[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15322-15325]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1810
                      VIOLENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tipton). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, violence is continuing to erupt in the 
Middle East. Unfortunately, it remains true that for every action there 
is a reaction. So when this administration decided to push its ally, 
President Mubarak, out of leadership in Egypt, it was assisting in 
creating instability around our other ally, Israel. And that 
instability continues to grow.
  One of the things that was helpful from Egypt while President Mubarak 
was in charge, at least there were some efforts to restrict the 
transfer of rockets into the Gaza Strip. So there were some tunnels 
that would be found. The tunnels had to be kept small, so they were 
able to get smaller rockets into Gaza. But now that there is a new 
regime, apparently the bigger rockets are getting into Gaza, and they 
pose more and more of a threat as they continue to be fired into 
Israel.
  The action is not only the fall of an ally, President Mubarak, but 
the assistance in bringing to power in Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood. 
They want to see Israel gone, and they would also not mind seeing the 
United States gone.
  It's important when formulating foreign policy that the United 
States, particularly the Obama administration, decide are we going to 
be assisted with our own personal security here in the United States by 
the actions that we take, or are the reactions that are going to be 
caused by our actions actually going to cause greater threats to our 
closest allies and to ourselves. And, unfortunately, that's what we're 
seeing. In fact, I saw an article in May of 2010 which indicated that 
this administration, the Obama administration, sided with Israel's 
enemies in demanding that Israel disclose any nuclear weapons. We'd 
never sided with Israel's enemies in trying to push Israel into doing 
something against its own interests. When you're a very small country 
surrounded by countries that want to see you go away, it is important 
that they not know all of your defenses.
  Going back in the Old Testament, you find history, King Hezekiah 
showing all of their treasure and all of their defenses. All of their 
defenses they had in their armory, he showed them to the leaders of 
Babylon. As a result, ultimately that kingdom was lost to the 
Babylonians.
  You don't show other nations, even people you think are friends at 
the moment; they may turn into enemies. It is important that your 
enemies, and even your friends, not know all of your defenses. And yet 
we sided with Israel's enemies, or at least this administration did.
  The result we saw within 2-3 days, the flotilla head from Turkey to 
challenge the blockade of the Gaza Strip. It was a legitimate, lawful 
blockade that was trying to keep rockets out of Gaza that would inflict 
death and terror upon Israel. A legitimate blockade. The only things 
being kept out were weapons, rockets, things that would kill the 
Israelis and terrorize our ally. But that's what happens. You have 
challenges to a nation when that nation's enemies see their strongest 
ally pull away and siding with that nation's enemies.
  That's why it was so important, and I began pushing at that time, to 
have Prime Minister Netanyahu invited to speak here in this Chamber. 
And a year later, to his great credit, Speaker Boehner, at the urging 
of many of us, invited Prime Minister Netanyahu, and he gave the best 
speech I've heard here in Congress. It helps when a nation's enemy sees 
their strongest ally siding with them.
  On the other hand, when a nation's enemies see the strong ally, in 
this case the United States, turning on an ally, as this administration 
had with President Mubarak, and helping people who want to see Israel 
gone from the map take power, it encourages Israel's enemies.
  This administration also had relations with Qadhafi, who had opened 
up--he had blood on his hands from prior years, not a good man, but he 
had opened up his country, abandoned any nuclear weapons pursuit, and 
become an ally. I have seen individual family members of Muammar 
Qadhafi here in Washington to meet with administration officials. And 
then, lo and behold, a year and a half or so ago, this administration 
sides with the enemies. And at the time we knew al Qaeda was contained 
within the revolt, and we sided with the al Qaeda-backed revolt to 
drive out Qadhafi. That appears to have inspired the violence in 
Tunisia.
  And so we have seen Israel's enemies and our own enemies actually 
grow in

[[Page 15323]]

strength--Tunisia, Libya, Egypt--coming on to surround Israel, and any 
threat to Western values that are found in Israel is a threat to our 
own existence. And it's important that someone in this administration 
make repeated note of that because the result here recently has been 
further violence to our friend and ally, Israel.
  So we have this report, November 15, 2012, three people were killed 
as rockets fired from Gaza struck southern Israel escalating violence. 
They died when a four-story building in the town of Kiryat Malachi was 
hit. There had been about 200 rockets fired into Israel. Israel's Iron 
Dome was able to intercept many of them, but couldn't possibly 
intercept as many as 200.

