[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7120-7123]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2030
                              CURRENT NEWS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Katko). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for 30 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we have had a lot in the news recently 
about questions being asked of people running for President. It has 
been interesting. In taking that issue up, though, it is important to 
look at some of the current news.
  Here is an article on May 17 by Bill Sanderson of the New York Post. 
It says: ``Saudi Arabia to buy nuclear bombs from Pakistan.''
  It says:

       Saudi Arabia will join the nuclear club by buying ``off-
     the-shelf'' atomic weapons from Pakistan, U.S. officials told 
     a London newspaper.

  Wow. Well, that was something that we weren't expecting back when 
President Bush went into Iraq when he made that call that some day, 
Saudi Arabia and others in the Middle East would become so nervous 
about the chaos created in the Middle East that they would determine: 
We may need to get

[[Page 7121]]

nuclear weapons ourselves. In the past, we have always been comforted 
by the fact that the United States would keep peace in the Middle East. 
They wouldn't let anything get out of hand. They would keep other 
Middle Eastern countries, especially radical Islamist countries, from 
having nukes.
  This administration has shown it is not capable of preventing nukes 
from proliferation in the Middle East, so therefore, our allies our 
getting quite nervous.
  Here is an article from today by a brilliant prosecutor of the 
original bomber of the World Trade Center in 1993, Andrew McCarthy. It 
is dated today, May 18. The title of his article in National Review 
says: ``The Iraq Question is the Iran Question--At Least It Should 
Be.''
  He goes on to point to the question that is being asked of some 
Republican Presidential candidates. Obviously, the mainstream media, 
those that donate to the Clinton foundation, and those kind of folks--
those that would take a hostile position against Republicans in 
debates, those who act as mediators or emcees in a debate would 
actually speak on behalf of the Democrat--they are not asking this 
question of Democrats, but it is a legitimate question.
  This is what Andrew McCarthy brings up. He says: ``Was it a mistake 
to invade, knowing what we know now?''
  He is talking about Iraq.
  Mr. McCarthy says:

       It is a very fair point that the question should not be 
     asked solely of Republicans--Hillary Clinton and other 
     Democrats who supported the war should be grilled, too.

