[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14581-14588]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               IRAQ WATCH

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Schmidt). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) 
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, once again we come to the 
floor this evening as part of Iraq Watch. We do so this evening with 
both heavy and somber hearts for everything that is going on as we 
currently speak in the Middle East. Our hearts especially go out to our 
great ally Israel, as it wards off vicious attacks by Hezbollah. Once 
again, it only underscores the need for us in this body to do the kind 
of oversight and review and have the kind of dialogue and discussion 
that has been absent on the floor of this House and in our respective 
committees.
  Madam Speaker, as we have on so many of these occasions, we begin 
this evening by once again honoring as well those brave men and women 
who wear the uniform of our country. They serve this Nation so 
valiantly.
  Let me also acknowledge so many veterans and individuals who have 
played such a key role, especially those from the Vietnam era, in 
understanding and helping us recognize that it is so important to 
differentiate between the warriors and the war. So we salute those 
brave men and women who are in harm's way, who are dealing with 
untenable situations they are confronted with in Iraq.
  I especially want to draw attention again to a bill that we have 
before this body that we are still seeking more signatures to, and 
requesting and asking the Speaker and the majority leader to bring it 
to the floor by unanimous consent.

                              {time}  2115

  I do not believe that there is anyone in this body that does not 
understand the need for making sure that the Iraqi government does not 
grant amnesty to those who kidnap, kill, torture and maim American 
citizens and American troops.
  And so I think it is so vitally important that this message be sent, 
especially as the insurgency only intensifies in the region. Brookings 
Institute and others who have polled find that 47 percent of the people 
in Iraq believe that it is okay to kill Americans. It is time that we 
send a clear message. That is why we come to the floor on successive 
evenings to send a clear message to the American public about what is 
transpiring before our eyes.
  We pause, as I said earlier, both in somber and peaceful resolution 
that this conflict can be resolved speedily and we especially pray for 
those Americans who need to be evacuated from harm's way.
  Madam Speaker, I am joined this evening by several of my colleagues 
who have come to this floor on repeated occasions to talk about a new 
direction that is needed in the Middle East, a new direction that needs 
to be taken by this Congress, a new direction that needs to be taken by 
this President, so we provide an opportunity for this great country of 
ours to once again move us forward out of harm's way and into a 
peaceful resolution to what has become consistently a quagmire known as 
Iraq.
  With that, I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Connecticut. It is good to be joined by my other colleague from New 
York (Mr. Bishop) and Chris Van Hollen from Maryland.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to speak for just a moment regarding what 
is happening in terms of the war on terror. We should all be alarmed. 
We see the events of recent days unfolding in Lebanon, Israel, in Gaza. 
And it is clear that terrorism is spreading. It is not declining.
  I would submit that those events were inevitable, the law of 
unintended consequences, if you will, that many of us predicted when 
the resolution that authorized the invasion of Iraq came to the floor. 
I dare say that in the Mideast today there is an awareness on the part 
of world opinion that the war in Iraq has increased the likelihood of 
terrorist attacks around the world.
  A recent poll that was commissioned by the BBC, and again, this was a 
poll that was taken in some 35 countries, found that 60 percent of the 
world believes that the threat of terrorism has increased some 60 
percent, while only 12 percent believed that it has declined.
  And the nexus was the war in Iraq, and the conduct of the war in 
Iraq. They saw the war in Iraq as an impediment to the defeat of 
terrorism. And the experts agree. There was a survey done of more than 
100 individuals with extensive foreign policy experience and national 
security backgrounds.
  And what was particularly disturbing is that among the experts, 84 
percent said that the United States was not winning the war on 
terrorism, and some 86 percent said that the world was becoming more, 
not less, dangerous in terms of terrorism because of our involvement in 
Iraq.
  This is extremely frightening. And let me put forth a premise to you, 
to my colleagues. I would suggest that it is not unrelated that we see 
Hamas and Hezbollah asserting themselves today, in the past several 
weeks, because there is a growing awareness that the United States is 
bogged down in Iraq, and that world opinion in terms of the role of the 
United States in Iraq is highly negative.
  And what do we see in terms of the new Iraqi government and its 
relationship with Iran, a sponsor of Hezbollah and a sponsor of Hamas? 
We see exchange of diplomats. We see a billion dollar line of credit 
coming from Iran to Iraq. We see a military corporation agreement 
between Iran and Iraq. Iran, the sponsor of Hezbollah and Hamas. That 
is what we see. That is what we are seeing.
  And we are listening to the foreign minister, the foreign minister of 
Iraq when asked about the United States pressuring Iran to disclose 
where they are in the development of nuclear technology, to disclose 
whether any of those efforts could be utilized to develop a nuclear 
bomb, a nuclear weapon.
  And the Iraqi foreign minister is saying, do not pressure the 
Iranians; accept their word. I mean, what is happening? Are the 
American people aware of these particular events? And then of course at 
the same time, the forgotten war, if you will, the country that 
harbored al Qaeda, that was ruled by a radical Islamists sect called 
the Taliban is on the verge of unraveling.
  The Afghan defense minister recently made this statement: we need 
five times the number of security forces to address the issue of a 
resurgent Taliban. Without them we are in real danger of collapse. So 
everywhere we look in terms of the Middle East, we see danger and we 
see danger to Israel, we see danger in the entire region. And we hear, 
``Stay the course.''
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, the gentleman makes a great 
premise that he asks us to respond to. But what I would like to do, if 
I could, is respond by quoting from a column in the New York Times 
yesterday by Frank Rich, who said: ``The Bush doctrine was a doctrine 
in name only, a sales strategy contrived to dress up the single mission 
of regime change in Iraq with the philosophical grandiosity worthy of 
FDR. There was never any serious intention of militarily preempting 
either Iran or North Korea whose nuclear ambitions were as naked then 
as they are now, or striking the countries