                              {time}  1820

  ``Hamas' political leader Khaled Mashaal vowed to continue the 
`resistance' against Israel,'' Reuters news agency reported.
  This ``resistance'' is just another word for ``violence.'' They're 
inflicting violence on Israel and then turning around and blaming 
Israel for defending itself and trying to continue to grow world 
opinion against the tiny nation of Israel when it's not Israel that is 
demanding the total annihilation of its enemies in surrounding 
countries. They just want to live in peaceful coexistence. But this 
administration has helped its enemies take over the countries 
surrounding it.
  And now we're aware of enemies coming into Jordan, beginning to 
incite a potential revolt there against another ally who must wonder is 
this administration going to turn on him next.
  King Abdullah has not been someone with whom we've agreed on all 
things, but he has kept a relatively very peaceful border with Israel. 
So necessarily he would wonder, Because I've kept the peace with Israel 
on their border, am I going to be targeted next? And the answer needs 
to come very loudly and very clearly--and it doesn't seem to be much of 
a muffle at all--that we support those who will prevent violence 
against Israel, against their Western values, against their desire to 
just live in peace and be left alone. And yet we've helped their 
enemies build violence and potential for more violence around it.
  This story from Sky News reported that the rockets hit near Tel Aviv 
deeper into Israel. Palestinian militants target Israel with nearly 150 
rockets, striking the outskirts of Tel Aviv as Israel continues 
airstrikes.
  And there has been a problem: Since this administration helped create 
the environment in north Africa and in the Middle East where those who 
want to see Israel destroyed could take power, more violence has 
occurred, not less; more people's lives are in danger, not less. 
There's less freedom of worship, not more. The things that we believe 
in--freedom of worship of all people or no worship if people choose not 
to worship--these kinds of things should be kept inviolate.
  And yet we've seen, as this Nation took over Afghanistan, more 
Americans have died in about half the time under Commander in Chief 
Obama as died during the 7 years and 3 months under President Bush in 
Afghanistan, American military. Over 70 percent of those killed in 
Afghanistan have been under Commander Obama in about half the time. 
We've seen violence escalating against Americans in Afghanistan. We've 
seen the last Christian church, public Christian church pull out of 
Afghanistan.
  This administration should be encouraging freedom of worship, 
encouraging the liberation of women, of children. And yet for all its 
help, it's created environments in Libya, in Egypt, in Afghanistan, in 
Iraq where there is more and more violence, more and more oppression 
against women, against children, against Christians, against Jews, 
against anyone who wants to worship other than in a radical Islamist 
way.
  Sometimes we wonder who's in charge in this administration because 
somebody's got to figure it out. So I was glad to hear President Obama 
say yesterday, Don't be accusing Ambassador Rice of going out and 
lying.
  And we know that something is not a lie unless somebody knows that 
it's not true when they say it. The President apparently indicated that 
she was given the information that was untrue, to go out and spread 
those untruths. And if she didn't know that the statements she was told 
by the White House to go out and tell were not truths, then she was not 
lying. And she should be given credit for not lying if she didn't know 
those untruths she was telling were not true.
  But then it raises more and more questions. You know, who is in 
charge there?
  Woodward's book raises the issue of the President coming to meetings 
over crises and not even knowing who's going to be coming to brief him 
on things; whereas, a strong leader would come in and, I want to hear 
from this person, this person, this person.
  Who's making the decisions? Who does know what's true and not true in 
this administration? Who can we depend on at 3 in the morning when we 
have public servants who have been sent into harm's way to do this 
administration's bidding, who is going to answer that phone and say, 
The people that we ordered into harm's way on our behalf are in 
trouble? Right now, get them all the help we can give them. Who's going 
to answer that call? Why does it take 8 hours to get the people ordered 
into harm's way some help? We're stronger than that. We've got 
vehicles, planes, things that can get there faster.
  So why are people trying to cover up who makes those decisions? Who 
decides not to help the people we have in harm's way? And if we don't 
figure that out, how can we expect anybody to ever come forward and 
sign up to put their lives on the line for their country?
  We have the greatest military in the history of this country. The men 
and women who have served this country throughout our history have been 
extraordinary, but never with the power and the ability of the military 
that we have now. It's extraordinary.
  But when this administration creates rules of engagement that even go 
one step worse than telling our people, When you're fired on, you can 
defend yourself, but if you're not fired on and somebody raises a 
weapon and they're going to shoot at you, they look like they're going 
to shoot at you, you have got to wait to make sure they're going to 
shoot at you before you shoot back, that's the kind of impression our 
military has gotten in the field in the past.
  But as I've talked to military members in Afghanistan, it's their 
impression that the rules of engagement are such that now when they're 
fired at, they can't fire back if they think there might be a civilian 
somewhere that might get hit, because if they do and they hit a 
civilian, even defending themselves in what in America would be self-
defense, sent into harm's way might get them sent to prison when they 
get home. So they are tasked with an unenviable position of deciding, 
Do I want to defend myself against death and risk going to prison when 
I get home, being jailed by the country that I'm trying to defend, to 
serve?
  We've got to get some answers of who's making the decisions that are 
getting our military killed, that have gotten an Ambassador killed, 
that got two former SEALs killed. We have got to get some answers. 
Who's covering this stuff up? Somebody is. We can't get the story 
straight.

