[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7712-7714]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              WAR RECORDS

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada. Nothing 
could be more poignant, as we view what has taken place in Iraq, than 
the bravado that led us into the battle and the boastful statements 
that were made, such as ``mission accomplished.'' What the mission 
accomplished was, was to get a picture that could be used in an 
election campaign. That was the mission that was accomplished.
  People thought the President was talking about something else, and he 
did say the worst is behind us. It is a terrible memory for us to 
conjure up while people are dying in quantities hardly ever dreamed 
about, far more casualties in this war where we have 130,000 people in 
Iraq than when we had 540,000 people in the first gulf war because 
there were enough of them to protect one another; there were enough of 
them to get the job done quickly and effectively.
  We have some memories, and I couldn't agree more with the Democratic 
whip, my friend from Nevada, about mistakes made and remembering 
``bring them on,'' which I found so offensive.
  This week is the anniversary of the photo on the bridge of the 
aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. Photo on the bridge--that is the 
memory that is going to be conveyed out there. This is the photo on the 
bridge. Here is the aircraft carrier looking very splendid in a display 
of power, but the timing was so far off and the statements were so 
empty: ``Mission accomplished.''
  Ask the 600 families who have lost children; ask those 22 families of 
sons and daughters in the State of New Jersey whether they think the 
mission was accomplished May 1 a year ago. I don't think they would 
agree.
  Yesterday, I had an opportunity to visit the World War II memorial 
that is going to be open to the public very shortly. I am a veteran of 
World War II, as are several other Members of the Senate. I came from a 
working-class family. My 42-year-old father was on his deathbed from 
cancer when I enlisted. My mother became a 36-year-old widow. I was 18 
already. I did not enlist to be a hero. I simply wanted to do whatever 
I could to help my country. So when I looked at the memorial yesterday, 
it brought back some very significant memories.
  I remember being in uniform. I remember climbing telephone poles and 
putting up wire. Once again, I did what I was supposed to do because I 
was in the Signal Corps and responsible in part for getting 
communications between those who are commanders and those who are in 
the field.
  I had a fairly narrow perspective, but one thing I did respect was 
those who received medals, those who had a Purple Heart. They were my 
heroes, and we used to defer to them. Anyone who got a Bronze Star or a 
Silver Star was thought to be someone special. That was to those of us 
in uniform who were trying to bring America victory. That is what 
happened.
  When you visit the Vietnam Memorial here in Washington, it pulls at 
your heartstrings to see 58,235 names on the wall and you are reminded 
of the gravity and the impact that conflict had on our Nation. But now 
we are in a different place. I do not believe, I must say, we should 
judge our politicians based on who served and who did not serve. But 
when those who did not serve attack the heroism of those who did, I 
find it particularly offensive, and I hope people across America will 
put aside that criticism of Senator John Kerry who received three 
Purple Hearts and a Silver Star, which is a

[[Page 7713]]

very high commendation for bravery. I find it offensive, and I hope 
every American and I hope every veteran will say: No, no, you can't 
talk like that, pretending this man is soft on defense. He put his neck 
on the line, almost lost it, and saved someone else's neck in a very 
heroic deed.
  That is what we are talking about: heroism. Max Cleland lost three 
limbs in Vietnam, and they shamed him so that he was pushed out of 
office because he was portrayed as weak on defense. Where do they come 
off with that kind of stuff? I will never know, but I hope the American 
public understands what is being done.
  We now have discovered a return of the chicken hawk. We thought they 
flew the coop, but in the last week or two, they have returned aplenty. 
If anyone is curious about what a chicken hawk is, I have a definition 
right here on this placard. We see the chicken in a uniform with 
medals. The definition obtained from the Internet goes as follows:

       Chickenhawk, n.: A person enthusiastic about war, provided 
     someone else does the fighting, particularly when that 
     enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most 
     emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of 
     ample opportunity in that person's youth--