[[Page 14582]]

that unlike Iraq were major enablers of Islamic terrorism. `Axis of 
evil' was merely a classier brand name from the same sloganeering folks 
who gave us compassionate conservatism, and `a uniter not a divider.'''
  Madam Speaker, with that I would like to yield to my distinguished 
colleague from New York (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Connecticut for yielding, and I thank him also for his leadership in 
organizing these very important discussions on the administration's 
failed policy with respect to Iraq, and for that matter the 
administration's failed policy with respect to the conduct of our 
foreign affairs in general.
  It is a subject that we discuss all too infrequently in this Chamber. 
Let me just pick up on the point that Mr. Larson just made. It was 4\1/
2\ years ago that the President came into this Chamber to deliver his 
State of the Union Address for 2002.
  It was in that address that he first characterized North Korea and 
Iran and Iraq as the Axis of Evil. And I think it is without argument, 
without debate today, that all three of those states present this 
country, our country, with greater threats to our safety and security 
than they did when they were first characterized as the axis of evil, 
and that is because we have embarked on a failed strategy in Iraq that 
has bogged us down, that is apparently without end, without success, 
and yet prevents us, because of our preoccupation with Iraq and because 
of the troop strength that has been needed in Iraq and prevents us from 
dealing with the threat that is now posed and was posed at the time by 
North Korea and the threat that was posed and is now posed by Iran.
  Let me also comment on something that Mr. Delahunt from Massachusetts 
said repeatedly, the war in Iraq has been characterized as the 
centerpiece of the war on terror. It is frankly not at all the 
centerpiece on the war on terror. It is a diversion from the war on 
terror. It is a diversion that does not serve either the country well 
or serve our allies well.
  We have a foreign policy, it seems to me, that is rooted in ideology 
as opposed to pragmatism, and we are learning the limits of applying 
that ideology as we deal unsuccessfully with the situation in North 
Korea and the situation in Iran.
  We see the Middle East in flames as we speak, and we recognize that 
we have a long history that nothing good happens in the conflict 
between Israel and the Palestinian territories unless the United States 
is intimately involved in being an honest broker to bring about 
resolution of vexing and difficult issues.
  Let me share just a couple of statistics that I think speak to just 
how far off track we are in Iraq. The number of insurgents in 2003 was 
5,000. Today that number stands at 20,000. I am sure we all remember 
when the insurgency was described as a few dead-enders.
  I am sure we all remember when the Secretary of Defense rather 
dismissively described what was happening in Iraq by saying that 
``freedom is messy.''

                              {time}  2130

  We now have a situation where those dead-enders, so to speak, have 
metastasized into 20,000 insurgents. The average number of daily 
attacks has risen in just 1 year from 53 to 75. This does not sound 
like an insurgency that is in its final throes, and yet that is what we 
were told.
  The number of civilian casualties resulting from sectarian violence 
has increased by 600 per month, now to a total of nearly 1,600 lost 
innocent lives per month. That is the equivalent of a 9/11 every 2 
months in Iraq. Would any one of us stand for that if that were 
happening in this country? We certainly would not. Yet the carnage 
continues, and sectarian violence has increased dramatically over this 
period of time.
  Financially, the burn rate has doubled from nearly $4 billion per 
month to $8 billion per month over the past 2 years, and I am sure we 
all remember how dismissively the administration handled the early 
estimates of the war. When Mr. Lindsey first said it would be $100- to 
$200 billion that was dismissed out of hand, and we were told that it 
would be no more than $50- or $60 billion for the war. We are now $300 
billion and counting, as I say, with no end in sight.
  We all wish that we could believe the administration's happy talk 
with respect to stability taking hold, with respect to progress being 
made. But we are now 3\1/2\ years into this tragic conflict, and we are 
no closer to the goal of an Iraqi state that does not pose threats to 
the safety and security of this Nation.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I want to thank the gentleman from New 
York for his insightful comments, many of which were echoed by Paul 
Krugman in a New York Times article today called March of Folly.
  With that I would like to yield to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. 
Van Hollen.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague from Connecticut, and thank him 
for his leadership on this very important issue of national security, 
and thank my colleagues Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Bishop of New York for all 
of their leadership.
  I would just like to pick up where Mr. Delahunt and others left off 
with respect to the forgotten war in Afghanistan. I do think it is 
important, when we look at the situation in the world today, and we 
look at the violence erupting in the Middle East, we do remember what 
happened here in the United States back on September 11, 2001, and the 
origins of that attack.
  As he reminds us, the attack on the United States, September 11, 
2001, came from al Qaeda, al Qaeda that was sheltered by the Taliban 
government in Afghanistan; and that the world was with us when we 
responded, fully and forcefully, to those attacks of September, 2001.
  In fact, the United Nations unanimously passed a resolution 
supporting us, our NATO allies universally supported us. In fact, they 
enacted a charter, part of a NATO charter saying an attack on one was 
an attack on all.
  Yet today we are seeing in Afghanistan there has been a resurgence of 
Taliban activity, and at a very time when we are facing that 
resurgence, the United States is not providing a commitment that we 
need to make sure that we succeed against those who began and 
perpetrated the attacks of September 11, 2001.
  Back then, instead of focusing on that battle against those who 
attacked us, we did divert our resources and our energy in Iraq.
  The President gave a number of reasons back then for the action we 
were taking. We remember well the twin pillars of the argument. He 
said, well, they have got weapons of mass destruction. Many of us said, 
let's let the U.N. inspectors have a little more time to see whether 
that is true or not true.
  The President said, no more time, we are going in. He also said there 
was collaboration between al Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussein in 
Iraq. The 9/11 Commission and many others have proven that that is not 
true either.
  But it is important to remember that the President also advanced some 
other reasons for going to war in Iraq. One of the arguments he made 
was by the United States going to Iraq. By invading Iraq, we would help 
build stability in the Middle East, that we would promote democracy in 
the Middle East, that we would reduce the influence of the hardliners 
in the area and increase the influence of the moderates.
  In fact, just a few weeks before the invasion of Iraq, in a speech 
before the American Enterprise Institute, here is what the President 
had to say. I think it is important to reflect on his words then as we 
look now at the terrible violence erupting in the Middle East.
  He said then, and this was one of the rationales he gave us for going 
to war in Iraq, success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle 
Eastern peace and set in motion progress for a truly democratic 
Palestinian state. The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive 
terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training 
and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers, and other regimes 
will be