  He says further down: ``Many of us who supported the Iraq war based 
that support on the principles enunciated in the Bush doctrine.''
  Then he sets out his take on the Bush doctrine. I think it is well 
set out.
  It says: ``Attack the jihadists wherever they operate and make rogue 
states understand that if they support the terrorists we will treat 
them as enemies. In that calculation, Iraq was an enemy regardless of 
whether it had weapons of mass destruction. It''--talking about Iraq--
``obviously was not the worst such enemy--Iran was. And it obviously 
was a potentially more dangerous enemy if it had weapons of mass 
destruction that could have been shared with jihadists. Iraq, 
nevertheless, was surely in the camp of states that, using Bush's `with 
us or against us' metric, was against us.''
  Then we have an article here from IJReview: ``U.S. Special Forces 
Just Took Out a Top ISIS Leader--And Captured His Sex Slavery-Condoning 
Wife,'' by Justen Charters.
  It says: ``While airstrikes continue to hammer ISIS positions, it 
turns out that that is not the only thing the jihadists need to worry 
about. U.S. Special Forces appear to be doing more than just training 
`rebels,' they're now engaging the enemy. And, they just put down a top 
Islamic State leader: Abu Sayyaf.
  ``USA Today reported further on the operation, which will be hurting 
the terrorists' bankroll and morale.''
  It goes out to set out something from USA Today.
  That is such an intriguing story, Mr. Speaker. I find it very 
intriguing because I can't remember how many times, but it was many 
times that the President and other members of this administration said: 
There will be no boots on the ground in Syria in this area--no boots on 
the ground.
  We were told that over and over, which is really perplexing because 
we all trust the same people that told us, If you like your insurance, 
you can keep it; if you like your doctor, you can keep him--all these 
things--that they are not going to persecute people of religious 
beliefs, then they persecuted them.
  Who would have thought that this administration would say there will 
be no boots on the ground and then put boots on the ground?
  Now, it could have been, in fairness to the administration, that they 
hovered and were able to lift up the wife of the ISIS leader without 
actually getting boots on the ground, or it is quite possible they 
didn't wear boots. Maybe they were wearing moccasins or something like 
that; maybe they went barefoot, and that would explain why those in the 
administration would say: We will never put boots on the ground; no 
boots are going to be on the ground.
  Maybe they really weren't wearing boots. I know boots have come a 
long way since I was in the Army, and I never did understand why we had 
to wear those black boots that you had to spit-shine to shine them up. 
It made no sense to me.
  I like the new boots the military is wearing now much better; but 
maybe they have got some other shoes they have figured out so they 
don't have to actually put boots on the ground.
  In any event, what happened in the Middle East is most intriguing.
  Then we have a story today from Judicial Watch. Judicial Watch has 
now gotten documentation as a result of a court order on May 15. They 
have been able to get more documentation than Congress has been able to 
get because they are fighting this administration in court, and they 
are getting court orders to force the issues.
  The only way you will get information out of this transparent Obama 
administration is if you bring them out kicking and screaming with the 
documents, under threat of what a judge can order and do; that is 
obvious because, as a Member of Congress asking for the documents that 
were provided in discovery in 2008 to the convicted terrorists in the 
Holy Land Foundation trial, I got on a Web site one time. I asked for 
the boxes of documents that the Justice Department gave to the 
terrorists.
  I understand Attorney General Holder was saying there may be 
classification issues, but I keep coming back to the point they gave 
them to terrorists. Surely, you can give them to Members of Congress, 
but that also points to a problem that is ongoing in this 
administration. They keep helping the wrong people.
  In Egypt, we have been told by the administration: Gee, President 
Morsi was elected in a very questionable election, and there were 
allegations of a great deal of fraud.
  But I was told by Egyptians that it was made clear to the opponent of 
Morsi that, if he raised any issues about fraud in the election, the 
Muslim Brothers would burn the country down, and he chose not to 
contest what was some apparent fraud in the election.
  Morsi allegedly got 13 million votes or so, and despite the fact--
well, at least reported by many news organizations--there were over 30 
million Egyptians out of their 90 million or so in the country that 
went to the streets peaceably.
  It was the largest demonstration, peaceable or otherwise, in the 
history of the world, from the best I can find out. They went to the 
streets. They demanded a nonradical Islamist President. They demanded 
the peaceable ouster of Morsi, who they believed had committed treason 
and who they understood had basically torn up, figuratively, the 
constitution that the U.S. Government was helpful advising in, but 
somehow, our advisers did not persist in making sure they had a 
provision for a peaceful impeachment of the President of Egypt. They 
had no way to get him out.
  These moderate Muslims--and I have talked to a number of them that 
were there demonstrating--these secularists, Christians, Jews, and the 
Coptic Pope himself told me how moved he was to have so many people 
from so many walks being an encouragement: We don't want you persecuted 
in our country of Egypt anymore. It is not right.
  Naturally, what would the Obama administration do? They would demand 
that the man that was figuratively shredding the constitution in Egypt, 
that was persecuting Christians, that was weaponizing the Sinai, which 
was building the radical Islamism organization within Egypt, this 
administration was giving them weapons, wanted to help them any way 
they could, which leads to the question that I have been asked by 
moderate Arab Muslim leaders in the Middle East: Why does this 
administration keep helping the Muslim Brothers? Do you not understand 
they are at war with you?
  Well, it should have been clear, but this administration was helping 
the

[[Page 7122]]

wrong side. It didn't stop with pushing for the ouster of this 
country's ally in Egypt, Mubarak. This administration decided to oust 
Qadhafi, a dictator with blood on his hands from the eighties and 
nineties.