                              {time}  1830

  General Petraeus is supposed to appear tomorrow.
  We need an independent prosecutor to do an investigation, not with 
the intention, as apparently Fitzgerald had, of ``getting somebody,'' 
so that he goes into the investigation into whether or not Valerie 
Plame was outed and he finds out the answer and decides to do what he 
can to get somebody inside the Bush administration, even though he knew 
that Scooter Libby was not responsible and was set up. He should have 
been truthful. You should always be truthful. But the prosecutor was 
not honorable in the way that that was pursued. If he knew the answer 
as to who had outed Valerie Plame, that it was not Scooter Libby, it 
was not Karl Rove, he should have been honorable enough to own up to 
that instead of

[[Page 15324]]

asking for more money and trying to set up other individuals.
  So with those kinds of things going on, it's understandable how 
people would suspect that having an independent counsel might not be a 
good idea. But when there are clearly conflicts of interest, when you 
have an FBI that is investigating information that involves the 
Director of the CIA, when you have an Attorney General that has 
information that needs to go immediately to the Commander in Chief, to 
the President of the country, we need to find out, did it go there, and 
if not why not. And, if so, what in the world is the President doing 
with this information because now he's saying they didn't get it until 
after the election. Why so long? Where are the problems here? Why are 
the stories different? Why are the stories that were told different 
from the evidence those people had in their hands when they told their 
stories? The answers need to be found, and there's clearly a conflict 
of interest.
  We do not need to return to the days of an FBI Director who 
investigates, not to report to the Commander in Chief, but to gather 
information so that he can get it and use it or provide it to someone 
else who can use it to force people to do what they want.
  So what happens when an FBI Director comes into office honorably, 
with the best of intentions, as it appears J. Edgar Hoover did, to 
battle organized crime that was such a blot on this country. When 
you're in power too long, as Stalin, who should have known, said, With 
power dizziness.
  So there has to be accountability. It's what the Founders had in 
mind. Checks and balances. We've seen with the Supreme Court's decision 
in ObamaCare that they're going to allow unconstitutional laws to go 
forward. They're not going to be the ones to rein in violations of the 
Constitution that are contained in bad legislation: You guys in 
Congress need to figure that out. Our Chief Justice punted on that one.
  So it's back to us. Members of Congress have the purse strings. And 
if the administration will not properly appoint a special prosecutor to 
investigate, not with the intent of putting someone in jail but to see 
if there is something that needs to be prosecuted, if they're not 
willing to do that, then we need to cut off funds to those areas that 
are refusing to do justice. Because an Injustice Department should not 
be funded, at least the parts of it that are doing injustice. There are 
parts that are serving nobly and well. Fund those parts.
  We have the power of the purse to check and balance an administration 
running amok. So when an administration takes actions to make sure that 
people who are illegally voting have the chance to illegally vote, we 
need to look at what areas we are funding there. Because if there's a 
Justice Department that is assisting--complicit--in seeing that people 
not legally allowed to vote, vote, then we have the power of the purse 
strings to do something about it, and we should. And if the Senate 
fails to rein in injustice, they need to be exposed, those who stand in 
its way. Because that's the great thing about America. When Americans 
get the truth, they stand on the truth and stand for justice. They 
always have. But they've got to get the truth.
  And sometimes these days it's hard to know what's true. When you have 
an administration sending out different stories, and then we find out 
that they knew all along that it was a violent, coordinated attack on 
our Ambassador, that the two former SEALs that were killed were not 
killed seeking cover, as this administration released that they were. 
You had one on the top of a building using a machine gun, fighting to 
the end to protect others. That's not a man seeking cover. That's a man 
giving cover to others. That's a man laying down his life for his 
country. And this administration did not serve him as he served it.
  We need to get to the bottom of what's going on. Whatever it takes, 
lawfully, ethically, we need to get to the bottom of it. We need to 
require that if this administration is going to continue getting 
funding, it better start protecting those who are protecting it. And if 
that means that in order to protect those who are in harm's way, then 
let's fund those who are in harm's way protecting us and not fund the 
rest until they are committed to protecting those of us who are in 
harm's way. We can do that.
  Social Security, despite the lies that were told by some in the last 
couple of years that, oh gee, if there's a shutdown, Social Security 
recipients, you're not going to get a dime. Garbage. Those are lies. 
And people need to know if and when those things start getting told, 
they are lies, whoever would tell them, because the law has been passed 
previously that if there is a government shutdown, Social Security 
recipients will get their Social Security checks. They will be coming. 
Because the money will continue to come in. Just because there has been 
a government shutdown in the past did not mean that people didn't have 
to send in their tax payments. They have to come. You commit a crime if 
you intentionally refuse to pay taxes.
  So the money comes in. Social Security checks will go out. We've had 
bills in the past, and we'll have them as soon as we start a new 
Congress, that will ensure that those Americans who are standing in the 
gap, who are in harm's way for us, those men and women wearing 
uniforms, should never have to worry about whether or not their 
paycheck will be forthcoming; that regardless of what kind of games get 
played here in Washington, they're going to get paid. They ought to 
know that. We ought to pass that bill like we have with Social Security 
to make sure those in harm's way don't have to worry about that.
  And then the message needs to be loud and clear that an 
administration that refuses, whether it's intentional or neglect, 
negligence, that fails to ensure the protection of those protecting us, 
you're not going to get funded until we get commitments to make sure 
it's done in the future. And when you obfuscate the truth and you keep 
us from finding out who made these decisions that got our people 
killed, what in the heck were they doing over there in the first place?
  Our embassy's not in Benghazi. What was going on? Who gave the order 
for Ambassador Stevens to be there in harm's way? Until we can start 
finding out those answers, it's going to be impossible to make sure 
that we protect those who are protecting us in the future. And what 
kind of message does that send to our allies?