[[Page 14583]]

given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated. 
That was a word of his to Iran and others.
  Without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are 
working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position 
to choose new leaders.
  Well, in fact, what has happened in the Middle East, since the 
invasion of Iraq is the opposite of what the President has said.
  We know now that when we invaded Iraq, we took the lid off Pandora's 
box, that we set in motion longstanding grievances within different 
groups within Iraq, the Sunnis, and Shiias and the Kurds, and that 
outsiders exploited the mess that was created in Iraq, and al Qaeda, 
that had never operated out of Iraq, did become active in Iraq.
  In fact, what happened was our invasion of Iraq strengthened the 
hands of extremist groups throughout the region. It made it more 
difficult for the more moderate Arab governments to support the United 
States, because people in their countries saw that the United States 
had invaded Iraq, and they said there was no reason for this war of 
choice against Iraq.
  The big winner, the big winner, of course, as Mr. Delahunt pointed 
out, has been Iran. Iran has very successfully exploited the chaos and 
the vacuum that has been created in Iraq as a result of the mess there. 
They have gone into Iraq. They have many agents there, and they, as we 
know, are also exploiting the feelings of others throughout the region, 
especially Hezbollah. They have provided missiles to Hezbollah, 
missiles that are now being used to rain down on northern Israel.
  Iran, Iran, as a result, has become much more of a power in the 
region. Iran, one of the other countries the President named as the 
axis of evil, has, in fact, been strengthened by the President's 
decision to go to war in Iraq.
  You just need to read the comments of other Arab leaders in the 
region, from some of the more moderate Arab countries who say today, 
they ask, this is quoted in The New York Times, Who is benefiting, 
asked a senior official of one of the Arab countries, critical of 
Hezbollah. Definitely not the Arabs or the peace process, but 
definitely the Iranians are benefiting
  Arab leaders have long been concerned about Iran, and the great irony 
of our invasion of Iraq is it has greatly strengthened the hand of Iran 
and greatly strengthened the hands of the extremists in the region who 
have been fueled by the antagonism that is unleashed toward the United 
States and the West by our actions there.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. The gentleman makes an excellent point. 
Every time I travel back to my district, the question that more often 
than not is raised at every forum, every community gathering, every 
town hall meeting is, How is it that the United States could go from a 
position in the aftermath, the immediate aftermath of September 11th, 
with having the entire world on our side, to the point where we are 
today where so many are opposed to our policies?
  What is it that took us down that perilous course? How could it be 
that the former President, Bush the first, if you will, and his 
advisers, were the most outspoken critics about going into Iraq, 
warning this current administration of its folly, of its danger?
  I can remember very distinctly being in Saudi Arabia with Jack Murtha 
and talking to our Ambassador there, and saying to him that, oh, it 
seems as though you have a gathering storm here in Saudi Arabia, in 
August of 2002.
  He said, gathering storm? He said, Congressman, you are from New 
England, aren't you? I assume you either read the book or saw the 
movie. He says, we have over 35 percent unemployment. We have a median 
income that has dropped from 28,000 to under 7,000 per household. What 
we have here is not a gathering storm, what we have here is a perfect 
storm.
  If we preemptively strike this toothless tiger in Iraq, we will 
unwittingly accomplish what Osama bin Laden failed to do. We will 
create a united Islamic jihad across the Middle East and drive it into 
chaos. The voices of reason, the voices screaming out at the time were 
Snowcroft, Eagleburger, Baker, Kissinger, all warning against this 
folly.
  Yet as you point out, we persisted.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, I think that is absolutely right. You see this 
whole shift, overnight, in world opinion, again from the world being on 
our side and willing to fight alongside us in the war on terror that 
had been precipitated by the attacks of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. 
That was one day.
  After the invasion of Iraq that turned out to be based on totally 
false premises, you saw the world turn against us. Some people here 
ask, Why does it matter whether people around the world like us or 
support our policies? Why does it matter if people in the Middle East 
have a positive view of the United States? Why does it matter if the 
Islamic world has a positive view of the United States?
  Well, here is the problem. If you don't have the support of those 
countries, it is very difficult to get their cooperation in the war on 
terror. It is very difficult for them to say we are going to help you 
in the United States in this battle on terror. That is one problem.
  The other problem is, it is a total contradiction between our efforts 
to promote democracy in the region, on the one hand, and to say we 
don't care what the people in those countries think, on the other hand. 
Because if we want to promote democracy, which means that we want 
leaders in the region to be elected by the people, then we better make 
sure that the people who are electing them support our goals and 
support our objectives.
  Because if the people who are electing the leaders in Middle East 
countries hate the United States and want to bring harm to the United 
States, it is very difficult for someone running for office there to 
say they support our efforts and support our policy.
  You saw the election in the Palestinian areas of Hamas and the 
extremists as opposed to the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian 
Authority had said, we want to work with the United States, and we want 
to work with Israel toward a peace process. But the people, when they 
had a choice, for all sorts of reasons chose the more extremist Hamas.
  So the perceptions of the United States and our policies overseas 
have a direct bearing on our own security here at home. You cannot say 
you want to promote democracy in the Middle East, on the one hand, and 
say you don't care if they hate America, on the other hand.

