[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13732-13733]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            THE WAR IN IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murphy of Connecticut). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq, since its beginning, has 
gone against every traditional conservative position I've ever known, 
especially fiscal conservatism. There is nothing conservative about the 
war in Iraq. So it should have been no surprise when William F. 
Buckley, often called the ``Godfather of Conservatism,'' wrote in 2004 
that if he had known in 2002 what he knew then by 2004, he would have 
been against the war. But listen to what he wrote in June of 2005, 2 
years ago.
  William F. Buckley. ``A respect for the power of the United States is 
engendered by our success in engagements in which we take part. A point 
is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of purpose, but 
misapplication of pride. It can't reasonably be disputed that if in the 
year ahead the situation in Iraq continues about as it has done in the 
past year, we will have suffered more than another 500 soldiers killed. 
Where there had been skepticism about our venture, there will be 
contempt.''
  That was William F. Buckley in 2005. And his main point was, quote, 
``A point is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of 
purpose, but misapplication of pride.'' Unfortunately, we are losing 
our young soldiers at a much faster rate than the 500 a year that Mr. 
Buckley said would move the American people from skepticism to 
contempt; 103 U.S. soldiers

[[Page 13733]]

killed in April alone, at least 71 more killed through May 21, 
including 15 this past weekend, and someone told me 8 more today.
  Saddam Hussein was an evil man, but he had a total military budget 
only a little over two-tenths of 1 percent of ours, most of which he 
spent protecting himself and his family and building castles. He was no 
threat to us whatsoever.
  Mr. Speaker, we all respect, admire and appreciate those who serve in 
our Nation's Armed Forces. As I said a few days ago on this floor, 
serving in our military is certainly one of the most honorable ways 
anyone can serve our country. I believe national defense is one of the 
very few legitimate functions of our national government, and certainly 
one of the most important. However, we need to recognize that our 
military has become the most gigantic bureaucracy in the history of the 
world, and like any huge bureaucracy, it does many good things, of 
course, always at huge expense to the taxpayer. And like any huge 
bureaucracy, our military does many things that are wasteful or 
inefficient. And like any huge bureaucracy, it tries to gloss over or 
cover up its mistakes. And like any huge bureaucracy, it always wants 
to expand its mission and get more and more money.
  Counting our regular appropriations bills, plus the supplemental 
appropriations, we will spend more than $750 billion on our military in 
the next fiscal year. This is more than all the other nations of the 
world combined spend on their defense.
  The GAO tells us that we presently have $50 trillion in unfunded 
future pension liabilities, on top of our national debt of almost $9 
trillion. If we are going to have any hope of paying our military 
pensions and Social Security and other promises to our own people, we 
cannot keep giving so much to the Pentagon. No matter how much we 
respect our military, and no matter how much we want to show our 
patriotism, we need to realize there is waste in all huge 
bureaucracies, even in the Defense Department.
  There is a reason why we have always believed in civilian leadership 
of our Defense Department. The admirals and generals will always say 
things are going great because it is almost like saying they're doing a 
bad job if they say things are not doing well. And the military people 
know they can keep getting big increases in funding if they are 
involved all over the world. However, it is both unconstitutional and 
unaffordable, and, I might add, unconservative, for us to be the 
policemen of the world and carry on civilian government functions in 
and for other countries.
  National defense is necessary and vital. International defense by the 
U.S. is unnecessary and harmful in many ways. Now we are engaged in a 
war in Iraq that is very unpopular with a big majority of the American 
people. More importantly, every poll of Iraqis themselves shows that 78 
to 80 percent of them want us to leave, except in the Kurdish areas. 
They want our money, but they do not want us occupying Iraq. Surely we 
are not adopting a foreign policy that forces us on other people, one 
that says we are going to run Iraq even if the people there want us to 
leave.
  The majority of the Iraqi Parliament has now signed a petition asking 
us to leave. It is sure not traditional conservatism to carry on a war 
in a country that did not attack us, did not even threaten to attack 
us, and was not even capable of attacking us. And it is sure not 
traditional conservatism to believe in world government, even if run by 
the U.S.
  Mr. Speaker, President Bush, when he ran for office in 2000, 
campaigned strongly against nation building. Unfortunately, that is 
exactly what we have been doing in Iraq. The President, in 2000, said 
what we needed was a more humble foreign policy. That is what we needed 
then, and it is what we need now.

                          ____________________