                              {time}  2045

  After 2003, after the Bush administration ordered the taking out of 
Saddam Hussein, Qadhafi got scared, opened up his weapons, says he will 
not pursue nukes; he will do whatever the United States tells him with 
regard to his weapons.
  As some in Israel have told me, he was really helping with 
information against terrorists more than anybody but maybe us; yet this 
administration undertook a bombing effort against Qadhafi.
  Now, we find out confirmation from documents that have been acquired 
by Judicial Watch that this administration was actually helping with 
weapons, at least that is the way it appears; that is what we have been 
hearing all along.
  Some have said even in my trip to Libya with friends Steve King and 
Michelle Bachmann, if it weren't for the Obama administration bombing 
Qadhafi, they could not have gotten him out of office, and he would 
still be helping us find and kill terrorists.
  Now, Libya is in chaos. There are Muslim Brothers doing the best they 
can to put Egypt in chaos. Syria is now in chaos. Iran is taking over 
more and more, including, just last September, this President referred 
to the success story in Yemen. Now, Iran is the power player in Yemen, 
not the United States. The Obama administration in Yemen basically has 
been whipped by Iran.
  This is scary stuff, when you look at what has happened in the Middle 
East since this administration took over. The story from Judicial Watch 
dated May 18, is pretty timely, includes information about the 
documentation that was ordered by the United States District Court and 
has now been obtained, even though the administration blacked out a lot 
of information that apparently would be embarrassing to it.
  The story says: ``Judicial Watch announced today that it obtained 
more than 100 pages of previously classified `Secret' documents from 
the Department of Defense and the Department of State revealing that 
the DOD almost immediately reported that the attack on the U.S. 
Consulate in Benghazi was committed by the al Qaeda and Muslim 
Brotherhood-linked `Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman,' and had 
been planned at least 10 days in advance. Rahman is known as The Blind 
Sheikh''--that is the one that Andrew McCarthy had prosecuted as lead 
prosecutor--``and is serving life in prison for his involvement in the 
1993 World Trade Center bombing and other terrorist acts. The new 
documents also provide the first official confirmation that shows the 
U.S. Government was aware of arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria. The 
documents also include an August 2012 analysis warning of the rise of 
ISIS and the predicted failure of the Obama policy of regime change in 
Syria.
  ``The documents were released in response to a court order in 
accordance with a May 15, 2014, Freedom of Information Act lawsuit 
filed against both the DOD and State Department seeking communications 
between the two agencies and congressional leaders `on matters related 
to the activities of any agency or department of the U.S. Government at 
the Special Mission Compound and/or classified annex in Benghazi.'
  ``A Defense Department document from the Defense Intelligence Agency, 
DIA, dated September 12, 2012, the very day after the Benghazi attack, 
details that the attack on the compound had been carefully planned by 
the `Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman' to `kill as many 
Americans as possible.' The document was sent to then-Secretary of 
State Hillary Clinton, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, and the Obama White House National Security Council. 
The heavily redacted Defense Department `information report' says that 
the attack on the Benghazi facility `was planned and executed by The 
Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman.' The group subscribes to `al 
Qaeda ideologies.'''
  Now, that was part of the message of September 12, 2012.
  Now, it is understandable why President Obama would not have gotten 
this message because, clearly, he had to get a good night's sleep 
because he was going to a campaign event in Las Vegas on September 12. 
He surely didn't have time to review this material in pursuit of his 
campaign. Here he was, just less than 2 months away from election day.
  It is understandable that he would not get the information and would 
not know that this was not about a video; it was about a carefully 
planned attack by subscribers to al Qaeda.
  The Defense Intelligence Agency knew that, and that message was sent 
to Hillary Clinton. It was sent to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and it 
was sent to those who were not out campaigning in Las Vegas at the 
White House.
  The article goes on: ``The attack was planned 10 or more days prior 
on approximately 01 September 2012. The intention was to attack the 
consulate and to kill as many Americans as possible to seek revenge for 
U.S. killing
of Aboyahiye''--also lists him as Alaliby--``in Pakistan and in 
memorial of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center 
buildings.''
  This is quoting from the DIA report. It says: ```A violent radical . 
. . the leader of BCOAR is Abdul Baset,''' also called Azuz. ```Azuz 
was sent by Zawari'''--the leader of al Qaeda, that is--```to set up al 
Qaeda bases in Libya.' The group's headquarters were set up with the 
approval of a `member of the Muslim Brotherhood movement . . . where 
they have large caches of weapons. Some of those caches are disguised 
by feeding troughs for livestock. They have SA-7 and SA-2\3/4\ MANPADS 
. . . they train almost every day focusing on religious lessons and 
scriptures, including three lessons a day of jihadist ideology.'''
  Mr. Speaker, I am very confused by that. I don't understand how these 
Muslim Brothers, these jihadists, could be studying scripture, and this 
is quoting from the Defense Intelligence Agency report, when it says 
they are focused on religious lessons and scriptures, including three 
lessons a day of jihadist ideology because this Defense Intelligence 
Agency reports they are studying religious lessons and scripture, 
claiming to be Islamists.
  That couldn't possibly be because this administration has made clear 
these people are not religious. They are not Islamists. They have 
nothing to do with Islam. These people are just ne'er-do-wells. I don't 
understand why the Defense Intelligence Agency would report that they 
were studying religious lessons when they are not religious at all, 
according to this administration.
  Mr. Speaker, I take you back to that so-called Arab Spring, when this 
administration was helping the Muslim Brothers, and I stood right here 
on this floor and pointed out: Look, we know that there are al Qaeda in 
these rebels. We don't know what percentage; we don't now how many, but 
we know there is some al Qaeda in these rebels that this administration 
is helping. We should wait and not keep militarily supporting people 
that we know include al Qaeda until we find out more.
  But this administration went ahead.
  As this story says: ``The Defense Department reported the group 
maintained written documents in `a small rectangular room, 
approximately 12 meters by 6 meters . . . that contain information on 
all of the al Qaeda activity in Libya'''--wow, al Qaeda ties.
  Anyway, ``The DOD documents also contain the first official 
documentation that the Obama administration knew that weapons were 
being shipped from the Port of Benghazi to rebel troops in Syria.''
  An October 2012 report also is confirming: ``Weapons from the former 
Libya military stockpiles''--which word is we helped get there--``were 
shipped from the Port of Benghazi, Libya, to the Port of Banias and the 
Port of Borj Islam, Syria. The weapons shipped during late August 2012 
were sniper rifles, RPGs, and 125-millimeter and 155-millimeter 
howitzers missiles.''

