[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12577-12582]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            OUR IRAQ POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dent). 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  This evening I come to the floor to continue the discussion that this 
Congress has had with respect to our policies as it relates to Iraq.
  I was fortunate this past weekend to attend yet another ceremony, in 
this case, with the 1048th Tankers Division from the State of 
Connecticut who was being deployed to Iraq.
  We in this country continue to owe a great debt of gratitude to the 
men and women who wear the uniform and who have served this country so 
valiantly and with such courage. But we also owe a deep debt of 
gratitude to their families in what has become gut-wrenching ceremonies 
as you watch young children and mothers and grandparents say goodbye to 
their loved ones who are going over to Iraq, including a mother who has 
three sons that are now over there, and another mother who saw her son 
off and her husband had just left the week before.
  So it is very disconcerting when you find that the only people that 
we have asked to make a sacrifice in the war on terror have become the 
men and women who serve in the front lines and their families who are 
left behind.
  Our hearts go out to all of them. And what they deserve, more than 
anything else, is a Nation that will level with them, that will provide 
them with a plan, that will tell these troops, especially in the case 
of the National Guard and the reservists who have been deployed, 
redeployed, deployed again, their stays more so than at any other point 
in the history of this country, and they do so with a salute and they 
follow orders. How grateful a Nation we should be.
  And yet here at home we hear, just in the previous hour, discussions 
that center on a tax cut and how important a tax cut is. I have never 
met anyone that didn't favor tax cuts. But it is disconcerting when you 
look out at these families and you see that this Congress focuses on 
tax cuts for the Nation's wealthiest 1 percent, making sure that we 
ladle on more tax cuts to those already impoverished oil companies who 
are experiencing unprecedented profits.
  Yet I look out into that audience in Connecticut, in the State armory 
and see these families, many who will struggle during this time, many 
whose gas prices will rise during the time of this 18-month deployment.
  So you say to yourself, well, where is the plan? What is the exit 
strategy? What do we owe these individuals? Do we not at least owe them 
the truth?
  So there was a debate enjoined on this floor 2 weeks ago, a 
nonbinding resolution, in essence, a conversation, a conversation where 
99 percent of the people on the other side of the aisle said, stay the 
course, while the Nation and while this side of the aisle clamors for a 
new direction for America.
  When I looked out into the eyes of the audience of those families and 
I saw their concern and need, they want a new direction for the 
country, especially as it relates to Iraq.
  Isn't it amazing that they can get a plan from the Iraqi government, 
that they can get several plans from Democrats, whether it be Jack 
Murtha's bold plan that, well, seemingly the Iraqi government agrees 
with, or whether it be Carl Levin's plan, well, that seemingly now 
General Casey agrees with?
  So we find the Pentagon and the Iraqi government, Jack Murtha, Carl 
Levin, and several other Democrats offering thoughtful plans, and the 
Republicans saying stay the course and a President still unable to 
level with the American people and unwilling still to meet with parents 
who have lost their kids, who line the highway on the way to Crawford, 
Texas, or wait patiently outside The White House for an audience.
  It amazes me that, while the Iraqis can say that they have a position 
and they know that they have to take on responsibility, that we will 
somehow let the Iraqis determine the faith of our brave men and women, 
so much so that there has even been talk of amnesty, amnesty for those 
who have killed, maimed or kidnapped American soldiers or citizens. 
There can be no amnesty for that. There is no honor in the great 
sacrifice that our men and women have provided. No matter what the 
Iraqi government might say, we, as the United States Congress, have an 
obligation to our men and women and the citizens that are in Iraq 
working on behalf of this country to make sure that that cannot stand.
  And what do we get from our erstwhile colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle and why was this debate conducted in the manner that it was?
  Well, let me tell you why. Because Karl Rove hatched a plan in New 
Hampshire. You see, he went there and laid out this strategy; and the 
strategy was a very simple one. It is one that they used before. They 
just dusted off the playbook and said, you know, it works when we 
attack Democrats. We attack them for their patriotism.
  It worked successfully against Max Cleland. We were able to take that 
man, who gave three of his limbs for this country, to make him appear 
to be unpatriotic and go after him personally.
  It worked against John Kerry. We were able to swift boat him during 
the Presidential campaign, to tarnish his service and the medals he 
earned.
  And it is working against Jack Murtha, they think. So that we can 
turn around and tarnish him as well.
  And Karl Rove launches his strategy, and then John Boehner rolls out 
the talking points for the caucus, and then the debate is neatly 
sandwiched in between the time allotted, with no Democratic alternative 
being allotted, and the White House picnic, just in time for the 
President to take a surprise trip to Iraq for a photo-op and to return 
home.
  The Nation deserves better than that. If the Iraqi security advisors 
can provide us with a plan, why can't Donald Rumsfeld provide us with a 
plan?
  No wonder, in the Washington Post today and the New York Times over 
the weekend, people are wild over the fact that, if all that debate and 
discussion was truly about a course for this Nation, how is it that 
General Casey's plan sounds identical to Carl Levin's plan? And how is 
it that the Iraqis can acknowledge what Mr. Murtha acknowledged last 
November?
  On this side of the aisle, we have come to know what it is all about. 
It is about the continued hypocrisy as it relates to leveling with the 
American people and, more importantly, leveling with our troops, with 
the National Guard and reservists and their families and the kind of 
sacrifice that we have asked them to do, and we have prevailed upon 
them, and they have done with honor. And yet we can't level with them?
  We find ourselves right now with the congressional Republicans that 
have no plan for Iraq, a flawed plan for going in, a failed plan to 
win, and no plan to get out. Stay the course is the slogan. And that is 
all it is, a slogan, not a solution. It is a prescription for an 
endless occupation of Iraq.

