades than Joe Lockhart can list maitre d's. He is the 
Iraqi Interim Prime Minister because he was chosen last June by the 
Iraqi Governing Council--Iraqis, if you will--to lead his own country. 
He is the man we are relying on to lead us to elections in January, 
which is a key aspect of our policy in Iraq.
  We are not there but to liberate these people. And we have done so, 
so far. And I am getting sick and tired of some who have found fault 
with this in

[[Page 19355]]

the most discouraging of ways. I think some of those comments undermine 
our young men and women over there. How would you like your sons or 
daughters over there to have to read this drivel that not only has been 
said by Mr. Lockhart but others who have continually maligned this war, 
continually maligned our cause, continually maligned our leaders, and, 
by implication, our efforts in this war?
  When a Democratic spokesman publicly says Prime Minister Allawi is a 
puppet, which Prime Minister Allawi clearly is not, and he says so in a 
way that Iraqis under fire from terrorists and gangsters can read, 
there is no way we can conclude that this is not undermining the 
Interim Prime Minister.
  When the Interim Prime Minister is undermined, our political ally in 
Iraq is undermined. And when our political ally in Iraq is undermined, 
the work of our soldiers--whose mission is to create the security to 
support our political strategy--is undermined. Their work is 
undermined.
  Recently, there has been some tut-tatting in some of the press and 
the antiwar movement that such declarations as I have just made are 
beyond proper discourse.
  Let me be clear: A state of war should give no cause for inhibiting 
free speech in a democratic society, and I would tolerate no 
restriction of free speech here or anywhere in the country.
  After all, Michael Moore is free to denounce every manifestation of 
American foreign policy; is he not? And we are upholding his right to 
do so, as ridiculous and inane and asinine as his comments are. His 
antiwar work includes Serbian propaganda clips in defense of genocide 
in ``Bowling for Columbine'' to nice pictures of playful Iraqis 
peacefully flying kites in the halcyon days of Saddam Hussein, which is 
in his latest virulently anti-Bush creed, and, of course, cheered on by 
some of our colleagues on the other side. The man is not an idiot, but 
he acts like an idiot, and he is undermining our young men and women 
over there.
  But likewise, honest policy debates--and the comments on the role 
rhetoric plays--should also not be restricted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. I thought I had 15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are in morning business with 10-minute 
grants.
  Mr. HATCH. I think I can finish in the next 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. When a Democratic spokesman calls Prime Minister Allawi a 
puppet, that is not a suggestion as to what the Prime Minister could 
better do in his difficult job. That is a statement that undermines the 
Prime Minister, our ally in a war against terror and tyranny. And when 
you undermine our principal ally in a war against terror and tyranny, 
you are undermining our cause.
  Madam President, I buried my brother-in-law at Arlington Cemetery 
last week. I spoke of him on the Senate floor yesterday. He was a tough 
sergeant in the Marines. He had that unique pride that I have come to 
so admire in the Marines. His modesty over his sacrifices for his 
country was surpassed only by his love of his country. He was a true 
hero. He fought in Korea and Vietnam, and he bore the wounds of Vietnam 
through his life. Agent orange exposure killed him. And to his dying 
day, he thought the cause he fought for in Vietnam was just.
  Last May, the Democratic nominee in this fall's Presidential campaign 
was quoted as saying that President Bush ``didn't learn the lessons of 
our generation in Vietnam.'' I find this remark staggeringly ironic.
  Let me say this, Madam President. I honor the service of all who 
fought bravely and honorably in Vietnam--everyone, without exception.
  But there are two different interpretations of our Vietnam policy. 
The antiwar movement's view on our Vietnam policy concluded that the 
use of American power was immoral and not to be trusted. Today, that 
world view is still very strong, overseas and here among the American 
left.
  It has not changed much, except that, today, the left, which still 
distrusts the use of American power, believes that that power must be 
checked by the international community. That view holds that American 
power is illegitimate without the sanction of other powers, including 
the United Nations.
  There is another view on Vietnam policy that my late brother-in-law 
held. And that view is that the sacrifices of those who fought nobly 
and bravely in Vietnam are to be forever honored. That view--my view--
is that the American military won that war. When President Nixon signed 
the Paris Peace Treaty in early 1973, U.S. forces fighting with South 
Vietnam had secured South Vietnam. The war was lost when the north 
violated that peace treaty and a Democratic Congress failed to provide 
the arms and funds to help an ally defend itself from an invasion 
supported by the Soviets and the Chinese.
  We made many policy mistakes in Vietnam, and the enslavement of the 
south to communism was a sad conclusion whose responsibility must never 
be borne by those who fought, but by those who failed to hold the 
course.
  Do you know what one of the earliest policy mistakes we made was? It 
was when, under the Kennedy administration, the decision was made to 
stop supporting the Diem administration in South Vietnam. When that 
happened, the south lost a leading figure, a political leader. Diem was 
no democrat, but he was our political ally. We dealt ourselves a 
serious political blow when we failed to support Diem. He was 
assassinated, and our political goals were undermined.
  I am not going to stand by and be silent when our ally, Prime 
Minister Allawi, is undermined by rhetoric from a top spokesman of the 
other party. Because some people need to understand that rhetoric has 
consequences.
  Let debate rage, I say. Let the anti-war movement have its say, and 
let Michael Moore collect his fees on college campuses. But I believe 
that, in a time of war, we need to hold ourselves to higher standards 
of intellectual content, honesty and clarity.
  Recently we have heard a lot about a CIA analysis from earlier this 
summer. Am I the only one to notice that the people who have been 
declaring that CIA analyses are unreliable are treating this latest 
analysis as holy writ? That the people who have taken the good work of 
Chairman Roberts and our committee--which did a stark and honest review 
of the failings of pre-war intelligence--and concluded that the CIA 
cannot be trusted are now asking us to conclude, based on an analysis 
no one has read, that the President is lying?
  A CIA analysis is just that: analysis. It is more than guesswork, but 
it is a lot less than prediction. Yes, the situation could go bad in 
Iraq--very bad.
  But at no time in American history has an administration conducting a 
war concluded during a dark hour that success was no longer attainable. 
That is not leadership. To focus on the course to success is not lying. 
It is leadership. To focus on the darkness of the hour is not.
  The situation in Iraq is difficult, but it will not go bad, because 
we will not accept failure as an outcome. Failure would endanger our 
security, and this administration will not allow that.
  We are in a charged political season. The American public will choose 
who they believe will best ensure their security. I would ask all who 
opine to remember that, while we are in a political season, we are in a 
war. Let us criticize as best we can, but let us do just that: as best 
as we can. That standard, is far above the rhetoric of defeat, despair 
and, in the case of calling Prime Minister Allawi a puppet, self-
defeating delusion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas is recognized.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 
15 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore (Mr. Smith). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.

[[Page 19356]]



                          ____________________