[[Page 7123]]

  Anyway, it goes on. The DIA report said ``the opposition in Syria was 
driven by al Qaeda and other extremist Muslim groups: `the Salafist, 
the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the 
insurgency in Syria,''' which this administration wants to keep calling 
vetted moderate Syrian rebels, when their own report says they have got 
al Qaeda ties.
  As this says: ``The deterioration of the situation has dire 
consequences on the Iraqi situation,'' and it goes on to set those out.
  I think the big question that should be forcefully put to former 
President George W. Bush and anybody who is running for President the 
next time, they ought to be asked this question: If you had known 
before we went into Iraq, going after the brutal dictator Saddam 
Hussein, who had killed hundreds of thousands of people, including 
Kurds, with chemical weapons and other weapons, and you knew he could 
be ousted, and after a surge, the war could be won; but then that, 
after your victory in Iraq, following the surge, you would be followed 
as President with an administration that was too incompetent to 
negotiate a status of forces agreement with Iraq, and so you end up 
having--that administration is going to have to leave and actually 
commit other acts that will help create absolute chaos in the Middle 
East; and you are going to be followed by this administration that will 
help the Muslim Brothers that your Muslim allies in the Middle East 
say, The Muslims Brothers are at war with you, yet this administration 
that follows you will keep helping America's enemies, and that, because 
of the creation of chaos by this succeeding administration, Iran will 
be pursuing nuclear weapons; and that the succeeding administration 
will be so incompetent and clueless as to what is happening in the 
Middle East, they think it is okay to let them keep enriching uranium, 
pursuing nukes, and it gets so bad that this next administration will 
even cause our allies like Saudi Arabia, to go buy nukes; and then we 
end up with this subsequent administration that helps the Muslim 
Brothers create more chaos than we could have imagined, knowing all of 
that, would you go into Iraq?
  That is a question.

                              {time}  2100

  But it is really a tough question. How in the world would President 
George W. Bush have known that he would be followed by such 
incompetence that would help our enemies and would just create chaos 
across the entire Middle East such that our friends would be in 
conferences with people like me going: We don't understand America 
anymore. You keep helping your enemies. We don't get it. We thought we 
were your friends, but you are helping the people at war with you.
  I mean, how could President George W. Bush be expected to anticipate 
that that is the kind of thing that would follow his administration and 
completely destroy the situation in the Middle East and in Iraq and in 
the Sinai and in Gaza and in Libya, in Lebanon, in Syria, a massive 
migration into Jordan. Jordanian pilots now to the point they would be 
burned alive. Christians raped, persecuted, killed in all kinds of 
horrendous ways. Jews ostracized, killed.
  Who would have ever dreamed that we would have an administration come 
in and take the success after the surge and turn it into the chaos it 
is today?
  So I will be interested, Mr. Speaker, in the days ahead, as people 
seek to lead this country, to find out which leaders would have gone 
ahead into Iraq, knowing the chaos they would create in the subsequent 
administration.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________