                              {time}  2145

  If they hate America, they are going to elect leaders who reflect the 
will of the people, and that is bad for the United States, and yet our 
actions have fueled that kind of antagonism and hatred and actually 
made us less, not more, secure.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, we have been joined by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) who certainly has embodied 
from the outset in opposition to this war the voice of reason as it 
relates to getting us out of Iraq.
  Ms. WATERS. I thank very much Representative Larson. I would like to 
thank you for the leadership that you are providing in putting together 
these opportunities night after night on the floor to illuminate what 
is going on in Iraq. You are absolutely right.
  I am the Chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus, and we have our 1-year 
anniversary as of this week. We organized because we understood very 
well that something was very wrong with this war. It was not a popular 
thing to do, but increasingly, Members began to join. We do have 72 
Members. We have other Members who are recognizing, as they work in 
their districts across this country, that the people of America are 
sick and tired of this war. They believe that the President of the 
United States has mismanaged this war, and they want to bring our 
troops home.
  The violence that we are witnessing on a daily basis in Iraq is 
absolutely unconscionable. The violence is such that not only are the 
Sunnis being attacked by the Shiias, but innocent people are being 
killed. Civilians are being

[[Page 14584]]

killed day in and day out, and to tell you the truth, Mr. Larson, and 
other Members here and Mr. Delahunt who has worked on this issue so 
long and so hard, I think it is easy for us to conclude at this point, 
no matter how difficult it is, that we have destabilized Iraq with our 
occupation.
  When we went into Iraq supposedly because they had weapons of mass 
destruction and discovered that there were none; when we decided to 
change our tune, that is, the President of the United States and talk 
about wanting to instill a democratic government, the American people 
said, okay, the President of the United States must know what he is 
talking about.
  So they have a new government. Saddam Hussein is behind bars. There 
are no weapons of mass destruction, and you know what is going on? The 
civil war that this President and this administration is in denial 
about, but if you read the papers today, you even have Sunnis that are 
saying, well, we do not like the Americans, we do not like this 
occupation, but you know, we need them now to help us be protected 
against these attacks that are coming at us on a daily basis.
  So we recognize that the President of the United States started this 
discussion about the training of the Iraqi soldiers and how we were 
doing such a good job, there was a turning point, and they were going 
to be able to take over and to provide security for that country.
  Well, in the first place, we did not go there. The President of the 
United States did not tell the American people we were going there, to 
be in the middle of a civil war, to protect one group from the other. 
Never said that. And now that is the only reason we are there, because 
we have got to protect the Sunnis from the Shiias? I mean, that is what 
our American soldiers are supposed to be doing. Our American soldiers 
who come from these towns and these hamlets do not know a Shiia from a 
Sunni, and then they get in situations where they are shooting to kill, 
and people would criticize them when they do not know what it is they 
are confronted with. We are there because we have to negotiate this 
civil war by way of warfare.
  I think it is unconscionable what is happening there, and I think it 
is time for this administration to admit that not only have they made a 
mistake, but they have not trained enough Iraqi soldiers to take over 
the security of this country, and there is no number of Iraqi soldiers 
being trained in sight that will take over the security of this 
country. These groups who have been at each other's throats for 
centuries and maybe were contained by a strong man, right or wrong, are 
in the throes of a full civil war.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I think the gentlewoman asks a very 
legitimate question, but I do not think you were present in the Chamber 
when I referred to a statement dated July 13 coming from the Afghan 
defense minister, a gentleman by the name of Abdul Rahim Wardak, who 
said that the Afghan Army cannot secure the country without at least 
150,000 more troops, five times what it has today, and that in his 
opinion, and he clearly represents the sentiment of the government, it 
is an opportunity for the United States to double the assistance given 
to Afghanistan. In other words, we left Afghanistan before we finished 
the job.
  What I find particularly interesting is that we do not hear that from 
this administration, but the new head of NATO, the NATO force in 
Afghanistan, a British general, David Richards, made this observation: 
Afghanistan's Taliban rebels have taken advantage of a power vacuum and 
grown stronger because the world's attention has been distracted by 
Iraq.
  How true. I agree with him. I agree with him. And if one looks around 
the landscape again, I am sure it has not been on the front page, but 
we all here present in this Chamber today know what is happening in 
Somalia. Radical Islamist warlords have taken over Somalia. Winning the 
war on terror, you know, the rest of the world believes that we are 
losing the war on terror.
  Many of the gentlemen that were referred to, Eagleburger, Lawrence 
Cobb, and others that have served in Republican administrations, agree 
that because of Iraq we are losing the war on terror today and eroding 
our own national security.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, 
I would just like to expand on a point that the gentlewoman from 
California made. She talked about the report in today's New York Times 
that Sunni leadership is now asking American troops to stay to deal 
with the sectarian violence, and it points out the folly, if you will, 
of what purports to be our exit strategy.
  I mean, the President has said repeatedly that as the Iraqi Army 
stands up, then we will stand down. We have now stood up a significant 
number of Iraqi soldiers and law enforcement officers, and yet here we 
have the Sunni leadership, which has been adamantly opposed to our 
presence in the country, adamantly opposed to our occupation of the 
country, now asking us to stay.
  And so what does that suggest? It suggests that we do not have an 
exit strategy at all, or the one that has been put out there by the 
President is one that has absolutely no chance of yielding any kind of 
beneficial result in Iraq.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. That is what the General Accountability 
Office says as well. The GAO report calls for a new direction in Iraq. 
The GAO report of July 11 says that the administration's national 
strategy for victory in Iraq is questionable and victory cannot be 
achieved without significant change in the President's current stay-
the-course strategy. It is unclear, it goes on to say, how the United 
States will achieve its desired end-state in Iraq, given the 
significant changes in assumptions underlying U.S. strategy.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, it was 
alluded to earlier that not only were we distracted from doing the job 
in Afghanistan and we have ended up in this morass in Iraq, it was 
reported, and I do not have the documentation for it, that Mr. 
Wolfowitz, Mr. Cheney and some of the other war hawks had said, once we 
are in Iraq, we tie down; then on to Iran and on to Syria. Now, I do 
not know if that is true, if Iraq was to be used as a staging ground to 
then move on to the attack in Iran and in Syria, but I think that the 
Iranians believe it, and I think the Syrians believe it.
  I watch what we are learning every day about the fact that many of 
those missiles that are being launched from Beirut are missiles that 
have been manufactured in Syria, and we also know that the Iranians 
have their hand in support of Hezbollah and what is going on.
  Now, this says an awful lot, and you guys alluded to it a bit 
earlier. Here we are, here we are tied down in the middle of a civil 
war in Iraq and having threatened with no more than talking about the 
axis of evil but even beyond that, going into these neighboring 
countries, and now I think they are about to put us on the run, trying 
to distract us and have us react in different parts of the Middle East. 
And of course, we cannot do that with Kim Jong Il looking over our back 
in North Korea, launching missiles over into the Japan Sea. And we have 
got Tehran who has told us that they would certainly continue with 
their development of nuclear capability.
  So here we are, Afghanistan, we are spending much of our soldiers' 
time trying to protect Karzai who is sitting in Kabul and not doing 
anything, and as you said, the Taliban and the warlords are really 
running it.
  We are getting overwhelmed. We are getting outmaneuvered. We are 
placing the American people at great risk, and it is about time we just 
go ahead and tell it like it is. We have created more risk than not, 
when in fact this war on terrorism was supposed to be about making the 
American people safer.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, if my friend would just yield for a 
moment just to confirm points that were made by everybody, but 
specifically by Chris Van Hollen, there is a GAO report that was issued 
in April of 2005 that speaks to the issue of deepening and broadening 
anti-American sentiment all over the world. We have all