  I am extending it--to serve their country, unless you had a good 
excuse, unless you had other priorities.
  Chicken hawks shriek like a hawk, but they have the backbone of a 
chicken. We know who the chicken hawks are. They talk tough on national 
defense and military issues and cast aspersion on others. When it was 
their turn to serve, where were they? A-W-O-L, that's where they were.
  Now the chicken hawks are cackling about Senator John Kerry. The lead 
chicken hawk against Senator Kerry is the Vice President of the United 
States, Vice President Cheney. He was in Missouri this week claiming 
Senator Kerry is not up to the job of protecting this Nation. What 
nerve. Where was Dick Cheney when that war was going on where 58,235 
young men died and many more wounded and many with wounds that were 
never visible, but you could see it in their emotional structure and in 
their psychology? It was a war everyone thinks in retrospect was 
misguided. But John Kerry volunteered for hazardous duty on a swift 
boat going up a river with people shooting at him all over the place. 
Cowardly? What an insult. I plead with veterans across this country. 
Look at what they are saying about your service. Exemplified: Max 
Cleland lost three limbs. What a sacrifice he made, and they beat him 
in the election, beat him in the polls because they characterized him 
as soft on defense. Now they want to take John Kerry who served nobly 
and establish that he, too, is soft on defense. I don't know where they 
get it.
  He fought for our country. He still has shrapnel from the 
battlefield. Vice President Cheney said: At the time he had other 
priorities in the sixties than military service. He ought to tell that 
to the parents of those who lost their lives in Vietnam, and ask them 
what they think.
  I heard someone--I think it was Karen Hughes--on the television the 
other night. Why are they talking about a 35-year-old war? A 35-year-
old war? Ask those who served in Vietnam whether they ever think it is 
a 35-year-old war.
  Come on, America, face up to what we are doing here. This is the 
ultimate disgrace: Risk your life and then be abused by those in the 
highest office in the country? The chicken hawk has no idea what it 
means to have the courage to put your life at risk to defend this 
Nation. They are quick to disparage those who did sacrifice. I do not 
understand how their conscience permits them to challenge Senator 
Kerry's commitment to our Nation's defense.
  The reality is the chicken hawks in this administration are doing a 
lousy job of bolstering our Nation's defense and supporting the troops. 
Case in point: Mission accomplished.
  I want to discuss this 1-year anniversary because I think it 
summarizes this flawed thinking and policy planning of the 
administration regarding its activities in Iraq after the initial 
invasion. We are all familiar with the imagery of May 1, 2003. My 
colleagues can see it on this placard. President Bush is dressed up in 
a flight suit--well, here he is wearing civilian clothes--playing 
soldier that day. The theatrics that followed were a production 
carefully choreographed by the White House political unit. It was 
nothing more than a staged circus act.
  When the President switched to substance, it was almost more 
disturbing. He declared that ``major combat operations are over.''
  He was, unfortunately, wrong. He was certainly wrong over 600 times 
because people died in that relatively peaceful postwar period of time.
  Since the President declared mission accomplished on May 1, 2003, we 
have lost 585 American troops in Iraq. Before that day we had lost 139. 
That is a total of 724. In the first gulf war, with over 500,000 troops 
abroad, we lost a total of 293 troops.
  When the President made his speech on the May 1 mission, it was not 
accomplished. Major combat operations were not over. It was a naive 
miscalculation. The troops on the ground in Iraq knew trouble was 
brewing, even though they heard that declaration that the mission was 
accomplished. They knew trouble was brewing as insurgents were 
launching more and more attacks.
  When these attacks on our troops became more frequent, what did the 
President say last July? I could not believe what I was hearing. He 
said, ``Bring 'em on,'' in this gesture of bravado, in this gesture of 
toughness, bring them on. But he was not brought on. He was brought on 
to the deck of the aircraft carrier but he was not brought on to the 
battlefield in Vietnam when there was a chance to do something.
  I do not think our soldiers are so happy about the President's 
dangerous comment.
  I served in Europe in World War II. The last thing I wanted to hear 
from my Commander in Chief, or my local commander, is to dare the enemy 
to launch attacks on us.
  The President and his allies are charging Senator Kerry with being a 
flip-flopper, but is it not a more dangerous flip-flop to tell our 
enemies to bring it on and invite attacks? Is it not a flip-flop when 
one says they support the troops and then--I heard it directly on our 
recent trip to Iraq when a captain in one of the reserve units--no, he 
was full service--when I asked if there were any complaints, he said, 
Senator, those flak jackets, the new ones, I have seen them on Spanish 
coalition members and I have seen them on other coalition members. We 
do not have them, Senator.
  He then pointed to his rifle. He said, You know, there are smaller, 
more efficient, and better sidings and better sights on smaller, 
lighter weapons. We do not have those. We need more armored Humvee 
vehicles.
  When I was in Iraq in March, soldiers complained to me they are not 
receiving the best equipment they could have.
  What about the President's flip-flop to military families? He is 
arbitrarily extending tours of duties despite promises to families that 
loved ones would be returning home.
  No, when it comes to supporting the troops the President is a flip-
flopper. He says one thing, does another. Supporting the troops means 
careful planning of military operations, both pre-and postinvasion.
  We know the administration did not want to hear any dissent about the 
unrealistic assessment of what the Iraqi operation would require. When 
General Shinseki, a distinguished military leader, said we need more 
troops, that over 300,000 troops would be required, he got fired. 
Instead, we have 130,000 troops in Iraq. That is what is favored by 
Secretary Rumsfeld.
  Our excellent troops are fighting a treacherous insurgency launched 
by both Sunni and Shi'a elements. Combat operations are not over. They 
are raging. It is obvious the administration miscalculated and 
misunderstood what would happen after we deposed Saddam. In fact, the 
administration's beliefs bordered on the delusional. Experts warned 
them at the time, but they refused to listen.

[[Page 7714]]

  According to Bob Woodward's account, Secretary Powell was all but 
excluded from the war planning among the key Cabinet officers. Colin 
Powell is the only one who ever saw combat in that group and they 
excluded him.
  George McGovern, a friend, a decorated veteran, said this war was 
clearly planned by people who have never seen a battlefield. Look at 
what Vice President Cheney said on March 16, 2003:

       We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think 
     it will go relatively quickly . . . (in) weeks rather than 
     months.

  February 23, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said the war ``could last 6 
days, 6 weeks. I doubt 6 months.'' Now it is over a year later and the 
war is still going on. A total of 724 American troops have been killed, 
585 of them after President Bush declared major combat operations had 
ended.
  We are in a quagmire that is the result of miscalculations and poor 
planning by the administration, but for the sake of our troops it is 
time for the chicken hawks in this administration to end the arrogance 
and the bravado that has put us in the mess we are in right now.
  If we want someone effectively to defend our Nation and support our 
troops, I say let us look to someone who understands what it really 
means to answer the call and defend your country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. For the information of Members, there are 
still 4 minutes 30 seconds remaining. Does the Senator wish to yield 
back the time?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield back all the time, yes.

                          ____________________