[[Page 12578]]

  The Democrats are united on the need for a new direction in Iraq. 
2006 must be a year of significant transition. Iraqis must take control 
of their security and begin a responsible redeployment of U.S. troops.
  There has been no person who has addressed that issue more eloquently 
on this floor and back home in her native California in the city of the 
Angels than the gentlewoman from California, who has led a task force 
here in this Congress that focuses on a meaningful plan for an exit 
strategy from Iraq.
  At this time, I would like to yield to the distinguished lady from 
California, Maxine Waters.
  Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentleman, Mr. John Larson, for yielding me 
time and for organizing this special order.

                              {time}  2015

  It is so important that we continue daily to help the American people 
understand exactly what is going on in this Congress. Time out for 
tricks. Time out for maneuvering. Time out for all of that. And I am so 
pleased that John Larson organized this Special Order tonight so that 
we can clarify what is going on here in America.
  I rise as the Chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus. The caucus has 72 
members, who for more than a year have been fighting to conclude the 
war in Iraq and reunite our troops with their families.
  Over the weekend the New York Times reported that General Casey met 
with President Bush to discuss redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq. 
According to the New York Times, the number of U.S. troops in Iraq will 
decline by two brigades by not replacing two brigades that are 
currently scheduled to leave Iraq this year. Further reductions in U.S. 
personnel will occur next year. The number of brigades in Iraq is 
expected to drop from 14 to about five by the end of 2007. The Casey 
plan also provides for a brigade to be kept on alert in Kuwait ``in 
case American commanders need to augment their forces to deal with a 
crisis. Another brigade will be kept on a lesser state of alert 
elsewhere but still prepared to deploy quickly.'' According to the 
Times, carrying out the terms of this plan depends on developments on 
the ground in Iraq.
  Now, why don't we just tell it like it is? This is basically the 
Murtha plan. This plan is so similar to a plan that the Out of Iraq 
Caucus has been pushing since late last year, the Murtha plan, H.J. 
Res. 73.
  Under Congressman Murtha's plan, no additional U.S. troops will be 
sent to Iraq and the U.S. troops now deployed in Iraq will be 
redeployed out of Iraq at a point determined by U.S. generals in Iraq, 
which is very similar to the plan outlined by General Casey. The Murtha 
resolution also calls for a contingent of marines to remain in the 
Middle East to respond to threats that threaten to destablize our 
allies in the region or the national security of the United States, 
again mirroring the Casey plan.
  Finally, the resolution calls for the United States to pursue 
security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy. Again, the Times 
reports that the General Casey plan is to engage the Iraqi Government 
to develop a plan to turn security over to the Iraqis.
  With nearly identical parameters, it appears that the administration 
proposes to carry out a plan that has already been introduced, debated, 
pushed by Mr. Murtha himself and by the Out of Iraq Caucus and many 
members of this Democratic caucus. It is confusing to understand why 
then there was such outrage from the Republicans during the debate of 
H. Res. 861 two weeks ago during which members of the Out of Iraq 
Caucus called for all Members of Congress to support the Murtha plan. 
The only conclusion is that the Republicans are again playing politics 
with the safety of our Nation.
  Instead of holding a free and open debate on Iraq, they crafted a 
resolution, H. Res. 861, to intentionally mislead the American people 
and seize an opportunity to attack Democrats who want accountability 
for those who led the march to war in Iraq. Democrats are also 
demanding that the President provide a clear plan that will allow for 
the redeployment of U.S. troops and permit them to return home to their 
loved ones.
  The Out of Iraq Caucus can support the proposed Casey plan. It is our 
plan. It is the Murtha plan. It is the plan that we have been pushing 
all along. Their plan we do not disagree with. We just wanted them to 
have some leadership. They had made so many mistakes, so many mishaps, 
as Condoleezza Rice called it, that we kept urging them to come up with 
a plan. We are glad they have adopted the Murtha plan.
  According to news reports, the implementation of this plan will begin 
just prior to the November elections. The next step will be completed 
as the 2008 Presidential elections are heating up, providing the 
President an opportunity to claim progress despite more than 3 years of 
mismanagement and incompetence.
  Mr. Speaker, this war was mismanaged by this administration. The men 
and women in uniform have paid for that mismanagement, more than 2,500 
with their own lives. It is long past time to bring our troops home, 
and I will not rest until our service men and women are able to return 
home to their loved ones.
  Be clear. We are glad that Mr. Casey and the President have come up 
with what we have been advocating. We are glad that they have seen the 
light of day. We are pleased that they understand that the American 
people want real leadership and they want an end to this war, they want 
the troops home. So while we know that it may be calculated in a 
political way to time with the November elections and all that, we 
still support it. I do, and the Out of Iraq Caucus will certainly 
embrace it because, again, it is our plan.
  When Mr. Murtha talked about over the horizon, that is exactly what 
he was talking about, the same thing the Casey plan has come up with: 
keep some soldiers in the region just in case they are needed in a 
crisis.
  So thank you, Mr. Casey and Mr. President, for finally embracing the 
Democrat plan by Mr. Murtha that calls for redeployment. It has been 
misinterpreted, misidentified. Even the press got it wrong, and they 
tried to say that the Murtha plan was demanding that our troops get out 
immediately. It has never been that.
  Now I want to see how the press will interpret the Casey plan, if the 
press will understand and report that it is the Murtha plan.
  I will say it over and over again. I am pleased and proud that the 
President and Mr. Casey at least have come to the point, for whatever 
reasons, whatever their motivations are, to embrace something that will 
work, the Murtha plan.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the gentlewoman; and I just want to buttress her point here. In The 
Washington Post, first, Carl Levin, our distinguished Senator and 
brother of Sander Levin here in the House, one of the sponsors of the 
resolution, said that ``probably the worst kept secret in town is that 
this administration intends to pull out troops before the mid-term 
elections in November. It shouldn't be a political decision, but it's 
going to be with this administration. It is as clear as the nose on my 
face,'' he said, ``that it is all about November and this election.'' 
And as the gentlewoman pointed out, it shouldn't be.
  Jack Murtha has said over and over again only the Iraqis can solve 
the problems in Iraq. They are fighting with each other, and our troops 
are caught in between.
  And no one less than Iraq's National Security Advisor said, ``Iraq 
has to go out of the shadow of the United States and the coalition, 
take responsibility for its own decisions, learn from its mistakes, and 
find Iraqi solutions to Iraqi problems.'' Repeating again exactly what 
Mr. Murtha has been advocating.
  I want to now also turn to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. 
Inslee), who has been part of the Iraq Watch and from the very outset 
of this war has come to this floor almost on a regular basis to talk 
about the concerns that so many Americans in this