[[Page 14585]]

seen the polling data. It is frightening. Talk about a world opinion 
that threatens our national security.
  And the GAO specifically alluded to the fact that it has the 
potential to dramatically hurt our commercial interests. One only has 
to check the price of oil. One only has to look at today's stock market 
report. Everywhere we turn the implications and consequences of this 
failed policy is hurting the American people, our national security, 
our commercial interests and everything that is attendant thereto.
  Then, when we start to examine the relationship between the new 
government in Iraq and Iran, why have we spilled the blood of more than 
2,500 Americans and already have appropriated taxpayer dollars on the 
way to $500 billion?

                              {time}  2200

  And by the way, I am sure if you haven't, that you will find in your 
mail tomorrow a letter, a Dear Colleague letter from our friend and 
colleague from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky. And she makes the point that 
on July 7, the Iraqi, not Iranian Parliament Speaker, Mahmoud al-
Mashhadani had this to say. He accused Jews of financing acts of 
violence in Iraq in order to discredit Islamists who control the 
Parliament and government so they can install their agents in power.
  Some people say we saw you beheading, kidnapping and killing. In the 
end, we even started kidnapping women who are our honor. These acts are 
not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and 
the son of a Jew. I can tell you about these Jewish Israelis and 
Zionists who are using Iraqi money and oil to frustrate the Islamic 
movement in Iraq and come with their agents.
  Is this what we have wrought?
  These words should be condemned by the President. I am sure we all 
would join in a resolution condemning the words of this head of the 
Iraqi Parliament, this Iraqi Government that has executed a bilateral 
military agreement with Iran.
  Where are we heading, my friends?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Would the gentleman yield?
  The sad part about so much of this is that so much of it was 
foreseeable, if only the President and the White House had listened to 
people who knew what they were talking about in this very important 
foreign policy area.
  I quoted earlier this evening the words of the President in a speech 
that he gave at the American Enterprise Institute on the eve of going 
to war in Iraq, when he talked about the fact that our invasion of Iraq 
would create a new era of stability in the region. It would help create 
a domino effect of creating new democratic movements in the region. It 
was sort of the big bang of creation of democratic governments in the 
region. That was what the President said.
  But the fact of the matter is at the same time the President gave 
that speech, the experts were telling him the opposite, and yet they 
were ignored because their advice did not fit the decision that 
President and some of his advisers had made.
  Just a month ago, Paul Pillar, who was the head of the Bureau of Near 
East and South Asia at the Central Intelligence Agency at the time of 
the invasion, testified; and here is what he told the Congress just 
recently. He told the Congress that what is happening was, in fact, 
predicted in the national intelligence estimate of that time. Here is 
what he said. And on the situation, this is his testimony about a month 
ago. And on the situation that would be faced in post-Saddam Iraq, the 
Intelligence Community produced, on its own initiative, its assessment 
of the likely challenges there. It presented a picture of a political 
culture that would not provide fertile ground for democracy, and 
foretold a long, difficult, and turbulent transition. It forecasted in 
a deeply divided Iraqi society there was a significant chance that 
sectarian and ethnic groups would engage in violent conflict unless an 
occupying power prevented it. It also assessed that the war and 
occupation would boost political Islam, increase sympathy for terrorist 
objectives and make Iraq a magnet for extremists from elsewhere in the 
Middle East.
  This is the assessment of the Central Intelligence Agency before we 
went to war in Iraq. The people who knew the region, the people who 
understood the consequences of an invasion were ignored by this White 
House.
  So we have to ask ourselves, where is the accountability in this 
system?
  From day one in this administration, the people who got it wrong have 
been rewarded, and the people who got it right have been ignored. And 
yet what this administration says to us is ``Trust us.'' Just stay the 
course. More of the same.
  Well, we have had years of failed policy. No one has been held 
accountable. What do we expect in the years ahead and the days ahead 
and the months ahead from an administration that refuses to hold those 
who get it wrong accountable and ignores all those who get it right?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. That is an excellent point, my friend, if you would 
yield for just one minute.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. But what is most disturbing is that this House, run by 
the Republican Party, has failed to ask those questions of this 
administration, and thereby abrogated its responsibility to the 
American people to ask the questions that would have made a difference.
  Did Mr. Pillar come before this Congress?
  I can enumerate name after name of voices that, well, I could put up 
a long list of generals, General Batiste, General Eaton, General Zinni, 
who spoke truth to power, who said, This is the wrong course.
  And listen, we never had a hearing until just recently in the 
committee of jurisdiction, the House International Relations Committee. 
Shame on us. Shame on this institution, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Will the gentleman yield?
  The gentlemen, I think, words of both my distinguished colleagues 
from Massachusetts and Maryland are summed up very well in Frank Rich's 
article yesterday when he said, This Presidency never had a vision for 
the world. It, instead, had an idea fixed on one country, Iraq, and in 
pursuit of that obsession, recklessly harnessed American power to a 
gut-driven improvisation and PR strategies, not doctrine, that has not 
changed, even now.
  And with that, let me at this point recognize our colleague, the 
distinguished lady from Texas, who has also come to the floor this 
evening.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished vice chairman for 
his leadership, his consistent leadership, along with my colleagues. 
And I particularly thank Congresswoman Waters for the vision of the Out 
of Iraq Caucus.
  As I listened to many of you isolate or emphasize intelligence 
failures, leadership failures, generals who had the expertise of war, I 
wanted to bring as we talk this evening, to the forefront the whole 
concern, the human toll.
  As I know that we are speaking tonight, there are thousands of 
military families who are about the American fabric across the land. We 
already know that some of them are barely making ends meet. Some of 
them are on food stamps.
  But just this past weekend we sent 140 more of those from my 
congressional district out of Ellington Field. Some have been 
redeployed before. Some are on their first, second, third redeployment.
  If you speak to our Armed Services Committee, they will tell you that 
we have depleted most of the back-up of our military prowess. The 
battalions that were in Kuwait are not one, two, three and four. They 
are down to maybe one battalion, if you will, that is in reserve. And 
so we have a crisis not only that is impacting the direction of the 
Iraq war, but the overextending of our military.
  The 20,000, 15- to 20,000 injured, who are physically maimed and 
mentally maimed; resources in the Department of Defense appropriations, 
not enough to cover the mental health needs of

