[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 22]
[Senate]
[Pages 30661-30662]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President I ask that the following editorial which 
was written by my good friend, former Senator Fritz Hollings, and 
published in the Charleston Post and Courier on October 27, 2005, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page 30662]]



                 Misled About Iraq, Secure It or Leave

       A G.I. with his legs blown away in Iraq asks, ``Senator, 
     why did we go into Iraq?'' Answer: ``to secure Israel by 
     democratizing the Mideast.'' Immediately my over-sensitive 
     Jewish friends withdraw in horror: ``There you go, blaming 
     Israel.'' Not at all. The fact is that Israel opposed the 
     plan. Now, with our unwarranted invasion and al-Jazeera 
     reporting daily on U.S. ``atrocities,'' we are spreading 
     terrorism and have damaged the security of Israel.
       In 1996, incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of 
     Israel commissioned a think-tank headed by Richard Pearle, 
     Douglas Feith and David Wurmser. The three submitted the plan 
     ``Clean Break'': Negotiating with Arafat is futile. Instead, 
     secure Israel by democratizing the Middle East.
       First bomb Lebanon. Next invade Syria on the pretext of it 
     possessing weapons of mass destruction. Then replace Saddam 
     with a Hashemite ruler favorable to Israel. Netanyahu 
     rejected ``Clean Break.''
       Determined, Pearle, Feith and Wurmser returned to the 
     United States and joined in the Project for the New American 
     Century with Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and 
     Scooter Libby, among others. In 1998, the group prevailed on 
     Congress for regime change in Iraq, and the Senate by a voice 
     vote adopted such a resolution. At the time, no senator 
     thought we were endorsing an invasion--just encouraging 
     resistance in Iraq. But when George W. Bush was elected 
     president ``Clean Break'' hit pay dirt.
       The Project for the New American Century crowd took office. 
     Richard Cheney became vice president, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and 
     Feith took the number first, second and third positions in 
     the Department of Defense. Richard Pearle became chairman of 
     the Defense Advisory Board. ``Scooter'' Libby and David 
     Wurmser were advising Cheney.
       President Bush, days before taking office in 2001, sought a 
     briefing on, of all things, Iraq from then Secretary of 
     Defense William Cohen.
       Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill tells in ``The Price of 
     Loyalty'' how he was astonished at the first meeting of the 
     National Security Council. He went to discuss the recession 
     but all talk was about Iraq. The day after 9/11, President 
     Bush turned to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 
     requesting a plan to invade Iraq even though Iraq had nothing 
     to do with 9/11. The administration was determined to invade 
     Iraq.
       Jason Leopold and Larisa Alexandrovna in ``Raw Story'' now 
     report: ``Although the CIA documents that Wurmser and his 
     staff pored over showed Iraq as being an immediate threat, 
     Wurmser was dead-set on finding and presenting evidence to 
     Vice President Dick Cheney that suggested as much, even if 
     the veracity of such intelligence was questionable.
       ``Wurmser helped Cheney's office, particularly ``Scooter'' 
     Libby, construct a case for war. He met frequently with 
     Cheney, Libby, Feith and Richard Pearle, the former head of 
     the Defense Policy Board, to go over the ``evidence'' of the 
     threat posed by Saddam Hussein that could then be used by the 
     White House to build public support. Wurmser routinely butted 
     heads with the CIA over the veracity of the intelligence he 
     was providing to Cheney's office.''
       In short, the invasion of Iraq was not based on 
     intelligence but was contrived. ``But Senator why did you 
     vote to go into Iraq?'' Answer: I followed the rationale of 
     the White House for invasion carefully. Having served on the 
     Hoover Commission investigating the intelligence activities 
     of the United States with Gen. Mark Clark, I learned that 
     Israel's intelligence, Mossad, is the best on the Middle 
     East. As an island of democracy in a sea of hostility, Israel 
     has to know what is going on in Baghdad. Israel has no time 
     to call for a summit meeting or to go to the United Nations. 
     Any real threat must be knocked out immediately.
       This is why Israel knocked out Iraq's nuclear facility 
     without warning in 1981. Days before we voted, President Bush 
     said, ``Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait until 
     the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud.'' When the commander-in-
     chief says this, he's got my vote.
       I was sure Mossad had found nuclear weapons and we were 
     knocking them out and eliminating Saddam.
       Now we're waiting for Iraqis to do what we've never done--
     secure Iraq; secure the Syrian and Iranian borders 
     immediately; and clean out the Sunni triangle. It would cause 
     casualties but to fight a war you have to fight a war. Either 
     get in or get out.
       If we're not going to secure Iraq, then the next best thing 
     is to get Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani to ask us to leave.
       Ernest F. Hollings, a Democrat, served as a U.S. senator 
     for South Carolina from 1966 to 2003.

                          ____________________