[[Page 12579]]

 country care deeply about, most notably the men and women who serve 
this country.
  I yield to Mr. Inslee.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Larson's leadership on 
this.
  I wanted to talk about three hard realities in Iraq. It is very easy, 
tempting when we are in the middle of a struggle, as our Armed Forces 
are, to forget harsh realities and to become emboldened by the rhetoric 
that is associated with war. But I think it is very important for us, 
when our sons and daughters and husbands and wives are there, to just 
take a very cold, harsh, realistic look at what is really going on in 
Iraq. This is not a moment for rose-colored glasses. It is a moment for 
reality. And I want to talk about the three realities in Iraq today, 
because basically the debate over Iraq is really twofold.
  One side says that we should just keep doing what we are doing. We 
will just trust the President to make the decisions as he has made them 
in Iraq. We won't question them. We won't ask to accelerate them. We 
won't question the strategy. Congress will just sit back and let George 
Bush decide what to do in Iraq.
  Others of us take a different approach that says the status quo is 
inadequate, that we cannot expect to keep doing the same thing in Iraq 
and expect a different result. So we believe we need some changes in 
Iraq. And I want to talk about some three realities about why we need a 
change, why the status quo is unacceptable, unacceptable in Iraq.
  Number one, the security situation. The reality in Iraq is that the 
current strategy proposed by the Bush administration is resulting in 
things not only not staying the same but getting worse. If you take a 
look at the Brookings Institution, you can go online and take a look at 
the Brookings Institution's Web site. Anybody can Google that to find 
Brookings. You will find the statistics that I want to talk about 
tonight.
  Fatalities in Iraq of Armed Forces are not only going down; they are 
going up. Compared to May 2003 and May 2005, we are now experiencing 
greater loss of our sons and daughters in Iraq than we were 2 years 
ago, 3 years ago. Those are going up, regrettably. The Bush plan is not 
working when it comes to protecting our men and women in uniform.
  When you looked at the wounded in the Brookings Institution report, 
regrettably, they are not going down; they are going up, compared to 
2\1/2\ years ago. When you look at Iraqi fatalities compared to the 
same time in February, March, May 2005, they are going up. When you 
look at the number of car bombs in May 2004, to May 2006, they are 
going up. When you look at Iraqi civilians killed, in fact, the number 
of Iraqi civilians killed compared to the same period about 3 years 
ago, they are three times higher per month. And I think we rightfully 
care about Iraqi civilian fatalities from a sense of humanity and from 
a sense of the American spirit.
  When you look at the number of multiple fatality bombings, they are 
up by a factor of 50 times higher than they were 3 years ago, a 50 
times increase in multiple fatality bombings that the Iraqis are 
experiencing. When you look at crime-related deaths, they are up 50 
times what they were over 2 years ago. When you look at the number of 
daily attacks, they are up compared to May 2004. When you look at 
weekly attacks on our service personnel, 2 years ago they went from 185 
to 620 now. Up substantially, unfortunately.
  So the security situation under the George Bush plan for security in 
Iraq, all of the indicators are going in the wrong direction. The 
status quo is not adequate. We cannot just trust the President with 
making decisions in Iraq.
  So I want to turn now to sort of the life-style, if you call it that, 
in economic conditions in Iraq. We were told, when we were briefed on 
this war by Paul Wolfowitz and others of the President's men and women, 
that oil would be quickly restored in Iraq and that, indeed, the Iraqis 
would pay for this war by themselves. In fact, the production of oil 
today has still not reached prewar levels under that tyrannical, 