[[Page 14586]]

these individuals, and as well, the silence of their injury, not being 
seen by the American people, and the cost that will be put upon society 
without, I believe, any direction in any harvesting of dollars that 
will help these military personnel.
  The very crux of where we are today in Iraq has a lot to do with some 
of the misdirection, the political misdirection of our soldiers. They 
won the war, but yet they were expected to be policemen. They are 
expected to be political officers, if you will; they are expected to 
build infrastructure with no guidance. And so out of that frustration 
comes Haditha. Out of that frustration comes the brutal murder of a 
young woman and her family, because you are talking about redeploying 
soldiers once, but then two, three, four, times.
  I met a soldier in the airport, and they said, four times I have been 
redeployed.

                              {time}  2210

  So as I look at the crisis in Israel and Lebanon and now to the other 
side of us, North Korea, frankly, any talk about attacking Iran begs 
the question of whether or not we have the kind of military resources 
to even engage in that kind of conversation.
  I think we failed in Iraq because we did not engage. We did not first 
develop a political and foreign policy that could engage the region. 
Not Saddam Hussein. We know he was a despot. But the region, to ask for 
our allies' support, to ensure that the inspections had gone forward.
  And now with Israel our hands are tied. We know that we want to 
ensure that soldiers are sent back to their sovereign country. Israel 
has a right to defend herself. But we also realize that the United 
States has to show a balanced perspective, calling for a cease-fire, 
sending an envoy team of high-level reporting directly to the 
President, and engaging in foreign policy that says we realize that the 
region is important. A secure and safe Israel, a two-state response to 
the Palestinian issue, but the region is important.
  And when we went into Iraq, we said to the region you are not 
important. We can be an aggressor. We can go in and attack. We thought 
we could go in without any fallback, with impunity. And now we see that 
our generals are now disagreeing with us, that our allies in the Arab 
states are now falling away from us, that the crisis is at such a level 
that our credibility is so shattered that when the region needs us 
most, which is now, there is a question of whether or not we have the 
kind of leadership and credibility going in. This is what Iraq has 
brought to us and the American people.
  I commend my colleagues for organizing this special order to discuss 
the conduct and costs of the war in Iraq. I look forward to engaging in 
dialogue with my colleagues about the most important issue facing the 
country today and the most fateful and ill-considered decision of this 
Administration.


          I. The Bush Iraq Policy Has Harmed The U.S. Military

  A few weeks ago we learned the sad news that the 2,500th soldier has 
been killed in Iraq. More than 19,000 others have been wounded. The 
Bush administration's open-ended commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq has 
weakened the U.S. Army, the National Guard, and the Army Reserves. The 
extended deployments in Iraq have eroded U.S. ground forces and overall 
military strength. A Pentagon-commissioned study concluded that the 
Army cannot maintain its current pace of operations in Iraq without 
doing permanent damage to the quality of the force. So more than three 
years of a continuous deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq has:
  Contributed to serious problems with recruitment, with the U.S. Army 
missing its recruitment targets last year;
  Forced the Army to lower its standards for military recruits; and
  Led to military equipment shortages that hamper the ability of U.S. 
ground forces to do their job in Iraq and around the world.