                              {time}  1840

  In Israel, a year ago, a minister told me that they routinely get 
visits from Chinese diplomats who say: Hey, have you figured out you 
can't trust the United States yet? Because we'll be your great ally. 
We'll be a lot better ally than the United States has been. All you've 
got to do is let us know when you figure it out. You can't trust the 
United States; they'll break their word, you can't count on them. When 
you find that out, let us know. We'll keep coming around because you'll 
find out at some time.
  Listen, there never needs to be a time again ever when a United 
States ally is betrayed by the United States. When we make an agreement 
with an ally, with a friend, that agreement needs to be kept. People 
need to know that this country keeps its word. Even when it hurts, we 
keep our word. And that seems to be a problem lately.
  You want to go back to when America began to grow economically and 
become a power economically? After the War of 1812 that dragged on for 
2 years really destroyed so much, including the fire in this very 
building--this section was not here yet, but the central part of the 
Capitol, fires were set. The smaller Federal offices out here in what 
we now consider the Mall, they were burned. The White House was set on 
fire--even though the interior was completely destroyed, the exterior 
shell was left in place. But that also was true of much of the country, 
devastated. But there were loans that had been taken out by Americans 
from British banks before the War of 1812. Those in British banks might 
have suspected that as a result of our war with

[[Page 15325]]