abysmal dictator Saddam Hussein. We still have not achieved oil and gas 
production records on one of the largest pools of oil on Earth; they 
are still at 2.18 million barrels compared to 2.5 in the prewar level. 
We still are not back up to those levels. And we are paying hundreds of 
billions of dollars today for Iraq.
  In electricity we, at best, are back to prewar levels after 3 years 
and untold tens of millions of dollars squandered, American taxpayer 
dollars. And, in fact, in Baghdad today I read they are having a heat 
wave in Baghdad and they still only have 3 to 4 hours a day of 
electricity. You can imagine, after 3 years of sitting under a foreign 
army's occupation, with 3 hours of electricity for your air 
conditioner. I read these Iraqis said that, We basically sit and look 
at each other. I read this comment by a middle-class Iraqi who said, We 
are going crazy doing that. And I can understand that.
  The economic condition is not making substantial improvement in Iraq 
under the harsh realities.
  So now we turn to the political situation and ask ourselves if the 
George Bush plan is adequate on Iraq. And, yes, we have had elections 
and we were all thrilled by elections. All of us would like to see a 
democratic Iraq. But there is a very harsh reality that we think 
demands a change of plans in Iraq.

                              {time}  2030

  That is, until the Shiia community and the Sunni community and the 
Kurd community can strike the hard bargains it takes to make a 
democracy in Iraq, and particularly over access to the oil resource, 
which they still have not done after 3 years. It doesn't matter what an 
outside force will do. The current plan is not a plan for success.
  Frankly, our continued presence in Iraq is now acting as a security 
blanket to allow the politicians in Iraq to refuse to move forward with 
hard compromises about oil revenues, which is dooming our military to 
be there for decades. That is why we need to send a message to the 
Iraqi politicians that we are not going to be there for decades and 
they must make the compromises necessary about oil revenues, because 
they are shortly going to have responsibility for their own country.
  I am not the only one to think that. There are some people with some 
skin in this fight besides Americans, and that is the Iraqis. We went 
there to help the Iraqis. It was based on false information and deceit, 
but, nonetheless, Americans had I think the right intentions. So I 
think it pays some heed to see what the Iraqis think about this.
  What the Iraqis think about this, when a poll was done January 31, 
2006, by the World Public Opinion Poll, and that is not a group that 
has any particular dog in this fight, they went out and asked the Iraqi 
people, do you approve the government endorsing a timeline for U.S. 
withdrawal?
  These are the people whose lives are most dependent on obtaining a 
secure, safe Iraq. They are not sitting thousands of miles away like we 
are, like the President is. They are sitting in these rooms with no 
electricity and 120 degrees temperature and bombs going off next door 
where they can't send their kids out to play. They may be considered 
perhaps the experts on this issue. What do the Iraqis say about that 
issue?
  What they say is 87 percent of Iraqis would approve of the government 
endorsing a timeline for U.S. redeployment. That is something we ought 
to think about. I think there is a reason for that. I think there is a 
reason that 87 percent of the Iraqis who are living in such squalor and 
danger today believe that it makes sense for us to tell Iraqis that the 
time is shortly coming where the country will be theirs. I think the 
reason is they recognize that their politicians aren't going to get 
around to disposing of really coming up with an agreement on oil 
reserves until they know that the day is coming that the United States 
security blanket will be removed. The Iraqis have figured this out. We 
should figure it out.
  So we are here today saying it is not enough just to trust President 
Bush with decisions in Iraq. Security is not

