[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20875-20876]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    DEMOCRAT NOMINEE FOR PRESIDENT CONTINUES TO DEBATE WITH HIMSELF

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, as I contemplate the debate from last week, 
I realize that again the Democrat nominee for President, Mr. Kerry, 
continues to debate with himself.
  I was very amazed to learn throughout the debate that he was talking 
about the need for multilateral action, until it came to the one 
circumstance where we are engaged in multilateral action in which he 
felt we should go back to bilateral action. Now, that is, of course, in 
the case of Korea, and we found that the Mainland Chinese have been 
very, very effective at working with us to back the North Koreans down 
from the bluster and the rhetoric that they have thrown in front of the 
world stage for the past couple of years. Amazingly, in that 
circumstance, Mr. Kerry wants the Chinese to be quiet, and he wants the 
U.S. to go back to bilateral negotiations with the North Koreans.
  What that accomplishes is to give the North Koreans standing which 
they have not had in the past 2 years under the Bush doctrine. We give 
a terrorist state, a state that is starving its own people, a state 
that is incapable of making the changes in the government that are 
required to bring the nation into this century, and he would give them 
standing while moving the Mainland Chinese and our other allies off to 
the side.
  He did not explain that, and it was in complete contradiction with 
everything else he brought up during the debate. So, again, we find 
that the gentleman from Massachusetts continues to debate himself.
  I contemplated also his need for a global test. From my own 
perspective, when the President says that we will not ask permission to 
defend America, that is the clarity and plainness that most Americans 
want, and so this global test for me is fraught with questions. Which 
test would we apply? Which of our allies? Would it be France? We want 
France's approval before we go and do some action that would prevent 
attacks on U.S. citizens here on American soil? Again, I have very deep 
questions about the gentleman from Massachusetts' plan.
  One of the most stunning things that I watched in the debate, Mr. 
Speaker, was the assumption that Mr. Kerry has to sell, and that is, 
that the war in Iraq is a mistake. He says, on the one

[[Page 20876]]

hand, it is a mistake, and on the other hand, he is going to win it. 
But I will tell my colleagues, if you convince enough people in this 
country to vote for the gentleman who says it is a mistake, those 
people have to believe the war is a mistake because much of his 
campaign is based on that presumption and that willingness to change 
the course in this country; but if he convinces the Americans that it 
is a mistake, how then is he going to turn on his heels against the 
will of the American public who has sided with him and then win the 
war?
  Mr. Speaker, I would say that he has no intention of winning the war, 
that instead he is going to go to those allies who say that the war is 
a mistake, whether it be Syria, whether it be France, whether it be 
Russia, whether it be any of the nations who were involved in the Oil-
For-Food scandal that took $10 billion out of money that should have 
bought food for hungry Iraqis, and he would go to them and ask them 
their opinion for this global test that he has suggested.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say that within weeks the gentleman from 
Massachusetts would unilaterally pull out of Iraq, leaving all of our 
allies in that region in very deep distress.
  If the United States pulls out of the Middle East, I think that we 
stand to lose our friends, the Saudi Arabians; our friends, the 
Kuwaitis; the Jordanians. I think Pakistan would be at risk. I think 
Syria would be at risk.
  I think that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not clearly 
contemplated the effects of declaring that this war is a mistake and 
being willing to ridicule our friends, being willing to ridicule the 
prime minister from that war-torn region who is putting his neck on the 
line every single day, and the gentleman from Massachusetts declares 
him to be a puppet.
  We have seen in Pakistan the President, Musharraf, has twice just 
barely escaped assassination attempts. That region is very unstable, 
and we have one of the candidates for President of the United States 
who is willing to say that this coalition, these partners of ours, are 
bribed and coerced. Where is he going to find the people to become a 
part of this multinational cooperation when he makes those kinds of 
statements?
  I think that the gentleman from Massachusetts has ill-thought-out his 
words, has ill-established a doctrine and stands the chance of ruining 
America's hopes for world peace.

                          ____________________