Great Britain, 1812 to 1814, that at the end of the war we would not 
pay our debts. But instead what happened, those American forefathers, 
foremothers, they agreed, look, we made a promise to pay back our loans 
to the banks in England, we're going to stand good for our word, 
despite the fact that their country destroyed so much of ours.
  And it was after the world took note that Americans had such 
incredible honor, that even after a war with Great Britain they would 
stand behind their commitments to pay back their loans to the British 
banks, people said: Wow, this is a country we can do business with, and 
American economic power began to grow to where it is now the strongest 
economic power in the world.
  Now, people are beginning to wonder: Should we end the dollar as an 
international currency because we're not sure you can trust the United 
States? It's time people quit wondering whether they can trust the 
United States. There's only one way that will happen, and that is when 
we have an administration--and this one's been reelected for 4 years, 
so it has to be this one--stops playing games, stops covering up truth, 
stops giving mixed signals, and is forthcoming: Here are our policies; 
we have made agreements; we stand by our agreements. King Abdullah, we 
may disagree with you on a bunch of things, but we have agreements, and 
we will keep our agreements. This administration needs to make those 
things clear.
  When someone attacks an ally of ours with whom we have agreements, we 
stand by our agreements. That's the way you prevent wars. Because what 
we're seeing right now in Israel, with this enhanced and heightened 
violence that's beginning to occur, people have seen this 
administration pulling back from our commitments to Israel. That's the 
way it appears to Israel's enemies. So of course the rockets have 
gotten bigger that they've been able to smuggle in and construct there 
in Gaza. The rockets are flying farther into Israel--right now up to 
their capital at Tel-Aviv--because this administration has not stood 
firmly enough with our ally. We need to make that clear.
  This Secretary of State should not be authorized by the President to 
tell Egypt, sure, the Muslim Brotherhood appears to be back in charge; 
sure, Israel is our ally; sure, you want to see Israel wiped off the 
map; but here's a billion and a half dollars. That's not the message 
that should be coming. The message that should be coming from this 
administration is: not one more dime until you start keeping your 
agreement to protect the border of Israel, not another dime. That ought 
to be the message. Because Israel is our ally. And if you, Egypt, are 
going to be our ally, you're going to have to protect our allies as 
well. That's not an entangling alliance; that's a country that stands 
by its agreements. Don't make agreements unless we intend to keep them. 
Yet we've seen this administration repeatedly throw our allies under 
the proverbial bus. It's got to stop. People have got to know in other 
countries they can trust our word.
  And just like the West African told me when I was there 2 years ago, 
you've got to tell the people in Washington to quit getting weaker. We 
were so excited when you elected a black President, but we've seen 
America get weaker. You've got to tell people in Washington to quit 
letting your country get weaker, because if America grows weak, we have 
no chance of peace in this life. That was echoed by others, other West 
Africans.
  It's time to stop growing weaker. It's time to stop breaking our word 
to our allies. It's time to make clear to Israel's enemies that Israel 
is our friend, you better back off or you're going to have us 
militarily to answer to.
  Is it any surprise more rockets are flying at Israel? This 
administration wins 4 more years and the violence just gets greater 
against Israel, Israel then forced to defend itself when they just want 
to live in peace. They want the countries around them to stop demanding 
their obliteration from the map.
  If the U.N. is going to persist in helping those who want to see a 
member of the United Nations wiped off the map, then the U.N. does not 
need to continue to have the United States as a member. That's the way 
it ought to be. It ought to be clear. We joined the U.N. The U.N. has a 
charter that will protect its member states. And if you're going to 
assist those who want to obliterate Israel, then we will no longer be a 
part of the United Nations because it's not united, it's anti-Semitic. 
It's not united, and we will not be part of an un-United Nations.
  It's time to get serious because people are dying around the world, 
including our own Ambassador. It's time to quit covering for the truth. 
Let us get down to what the truth is. Let the chips fall where they 
may. Let us find out who did what wrong so we can correct it for the 
future. And I hope and pray there was no criminal activity--certainly 
there was negligence, but you don't know until we get a proper 
investigation.
  An Attorney General cannot properly investigate himself. An Attorney 
General cannot properly investigate his boss. One department, the FBI, 
cannot properly investigate another agency unless that department's 
ultimate boss, the President, is aware and coordinates. And now that we 
know that did not happen--according to the President, he knew nothing. 
Like Sergeant Schultz from the old Hogan's Heroes, I know nothing, I 
know nothing, not until after the election. My administration kept me 
from knowing anything that was going on so I didn't make these 
decisions, somebody else made those decisions. I didn't know anything 
until after the election. They kept all this stuff from me, so I had 
plausible deniability. I didn't know of this stuff.

                              {time}  1850

  It's time somebody knew, but we're not going to get to the bottom of 
it until we have an independent investigation by someone with the power 
to do that properly. And if the executive branch will not do what the 
Constitution would require in a conflict of interest situation like 
this, then we need a select committee to do the investigation, get to 
the bottom of it, just as the Watergate committee did.
  Let the chips fall where they may, because when people, in government 
and out of government, see that the government is actually interested 
in truth, then government gets the truth. People have more faith in the 
government, and we have a better country. And I hope and pray that day 
will come.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________