[[Page 12580]]

getting better, the economy is not getting better, the political 
situation still really has not come to terms with the necessary 
compromise, and it is time for us to send a message to the Iraqi 
government that they need to get serious about resolving issues and 
redeploying our troops.
  This is a strategy for success. The Bush plan is a strategy for long-
term failure. It is time that we come to terms, take off the rose-
colored glasses and make hard decisions.
  I want to thank Mr. Larson for allowing me to participate.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Washington State again for his insightful comments and pointing 
out the new direction that this country needs to forge and that 
certainly that the people of this country desire and, as you so 
eloquently pointed out, as importantly, the people of Iraq.
  But I would also add that this is something that the generals of this 
country who have come forward and spoken out with great clarity also 
feel strongly about.
  Lieutenant General Greg Newbold: ``What we are living with now is the 
consequences of successive policy failures.''
  Major General Paul Eaton: ``Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is 
not competent to lead our Armed Forces. His failure to build coalitions 
with our allies has imposed far greater demands and risks on our 
soldiers in Iraq than necessary. He has shown himself to be incompetent 
strategically, operationally and tactically.''
  Lieutenant General John Riggs: ``They only need the military advice 
when it satisfies their agenda,'' speaking on National Public Radio 
about the Bush administration. ``They only need the military advice 
when it satisfies their own agenda.''
  General Wesley Clark: ``They pressed for open warfare before 
diplomacy was finished. It was a tragic mistake. It's a strategic 
blunder.''
  General Anthony Zinni: ``We are paying the price for the lack of 
credible planning, or the lack of a plan. Ten years worth of planning 
were thrown away, troop levels dismissed out of hand. These were 
strategic mistakes, mistakes of policy made back here by this 
administration.''
  Mr. INSLEE. Will the gentleman yield for a moment? I want to add an 
additional mistake, if I can briefly, that I think is very important 
for us to talk about, and that is the mistake to not send the message 
that the Iraqis are going to have a country that is free at some point 
of United States forces.
  This poll that I talked about, when they asked Iraqis, do you think 
the U.S. Government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq, 80 
percent of the people answered that they thought we were going to do 
that.
  When asked, do you believe that we will at some point remove our 
military once Iraq is stabilized, 80 percent of Iraqis believe we will 
not remove our forces even after Iraq is stabilized.
  There is a reason for them to believe that. Because on this floor, 
when we tried to put a provision in a defense bill that says we won't 
have any Iraq permanent bases in Iraq, which we actually succeeded in 
doing on the floor, the first thing that happened, in the dead of night 
in one of these conference committees, the Republican Party stripped it 
out.
  The message we are sending to Iraq is we are going to stay there as 
long as we want and perhaps permanently. That is the wrong message. We 
need to send a different message. That is why we are here tonight.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Someone who has sent that message 
consistently also hails from Washington State, the senior member of the 
delegation, Jim McDermott, a distinguished member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Larson for yielding. I want 
to thank him for organizing this event this evening to give us a chance 
to spend a little extra time talking about what is going on.
  I think the American people, as they look at this situation, have 
every reason to be very confused about what is going on in Iraq; and I 
want to try to help them understand it.
  The first thing you have to understand is that everything that is 
happening on this floor and in the other body has to do with the 7th of 
November, the election. Don't ever lose sight that what is being done 
here is to influence the American people to keep the Republicans in 
power in the next election.
  Now, the confusion you feel is being created by the very people who 
want to retain power. If you ask yourself where are we today, well, on 
Saturday in the morning they announced in the London Times that Prime 
Minister Maliki wanted reconciliation. He wanted to have a 
reconciliation plan coming out, and he wanted to meet with the Sunnis 
and try to defuse the situation.
  You would think that would be in everybody's interest. Did you hear 
one word from the White House about the Iraqis standing up and trying 
to defuse the situation? Did you hear any support? None. Because the 
basic underlying fact that my colleague from Washington has pointed out 
is we have no intention of leaving Iraq. We intend to be there with 
50,000 troops and permanent bases for an extended period of time. But 
we won't say that. We say exactly the opposite.
  What we are saying to the Iraqis is, now, look, this is what we mean. 
We mean we are not going to stay here. But the Iraqis open their eyes 
and they see this permanent stuff, and they say to themselves, it 
doesn't make any sense. They are not here on a temporary basis.
  An Arab friend of mine in Jordan told me that one of the things that 
Americans do not understand is what it means to an Arab when you occupy 
his land, and as long as we occupy their land, they will fight. He 
said, you can do all the talk you want, but until the United States 
indicates clearly that they are pulling their troops out, you will 
never get any peace in the area.
  That was on Saturday morning. Then we come to the New York Times the 
next day, Sunday, quoting General Casey. Now this is the President that 
says, stay the course, stay the course; and the New York Times leaks a 
story saying that they have drafted a plan for withdrawing troops by 
September.
  This is a leak. Did the President jump up and down and say, send out 
the FBI to find out who leaked that plan? No. Because they want to send 
that out to one part of the population. They want part of the United 
States to think we are actually going to pull the troops out, when in 
fact there is no real evidence that they are going to take them out.
  The American people have got to stay awake. Ronald Reagan said you 
should trust, but verify. The President says stuff, but when you try to 
verify it, you can't find it. He is against leaks, as long as it is an 
official leak of something he wants to get out there. Karl Rove really 
wants to get it out there.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Reclaiming my time, in my opening remarks, 
this is confusing to American citizens, because Karl Rove, the Sunday 
prior to the debate that started here in this House, was in New 
Hampshire; and he laid out the strategic vision for the Republican 
Party. It was a political gathering, but he laid out that strategic 
vision. I can understand why the public gets confused, because he said 
very publicly that what we have to do is ``stay the course,'' and then 
it was the Democrats who wanted, to use one of their slogans, ``cut and 
run.'' But they were going to stay the course.
  Then that was followed by the majority leader's talking points that 
were disseminated on the floor here which, of course, was again 
discrediting Democrats, and most notably Mr. Murtha, about cutting and 
running.
  Then it becomes even more confounding, because the debate that ensued 
was, as you point out, I think uplifting in some circumstances, because 
it was trying to define where people stand. Ninety-nine percent of them 
felt very strongly that we ought to stay the course, while 78 percent 
on this side felt there ought to be a new direction. So people became 
somewhat confused.