    II. THE IRAQ WAR HAS BEEN MISMANAGED AND THE RESULTS HAVE BEEN 
                               DISASTROUS

  Quotes from the retired generals calling for the ouster of Defense 
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld:

       We went to war with a flawed plan that didn't account for 
     the hard work to build the peace after we took down the 
     regime. We also served under a secretary of defense who 
     didn't understand leadership, who was abusive, who was 
     arrogant, who didn't build a strong team.--Retired Army Maj. 
     Gen. John Batiste.
       My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to 
     this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are 
     the special province of those who have never had to execute 
     these missions--or bury the results.--Retired Marine Lt. Gen. 
     Gregory Newbold.
       They only need the military advice when it satisfies their 
     agenda. I think that's a mistake, and that's why I think he 
     should resign.--Retired Army Maj. Gen. John Riggs.
       We grow up in a culture where accountability, learning to 
     accept responsibility, admitting mistakes and learning from 
     them was critical to us. When we don't see that happening it 
     worries us. Poor military judgment has been used throughout 
     this mission.--Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former 
     chief of U.S. Central Command.
       I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense 
     because Secretary Rumsfeld carries way too much baggage with 
     him. . . . I think we need senior military leaders who 
     understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, 
     and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is.--
     Retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack.
       He has shown himself incompetent strategically, 
     operationally and tactically, and is far more than anyone 
     responsible for what has happened to our important mission in 
     Iraq. . . . Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.--Retired Army Maj. 
     Gen. Paul Eaton.


III. WAR IN IRAQ HAS DIVERTED RESOURCES AND ATTENTION FROM OTHER FRONTS 
             IN THE FIGHT AGAINST GLOBAL TERRORIST NETWORKS

  The killing of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was a major success for U.S. 
troops, but it is not likely to diminish Iraq's insurgency. Iraqis make 
up 90 percent of Iraq's insurgency, unlike foreign fighters like 
Zarqawi, and a primary motivation for Iraq's insurgency is the U.S. 
troop presence. Even after the Samarra shrine attack in February 
threatened to push Iraq into all-out sectarian civil war, the vast 
majority of attacks still target U.S. forces.
  Outside of Iraq, the Bush administration has failed to present a 
realistic strategy for countering the threat posed by the global terror 
networks. In a recent survey of more than 100 of America's leading 
foreign policy experts conducted by Foreign Policy magazine and the 
Center for American Progress, eight in 10 (84 percent) do not think 
that the United States is winning the war on terror. The War in Iraq 
has not helped America win the broader fight against global terrorists. 
Instead:
  By invading Iraq without a realistic plan to stabilize the country, 
the Bush administration created a new terrorist haven where none had 
previously existed.
  By maintaining an open-ended military presence in Iraq, the Bush 
administration is presenting U.S. terrorist enemies with a recruitment 
tool and rallying cry for organizing attacks against the U.S. and its 
allies.
  According to the National Counter-Terrorism Center, the number of 
large-scale terrorist attacks in Iraq increased by over 100 between 
2004 and 2005, with a total 8,299 civilians killed in 2005.
  Osama bin Laden remains at large and Al Qaeda offshoots proliferate.
  By diverting resources and attention from Afghanistan to an 
unnecessary war of choice in Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration has 
left Afghanistan exposed to a resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. 
The United States needs to complete the mission in Afghanistan and 
cannot do it with so many troops bogged down in Iraq.
  By focusing so many U.S. resources on Iraq, the Bush administration 
has taken its eye off the ball in places like Somalia, which was 
overrun by Islamist militias tied to Al Qaeda last week.


IV. THE WAR IN IRAQ HAS Increased THE BURDEN ON u.S. TAXPAYERS WITHOUT 
               stabilizing IRAQ OR MAKING AMERICANS SAFER

  Over the last three years, the United States has spent more than $300 
billion in Iraq, yet the investment has failed to stabilize Iraq or 
improve the overall quality of life for most Iraqis. According to the 
Congressional Research Service, total assistance to Iraq thus far is 
roughly equivalent to total assistance, adjusted for inflation, 
provided to Germany--and almost double that provided to Japan from 1946 
to 1952. Yet on key metrics like oil production, Iraq has failed to 
advance beyond pre-war levels, and quality of life indicators remain 
dismal:
  Oil production is below pre-war levels (2.6 million barrels per day 
in 2003 vs. 2.1 million barrels per day in May 2006);
  The majority of water sector projects and health care clinics planned 
in 2003 remain not completed, despite spending hundreds of millions of 
dollars;
  One in three Iraqi children is malnourished and underweight, 
according to the United Nations Children's Fund.
  Rather than a record of progress and achievement, the Bush 
administration's record is one of corruption and waste:

[[Page 14587]]

  Remaining unaccounted for is $8.8 billion given to Iraqi ministries 
by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), according to the 
Congressional Research Service;
  Iraqi Defense Ministry officials spent $1 billion on questionable 
arms purchases;
  The Interior Ministry has at least 1,100 ghost employees, costing 
$1.3 million a month.
  In short, we have no strategy, no support from allies or friends in 
the region, a nascent civil war in the country we are supposed to be 
helping, an overstretched military, a misdirected counterterrorism 
effort, and a massive diversion of funds in support of a failed effort.


v. MULTIPLE DEPLOYMENTS HURT MORALE AND FAMILIES--Multiple Deployments 
  Taking Toll on Military Families, Answers Questions of How to Help 
                  Families of Deployed Service Members

