[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10252-10253]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        EXECUTIVE ORDER ON SYRIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleague, Mr. 
Owens, in commending Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey for her consistent and 
strong voice in opposition to the war in Iraq. It is a voice that is 
needed in this Congress. She utters words and takes positions that are 
needed, that we need to hear in this Congress, and those positions 
reflect the positions of the American people and the people in her 
district. I have had the opportunity to actually visit her district, 
and I know that Lynn speaks well with respect to the issues and their 
position on this war.
  I would like to talk about another aspect of President Bush's Middle 
East policy that I think could be problematic for us if the 
interpretation is one along the lines of the interpretation of 
information that was received that led us into the war in Iraq.
  What I am talking about is the April 26 national emergency that was 
declared by President Bush. On that day, he issued an executive order 
to freeze the assets of those suspected to have been involved in the 
October 1, 2004, assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq 
Hariri and 22 others. On the face of it, this might look like a 
straightforward attempt to bring justice to the perpetrators of a 
heinous act of terrorism. But I decided I would not just rest with the 
Speaker's announcement, the Clerk's announcement, and that I would 
actually read the document. I read the document, and then I reread the 
document, and then I read it for a third time.
  When we examine the language of the document, we have to ask 
ourselves are there some other motives involved in the issuance of this 
executive order.
  The reason I say that is because of the language that is used in the 
executive order. It says that this executive order applies to persons 
involved in ``any other bombing that implicates the government of Syria 
or its officers or agents.''
  Now the keyword is ``implicate'' because that means that you are 
talking about bringing into intimate or incriminating connection. Well, 
I remember, and I was not in this body in 2003, but the President chose 
to invade Iraq in 2003 because we were told that Iraq was implicated in 
possessing weapons of mass destruction. That Iraq was implicated in the 
tragic events of September 11.
  We now know that both of those implications were false, but that is 
after nearly 2,500 young men and women

[[Page 10253]]

from these shores have been killed, countless thousands others have 
either mangled bodies or addled minds as a result of the shock and the 
shell shock and the presence in the theater of war.
  How many tens of thousands of Iraqis are now dead as a result of the 
implications that the American people were told and then action taken 
on those implications?
  Now once again, the President is implicating an Arab regime and 
taking action that preempts a conclusive investigation into the facts.
  This administration has already made ominous utterances about the 
need for regime change in both Syria and Iran, and I would just ask 
this Congress before it relinquishes any more power, please examine the 
facts before we plunge ourselves into another military disaster in the 
Middle East.

                          ____________________