[[Page 12581]]

And that was all sandwiched in between the President's flight and 
photo-op to Iraq and the White House picnic.
  Then, lo and behold, last week, the debate in the Senate, where it 
even reaches a feverish pitch, and we have had more plans hatched and 
looked at by the Democrats, including the Murtha proposal, as Maxine 
discussed, and the Levin plan in the Senate, as well as Ike Skelton's 
proposal and David Price's proposal down here. It goes on and on. So 
people can get confused.
  Then, as you are chronicling these events, all of a sudden the Iraqi 
security adviser says they have a plan; and their plan includes, as Mr. 
Inslee pointed out, that the Iraqi people want us out of there. Eight-
seven percent want us out of there. Eighty-seven percent believe that 
they are better off taking control of their own destiny. And now you 
are telling the American people, though, that, look, this really 
doesn't have anything to do with all of that. This is about an 
election. Not their election.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Our election. One of the fascinating things about it 
is, I don't know how many times the President has said, we will stand 
down when the Iraqis stand up. Well, that makes sense to people. People 
say, yes, that is right. As soon as they are ready to take over their 
country, we will back out and we will leave. So we think he really 
means it.
  Then we have Maliki, the new prime minister, stand up and say, I have 
got a reconciliation plan, and I would like to talk with you guys about 
a timetable for you to leave.
  Have you heard the President say one thing about the prime minister 
standing up? Of course not. They have ignored the fact that the Iraqis 
that they maneuvered into charge of the place are actually standing up 
and saying, yes, we are going to have to talk to the Sunnis, because we 
are Shiia and they are Sunnis, and they feel like they are left out; 
and, secondly, we have to do something about all this fighting that is 
going on.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Briefly reclaiming my time, could it be 
that one of the reasons they are not speaking out as forthrightly as 
they should, and I am just surmising this, is because part of this 
reconciliation that has been discussed is the granting of amnesty to 
Iraqis who have murdered or kidnapped American soldiers or civilians?