  Military families need greater psychological, emotional, and 
organizational assistance according to the results of a new survey 
released March 28 of this year by the National Military Family 
Association (NMFA).
  The study, ``Cycles of Deployment Report,'' which focused on the 
needs of military families, shows service members and military families 
are experiencing increased levels of anxiety, fatigue, and stress. In 
response, NMFA outlined recommendations for meeting these challenges 
amid multiple and extended deployments, increased rates at which 
service members are called upon for service, and the heavy reliance on 
National Guard and Reserve forces.
  This report clearly shows the range of support programs for families 
has expanded since the start of the War on Terror. However, multiple 
deployments and a high operations tempo mean different types of support 
are needed for families' continued success before, during, and after 
deployment. The survey results provide the Department of Defense a 
detailed roadmap for making sure families are taken care of during this 
important time.
  Key findings from this study about the impact of deployment includes:
  Almost half of respondents reported they have used or would use 
counseling services such as anger management classes and family 
counseling. Three quarters of those who stated they were better able to 
deal with subsequent deployments found counseling services to be 
helpful.
  Two-thirds of military families surveyed did not have contact with 
their unit or unit network volunteer during the critical pre-deployment 
stage.
  Less than one-half reported a consistent level of family support 
through the pre-deployment, deployment, and post-deployment phases. 
Seventeen percent reported no support was available.
  Many respondents are concerned that volunteers who help families 
adjust to life during deployment and what to expect after the reunion 
are becoming fatigued and subject to ``burn-out.'' They stated that the 
leaders of unit family groups should be paid or have paid professional 
support personnel assigned.
  Military family members with civilian jobs face pressure to avoid 
taking time off before, during, or after deployment. Sixty percent of 
military spouses are employed outside the home and many have either 
quit their jobs or are considering it.
  Military families are worried about how the reunion will go with 
their deployed family member even as they are worrying about their 
servicemember's safety in the field. Unfortunately, many families are 
not taking advantage of specific return and reunion briefings and 
activities.
  Many respondents expressed that when entering a second or third 
deployment, they carry unresolved anxieties and expectations from the 
last deployment(s). While they may have gained knowledge of resources 
available to them, respondents whose servicemember deployed multiple 
times reported being more fatigued and increasingly concerned about 
their family relationships.
  Although challenged by the demands of deployment, families noted they 
are proud of their servicemember and their service to our country. They 
understand that family support is primarily their personal 
responsibility, but they expect ``The Military'' to provide support as 
well.


    VI. RECOMMENDATIONS TO DEAL WITH STRESS OF MULTIPLE DEPLOYMENTS

  The National Military Families Association has developed a series of 
recommendations for how the Department of Defense (DoD) can better 
train and support military staff and civilian volunteers to assist 
military families, including:
  Expand program and information outreach. Create formats for families 
to access support services and maintain touch with their commands and 
unit family group that live too far from either the unit or from other 
military families.
  Assist families in developing in realistic expectations and then meet 
them. Educate military families about what to expect before, during, 
and after deployments.
  Direct more resources to support family volunteers. Increase the 
level of resources and paid professionals both counselors and 
administrative, to support the logistics of family support and 
conducting family readiness activities.
  Address return and reunion challenges throughout the deployment 
cycle. Help with the reintegration of a sevicemember with the family 
after deployment.
  Recognize that family time is important. Encourage service leaders to 
give family time a higher priority when planning operational 
activities, especially for servicemembers who have only been back from 
deployment for a few months.
  Continue deployment briefings throughout the year. Never assume 
families have all the information they need. Ongoing deployment 
briefings can especially help new spouses or the parents of new 
recruits. Experienced family members also may find new challenges 
during a subsequent deployment or find the accumulated stress from 
multiple deployments creates the need for re-engagement with the family 
readiness/support group or for accessing different support personnel.


              VII. IMPACT OF DEPLOYMENT OF NATIONAL GUARD

  In addition, Madam Speaker, the large and extended deployment of 
National Guard units overseas has undermined the ability of the United 
States to deal with terrorist attacks or natural disasters. For 
example, State officials in Louisiana and Mississippi struggle to 
overcome the absence of National Guard members from their States in the 
wake of Hurricane Katrina. In Louisiana, about 100 of the National 
Guard's high-water vehicles remain abroad--even as the State continues 
to rebuild from Hurricane Katrina. Coastal North Carolina is missing 
nearly half its Humvee fleet, and Guard officials there say shortages 
have forced the State to pool equipment from different units into one 
pot of hurricane supplies.
  In addition, the equipment the Guard needs to help in the aftermath 
of natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina is in shorter supply 
because the gear is in use in combat zones, is battle-damaged, or has 
been loaned to cover gaps in other units.


                               CONCLUSION

  Madam Speaker, our troops in Iraq have never faltered and they have 
never failed. They were never defeated in battle. They won the war they 
were sent to fight. They completed their mission. They performed 
magnificently.
  They have earned the right to return home and be reunited with their 
families and loved ones. Now is not the time for us in Congress to 
falter or fail. Now is the time to embrace a plan for our troops in 
Iraq that offers a chance of success. We need a plan that will work. 
There is only one such plan. It is the Murtha Plan I support.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
joining us again and again pointing out that she, like so many of us, 
has said good-bye to troops, mainly to Reservists and members of the 
National Guard who have been deployed and redeployed, and our hearts go 
out to their families and, as we have at the outset at the end of every 
one of these Iraq Watches, spoke about the difference between the 
warriors and the war, and we continue to salute them. And I thank the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  We only have a few more minutes, and I want the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and the gentlewoman from California to have the 
opportunity to close. But I do want to thank the Members for coming 
down here from New York and Maryland, Texas, California, and 
Massachusetts and say to the American people that we come here out of 
love of country. It is because of love of country and because we are 
more often than not denied a voice on this floor, not only denied a 
voice on this floor but in the committees, where oversight and review 
is so important.
  Why is that so, you might ask? It is so, unfortunately, because this 
is a one-party town where our erstwhile colleagues on the other side 
are in control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the 
executive branch of government. And they are able to shut off debate 
and stifle this side of the aisle even from coming forward with 
alternative resolutions on matters so important.

[[Page 14588]]



                          ____________________