[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 8004-8006]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        MISSION NOT ACCOMPLISHED

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, a year ago the President of the United 
States harkened back to his days as an aviator for the Texas Air 
National Guard to deliver a dramatic made-for-television speech. Eager 
to experience the thrill of a carrier landing, the President donned a 
flight suit, strapped into a jet, and rocketed off into the wild blue 
yonder for a 30-mile journey.
  This flight of fancy concluded with the dramatic landing of that 
speeding plane onto the deck of an aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham 
Lincoln--so named for the stoic leader who guided our country through 
one of its most troubled times.
  Such was the scene on May 1, 2003, under the warming rays of the 
California sun. The President delivered to the sailors on that ship a 
welcome and long overdue message: He commended the men and women on 
their outstanding service to our country during the trials of the war 
in Iraq, and welcomed them back to the United States of America.
  While the President delivered those words of appreciation, every 
television viewer in the country--and, indeed, the world--could see in 
the background a banner with the words ``Mission Accomplished''--
``Mission Accomplished''--superimposed upon the Stars and Stripes.
  In contrast to the simple humility of President Lincoln's Gettysburg 
Address, President Bush's speech was designed from the outset to be 
remembered right up until November 2, 2004.
  The President announced unequivocally that ``major combat operations 
in Iraq have ended,'' and that ``in the battle of Iraq, the United 
States and our allies have prevailed.'' Now, 1 year later, combat 
deaths are more than five times that of a year ago when our President 
celebrated ``mission accomplished.''
  Since that time, Iraq has become a veritable shooting gallery. This 
April has been the bloodiest month of the entire war, with more than 
120 Americans killed. Young lives cut short in pointless conflict, and 
all the President can say is that it ``has been a tough couple of 
weeks''--a tough couple of weeks, indeed.
  Plans have obviously gone tragically awry. But the President has, so 
far, only managed to mutter that we must ``stay the course.'' But what 
course is there to keep when our ship of state is being tossed like a 
dinghy in a storm of Middle East politics? If the course is to end in 
the liberation of Iraq and bring a definitive end to the war against 
Saddam Hussein, one must conclude, mission not accomplished, Mr. 
President.
  The White House argues time and again that Iraq is the ``central 
front'' on the war on terrorism. But instead of keeping murderous al-
Qaida terrorists on the run, the invasion of Iraq has

[[Page 8005]]