                              {time}  2045

  We have put forward a resolution here. It was debated during our 
discussion here, but not a nonbinding resolution. We put forward a 
resolution that will actually bind the Congress to instruct the 
President to send a message to the Iraqi Government that that cannot 
stand; that we, this Congress, and the American public will not stand 
by and let them recuse people who have taken American lives, who have 
kidnapped and tortured and mutilated Americans.
  We will never stand by and let that happen. Could that be part of the 
reason?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, well, one of the questions you have to 
ask yourself is, Did Mr. Maliki and the Iraqi Government sit down and 
come up with this reconciliation package all by themselves? Does 
anybody think that the American Government was not, in the form of the 
ambassador, involved in those discussions, or that talked to the 
military? Of course they did.
  So what you have got is our own government talking out of both sides 
of its mouth. The Iraqis, all they know is we are staying there. We 
have got a $500 million embassy, the largest embassy in the world. It 
is really Fortress America. We have got military installations which 
are very permanent, and we are saying we are leaving tomorrow or 
sometime, whenever you are ready to run your own country.
  The fact is that we have shown nothing to suppose that we really mean 
that we will one day say, you guys are doing such a great job, we are 
going home. See you later. That is not what we are up to. We are trying 
to control the natural resources of the area and trying to give ourself 
a platform to operate some place in the Middle East, and we simply are 
going to have this fight continue unless, and I could not help 
thinking, I was sitting over thinking about what I was going to say 
today.
  I remember during the Vietnam War, back in 1968, coming up to an 
election. What was Mr. Nixon saying at that point? I have a secret plan 
to end the war. Ha. A secret plan to end the war. After he was 
reelected, we went on for 4 more years. This issue, if the President is 
serious, then he ought to explain to us why he let his commanding 
general go out there talking about setting a deadline and bringing 
troops home.
  Does he mean to do that, or is that just to throw smoke up in the air 
and get people confused? I think it is the latter. I do not think he 
intends to bring any troops home if he is going to give the impression 
that they are leaving Iraq. And that is why we have to continue to get 
out here and talk about what is in the newspapers.
  I mean, you do not have to read very far. The London Times, the New 
York Times, the Los Angeles Times, a few papers, and you can see it if 
you put it all together in one place. And that is why it is important 
for us as a body to have these hours when we do this.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. One gentleman who has been doing that 
consistently is the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, who, 
along with Mr. Inslee, headed up the Iraq Watch from the inception of 
this war, and who always provides us with insightful observations.
  I am sure he is intrigued, as both Mr. Inslee and Mr. McDermott are, 
with the developments of this past weekend with General Casey's 
proposal, et cetera. I would yield to him at this time.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. What I 
find interesting is ever since, well ever since before the invasion the 
administration has not been forthcoming, has not played it straight 
with us and with the American people.
  And I just got in from Boston, my plane was late, I am sure that many 
of you encountered those kinds of difficulties. But I had an 
opportunity to listen to my friend, Mr. Inslee from Washington. And he 
talked about the Iraqi people not wanting us to stay, if you can accept 
the results of that poll, which presumably are valid.
  And you make a point about the prime minister talking about a 
timetable. And yet during the course of, I do not want to call it a 
debate, but during the course of the speeches that were given here last 
week regarding Iraq, we heard a term like ``cut and run,'' you know, 
cut and run.
  Well, I find what is interesting is that now there is some cutting, 
or there appears to be some cutting. But you know what was unsaid 
during the entire conversation that was held on this floor? It is not 
just the Iraqi people that want us to leave, or at least to provide a 
timetable, but maybe President Bush was not hearing what the prime 
minister and the vice president and the president of Iraq had to say 
when he made his visit there a week or 10 days ago.
  Because flying back on Air Force One with the media, this is what he 
had to say, ``There are concerns about our commitment and keeping our 
troops there. They are worried, almost to a person, that we will leave 
before they are capable of defending themselves. And I assured them 
they did not need to worry.''
  But I guess when he says ``almost to a person,'' he is not referring 
to the vice president and the president of Iraq. Because it was 
reported in the Associated Press last week that the Iraqi vice 
president had asked President Bush for a timeline for withdrawal of 
foreign troops from Iraq.
  And that was confirmed by President Talabani, and in addition, 
President Talabani agreed with that request. So it was not just 
Democrats and others that were interested in a timeline for when we are 
getting out of there, but it was the Iraqi president and the Iraqi vice 
president.
  And yet we hear terms like cut and run. Cut and run. The only thing 
we are cutting here are taxes for the

[[Page 12582]]

