[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 10]
[House]
[Page 13469]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                INFORMATION THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McCaul of Texas). Under a previous order 
of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last week H.J. Res. 55 was introduced. This 
resolution requires the President to develop and implement a plan for 
the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The plan would be announced 
before December 31, 2005, with the withdrawal to commence no later than 
October 1, 2006.
  The media and the opponents of this plan immediately and incorrectly 
claimed it would set a date certain for a total withdrawal. The 
resolution, hardly radical in nature, simply restates the policy 
announced by the administration. We have been told repeatedly that 
there will be no permanent occupation of Iraq and the management will 
be turned over to the Iraqis as soon as possible.
  The resolution merely pressures the administration to be more precise 
in its stated goals and make plans to achieve them in a time frame that 
negates the perception we are involved in a permanent occupation of 
Iraq.
  The sharpest criticism of this resolution is that it would, if 
implemented, give insurgents in Iraq information that is helpful to 
their cause and harmful to our troops. This is a reasonable concern, 
which we address by not setting a precise time for exiting Iraq. The 
critics, though, infer that the enemy should never have any hint as to 
our intentions.
  Yet, as we prepared to invade Iraq, the administration generously 
informed the Iraqis exactly about our plans to use ``shock and awe'' 
military force. With this information, many Iraqi fighters, 
anticipating immediate military defeat, disappeared into the slums and 
hills and survived to fight another day, which they have.
  One could argue that this information made available to the enemy was 
clearly used against us. This argument used to criticize H.J. Res. 55, 
that it might reveal our intentions, is not automatically valid. It 
could just as easily be argued that conveying to the enemy that we do 
not plan an indefinite occupation, as is our stated policy, will save 
many American lives.
  But what we convey or do not convey to the Iraqi people is not the 
most crucial issue. The more important issue is this. Do the American 
people deserve to know more about our goals: the length of time we 
expect to be in Iraq; how many more Americans are likely to be killed 
and wounded; will there be a military draft; what is the likelihood of 
lingering diseases that our veterans may suffer, remember Agent Orange 
and the Persian Gulf War syndrome; and how many more tax dollars are 
required to fight this war indefinitely?
  The message insurgents do need to hear and believe is that we are 
serious when we say we have no desire for a permanent occupation of 
Iraq. We must stick to this policy announced by the administration.
  A plausible argument can be made that the guerrillas are inspired by 
our presence in Iraq, which to them seems endless. Iraqi deaths, 
whether through direct U.S. military action, collateral damage, or 
Iraqis killing Iraqis, serve to inspire an even greater number of 
Iraqis to join the insurgency. Because we are in charge, justly or not, 
we are blamed for all the deaths.
  Continuing to justify our presence in Iraq because we must punish 
those for 9/11 is disingenuous to say the least. We are sadly now at 
greater risk than before 9/11. We refuse to deal with our own borders 
while chastising the Syrians for not securing their borders with Iraq. 
An end game needs to be in place, and the American people deserve to 
know exactly what that plan is. They are the ones who must send their 
sons and daughters off to war and pay the bills when they come due.

                          ____________________