stoked the fires of terrorism against the United States and our allies. 
Najaf is smoldering. Fallujah is burning. And there is no exit in 
sight. What has been accomplished, Mr. President?
  Al-Qaida has morphed into a hydra-headed beast, no longer dependent 
on Osama bin Laden. The administration has flippantly claimed that it 
is better to tie down terrorists in Iraq than to battle them in our 
homeland. Mr. President, with hundreds of thousands of American troops 
in Iraq for the foreseeable future, and a worldwide campaign of 
terrorism gathering steam, who is tying down whom?
  Indeed, our attack on Iraq has given Islamic militants a common cause 
and has fertilized the field for new recruits. The failures by the 
United States to secure the peace in Iraq has virtually guaranteed al-
Qaida a fertile field of new recruits ready to sacrifice their lives to 
fight the American infidels. These extremists openly call for 
``jihad,'' swear allegiance to bin Laden, and refer to the September 11 
murderers as the ``magnificent 19.'' According to intelligence sources, 
hundreds of young Muslims are answering recruitment calls with a 
resounding ``yes.''
  Amidst all this, the American people are asking themselves one 
central question: Have we been made more safe by the President's war in 
Iraq? Do we sleep more soundly in our beds now that Saddam Hussein has 
been captured? Or, instead, are we starting to fully comprehend and 
regret the fury which has been unleashed by the unprovoked attack on 
Iraq?
  Deaths and casualties of Iraqi citizens are in the thousands--their 
blood is on our hands--but an actual number cannot be obtained. Is it 
any wonder that Iraqis see us, not as liberators, but as crusaders and 
conquerors? A growing number of Iraqis see us as we would see foreign 
troops on the streets of Chicago or New York or Washington, or any 
small town in America. Surely one can understand the hatred brewing in 
Iraq in the hearts of the men and women and children--the boys and 
girls--in Iraq when we see the agony--the agony--of an Iraqi family 
that has lost a loved one due to an errant bomb or bullet.
  One year after President Bush proclaimed the conclusion of major 
combat operations in Iraq, is the world any safer from terrorism? Iraq 
has become a breeding ground for terrorists of all stripes. The Middle 
East seethes in deepening violence and the culture of revenge. Our war 
on terror appears to many as a war against Islam. A one-sided policy on 
the Arab-Israeli conflict drives both sides away from the peace table, 
and hundreds of millions more to hatred of our country. No, the world 
is not safer.
  One year after the ``mission accomplished'' speech, is America safer? 
We have not secured our homeland from terrifying threats of 
destruction. This President has sown divisions in our longstanding 
alliances. He has squandered our treasure in Iraq and put us deep in 
debt. Our brave soldiers are pinned down in Iraq while our enemies see 
the invincible American armor as penetrable by the sword of urban 
guerrilla warfare. No, America is not safer.
  One year ago, the President announced an end to major combat 
operations in Iraq. And yet our troops are having their deployments 
extended in Iraq while our lines are stretched thin everywhere else. 
Billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars are being poured into Iraq. 
Seven hundred and twenty-two American lives have been lost before 
today. And we hear that 8 to 10 additional lives have been lost today. 
Unknown thousands of Iraqis are dead. Claims of WMD and death-dealing 
drones are discredited. And bin Laden is still on the loose.
  I stand behind no one in supporting our troops through the dangers 
they face every day. I grieve along with the families that have lost 
loved ones. The failures of post-war Iraq lay squarely on the Bush 
administration for recklessly sending this country--sending our men and 
women--to war, a war that should not have been fought, a war in the 
wrong place, at the wrong time, and for the wrong reasons.
  Mission accomplished? The mission in Iraq, as laid out by President 
Bush and Vice President Cheney, has failed. Even more disturbing, the 
disdain for international law, and the military bombast of this cocky, 
reckless administration have tarnished the beacon of hope and freedom 
which the United states of America once offered to the world.
  How long will America continue to pay the price in blood and treasure 
of this President's war? How long must the best of our Nation's 
military men and women be taken from their homes to fight this 
unnecessary war in Iraq? How long must our National Guardsmen be taken 
from their communities to fight and to die in the hot sands of Iraq? 
How long must the mothers and the fathers see their sons and daughters 
die in a faraway land because of President Bush's doctrine of 
preemptive attack? How long must little children across our great land 
go to sleep at night crying for a daddy or a mother far away who may 
never come back home?
  President Bush typified the Happy Warrior when he strutted across the 
deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln a year ago this coming Saturday. He was 
in his glory that day. But on this May 1, we will remember the widows 
and the orphans who have been made by his fateful decision to attack 
Iraq. We will be aware of the tears that have been shed for his glory. 
How long? How long? How long?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Massachusetts 
is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I yield my remaining time to the 
Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, in the midst of the ongoing upsurge of 
the violence in Iraq, President Bush has offered two options for the 
United States. The first option is to stay the course; the second 
option is to cut and run. That is a false choice between staying the 
course and cutting and running. It is too typical of the black and 
white approach that this administration has repeatedly and unwisely 
taken.
  For example, saying ``you are either with us or against us'' is a 
black and white choice--the stark choice the President laid down to 
allies. Well, it may make you feel good to say that, but it needlessly 
offends those who are certainly not hostile to the United States but 
may be unwilling to affirmatively endorse all of our actions.
  In addition to the President's stark two options--staying the course 
or cutting and running--there is a third way, and that is to correct 
the course we are on. The administration has belatedly begun this 
process, but there is much to be done, and it is much harder and more 
difficult because of the administration's stubborn insistence that no 
mistakes were made and its refusal to learn the lessons that need to be 
learned from those mistakes.
  For instance, after holding the United Nations at arm's length, the 
administration is now belatedly working with the U.N., asking them to 
help identify an entity to whom sovereignty could be restored by June 
30--an entity which needs to have the confidence and credibility of the 
Iraqi people. I hope this will be the start of a true partnership at 
the U.N. in fostering Iraq's political and economic development.
  The administration has decided to retain some troops in Iraq that 
were scheduled to leave, despite the fact that the administration 
disparaged General Shinseki when he foretold the need for more troops 
for the stability phase.
  The administration decided to modify its policy on de-Baathification 
and reinstate about 11,000 teachers and hundreds of professors and is 
reportedly looking to reinstate others whose skills and support are 
needed for Iraq's development. I hope this revision is seen for what it 
is--acknowledgement that we went too far, acknowledgement that we made 
a mistake. I hope it will also include the removal of Ahmed Chalabi as 
the head of the de-Baathification program, as well. He is the wrong 
person for the job for a lot of reasons.
  While not reversing the mistaken decision to disband the Iraqi Army, 
the

[[Page 8006]]

administration's decision to bring back some military officers who were 
not high Baathists to help guide the new Iraqi Army and other security 
forces is a practical first step--very late. We only have a few 
thousand in the Iraqi Army who are now trained but long overdue.
  One other mistake was perhaps the biggest mistake of all, in my 
judgment. Our uniformed military leadership was largely excluded from 
the planning for the potentially violent aftermath of the fall of 
Saddam Hussein's regime. The civilians in the Pentagon who were put in 
charge projected rose-colored scenarios in their planning for the 
aftermath: Our troops would be greeted with embraces and flowers. It 
would be a cakewalk.
  Had our uniformed military leadership been more deeply involved in 
that planning, it would have been very different, as our military plans 
for worst case scenarios. The worst case scenario is what turned out to 
be the case. But uniformed military were all but left out of the 
planning for the post-Saddam period. General Tommy Franks, the now 
retired commander of Central Command who planned the other phases of 
the operation, confirmed that to me and to Senator Warner a few weeks 
ago.
  On the matter of planning, I realize the administration is committed 
to the June 30 date for the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty. But I 
hope that commitment will not prevent it from planning for other 
options in the event Mr. Brahimi is not successful in identifying a 
credible entity to whom sovereignty can be restored by that date.
  If we have a chance of succeeding and bringing stability and 
democracy to Iraq, it will mean learning from our mistakes, not denying 
them and not ignoring them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, are we now under the Republican time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I yield that 3 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota, Mr. Dayton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.

                          ____________________