super-rich and running up a deficit. That is what we are cutting and 
running here in this institution. Everyone recognizes there is a 
responsibility, but we did not get into this mess. Should we trust this 
administration?
  We were told by the Vice President that we were going to be greeted 
as liberators. False. The Secretary of Defense said the war would not 
last more than 6 months. False. His deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, said that 
Iraq could pay for its own reconstruction from oil revenues. False.
  We heard from the Vice President and everyone else that there were 
links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. False. False. False. And now 
we are told that, well, we cannot put out a timeline or a timetable to 
withdraw.
  The Iraqi people want it. I dare say the American people need to know 
about it. It is in the best interests of our national security, because 
what we are doing there is we are creating terrorists. We are eroding 
the efforts against terrorism worldwide the longer we stay there. We 
are viewed by the world as occupiers. All you have to do is take a look 
at the recent polling data, the most recent one being from a very 
reputable foundation, the Pew Foundation, 33 out of 35 countries have a 
negative image of the United States. Our own Government Accountability 
Office that my friends on both sides of the aisle know is a nonpartisan 
agency of the U.S. Congress has said this: anti-American sentiment is 
broadening and deepening and is a threat to our national security and 
will hurt our efforts against terrorism.
  And, of course, there is a possibility and a real potential that it 
will hurt us in other areas, and furthermore it could very well erode 
and hurt our commercial interests.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. One of the reasons that we come to the 
floor this evening, and Mr. McDermott alluded to it, is making sure 
that we do not sit idle to miss the so-called debate that Mr. Delahunt 
suggested took place both here in this Chamber, a nonbinding 
discussion, if you will, and in the Senate.
  Because in the past, charges have been made and leveled, slogans 
tossed out, and they have not been responded to. We are not going to 
stand by, because the American public desires a new direction, and more 
importantly desires people who are willing to speak truth to power.
  That is why Jack Murtha is so celebrated across this country. It is 
not so much for the particulars of his plan, but for the fact that he 
had the temerity to speak truth to power. And so we will not stand 
idle, and we will come to this floor on successive evenings to drive 
home the point to the American people.
  Mr. Delahunt, you articulated so clearly the need to level with the 
American public. And I started this evening talking about saying 
goodbye to the Reservists and National Guard of the 1048th Truckers 
Division from the State of Connecticut, a very painful thing.
  And most important is the need to level with our own troops and the 
families, who, as you point out, are the only ones who have had to make 
a sacrifice since September 11. The only people that our government has 
requested sacrifice of are the men and women who wear the uniform and 
their families.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. And the American taxpayer.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to pose this question here about who 
is driving the bus when it comes to Iraq policy. And this is an 
important question I know all of us feel. Yesterday, two of our finest 
from the State of Washington were killed in Iraq, young men.
  The day before that, a young man from Port Orchard, Washington, who 
had been fighting for life for 3 months died in one of our hospitals in 
Texas. We need somebody to drive the bus of Iraqi policy that is 
trustworthy, accurate, and has a full understanding of what is going on 
in Iraq.
  And when you ask yourself, does the President meet those criteria for 
that policy, does his policy meet that criteria; was he right on 
weapons of mass destruction? No. Was he right on association with 9/11? 
No. Was he right on the number of troops we needed? No.
  Was he right on flak jackets for the troops? No. Was he right on 
armored Humvees? No. Is he right on the issue of who is actually doing 
the fighting now? He still wants to make it sound like it is just part 
of an international conspiracy, not a sectarian conflict that is going 
on when Shiites and Sunnis are killing themselves in the streets? No.
  He still is wrong about the basic nature of the conflict, and yet 
some people in Congress want to let him just drive the bus after he has 
crashed it 52 different times, and we have lost over 2,500 of our 
finest as a result.

                              {time}  2100

  It is time for someone else to start driving the bus, and that is 
Congress; to start asking these hard questions and demand a different 
strategy
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I would conclude by asking a question, which is 
that, ultimately, what has occurred because of our invasion of Iraq? 
Let us project 2 years, 5 years, 10 years.
  We hear so much talk about bringing democracy to the Middle East. 
Well, you know what I see, I see an emerging relationship between Iraq 
and Iran. I already have noted that there is a bilateral military 
cooperation agreement between Iran and Iraq. In my memory, please help 
me, wasn't Iran one of the original members of the access of evil club?
  And just recently, I noticed where the prime minister suggested that 
the international community ought to leave Iran alone and drop its 
demand, drop its demand that Iran prove that it is not developing 
nuclear technology for purposes of a weapon.
  Now, what is happening here? Are we going to end up with the legacy 
of this loss of American lives and American taxpayer dollars with a 
more influential Iran? I mean, please, has anybody even talked about 
this or considered it? Do we hear this as part of the debate and the 
discourse even among think tanks, even among the popular media outlets?
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Well, if the gentleman will yield, I think 
Graham Ellison has stated it most eloquently. He said ``Americans are 
no safer from nuclear terrorist attack today than we were on September 
10, 2001.'' He said, ``A central reason for that can be summed up in 
one word: Iraq. The invasion and occupation have diverted essential 
resources from the fight against al Qaeda, allowed the Taliban to 
regroup in Afghanistan, fostered neglect of the Iranian nuclear threat, 
undermined alliances critical to preventing terrorism, devastated 
America's standing with the public in every country in Europe, and 
destroyed it in the Muslim world.''
  That about sums it up, where we were and why we need a new direction.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for joining me this evening.

                          ____________________