4B) National Policies on Iraq
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, we are here this evening to talk about Iraq, to talk
about the military activity, to talk about the weapons of mass destruction, to
talk about the postconflict steps that have been taken and need to be taken. I
am joined this evening by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Delahunt), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), and
perhaps others, to talk for the next hour about our national policies in Iraq.
Some of us, myself included, voted in favor of the military authority
requested by the President to invade Iraq. Some of us who will be speaking
tonight voted against that military authority. But all of us have some common
questions. We all salute the brave and courageous efforts by our young men and
women in uniform. They won a very impressive military victory in short order.
That military victory was never in doubt, but it was impressive nonetheless how
well our troops performed.
But there are two questions, really: Is our military mission completed in
Iraq? And secondly, are we winning the peace?
Now, I would suggest, just to get the conversation started this evening,
that first off, our military mission is not complete, because we have not found
the weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons are what motivated me to vote in
favor of this military authority, because I believed then and I believe now that
it was necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction. But if
we cannot find those weapons of mass destruction, there are serious questions.
And we need a full accounting, first, of where those weapons are so that we know
they are secured or dismantled and in safe custody. Secondly, we need a full
accounting of how accurate our intelligence was. Were our intelligence agencies
accurate in the information they gave to the administration? Was that
information properly used by the administration?
And this is not just an academic exercise. The entire Bush doctrine of the
preemptive use of force requires as a foundation accurate intelligence regarding
the intentions of other countries and potential enemies around the world. If we
are going to use force preemptively in the face of imminent threats to this
country or to our allies, we have to know that our intelligence is accurate.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOEFFEL. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would just simply add one other item that I
would hope that tonight we can discuss and that our friend from Illinois (Mr.
Emanuel) has really, in my judgment, done an extraordinary job in terms
of laying out for the American people what it is going to cost the taxpayers of
the United States and the impact in terms of service cuts for Americans that
that will entail.
But if for a moment I could just simply go to the issue that the gentleman
from Pennsylvania raised about the issue of weapons of mass destruction.
It certainly is well-known that the two premises for the rationale for the
military attack on Iraq as articulated by the President was, number one, links
between the Saddam Hussein regime and the possession of weapons of mass
destruction, coupled with an intent to use them by that regime that presented a
clear and present danger to the United States and to our people. Since the end
of the conflict, we no longer hear about links between al Qaeda and the regime
of the tyrant Saddam Hussein. In fact, I would dare say there is a consensus now
that there was no evidence to indicate any collaborative effort or any
cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and, most likely, the
opposite was true.
I am sure the gentleman from Pennsylvania remembers and I know the
gentleman from Illinois took note of the fact that about, I think it was in
April of 2001, there was a report that Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of
September 11, met with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent in the Czech Republic.
[Time: 22:15]
It was later revealed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that that
could not have happened because Mr. Atta at the time of the alleged meeting was
here in the United States plotting against the American people. No longer do we
hear about links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. So that argument proved to
be false and inaccurate.
Mr. HOEFFEL. If I could reclaim my time for a moment just to point out
that the gentleman is pointing out that the Bush administration has a growing
credibility gap regarding its prior claims and the evidence that is forthcoming
after the conflict. And I know the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Delahunt) was the first on
[Page: H6340]
this floor to my knowledge to raise the
questions about the accusations regarding the country of Niger in Africa.
I wonder if the gentleman would share the latest information that has been
made public on that score.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the latest information is that today, today,
the White House announced that when the President made the statement regarding
the sale of highly enriched uranium to the Iraqi regime by a country in Africa,
they made a mistake. Better late than never.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. I think it is very important to note this fact that 2 weeks
after the State of the Union, the Secretary of State was handed that same
information as he was preparing his presentation to the U.N., and he rejected
that data as insufficient and inaccurate.
Now, having worked in the White House, having worked on a few State of the
Unions, which are the most important speech a President will give in their
Presidency outside of an oval address, I cannot think of a moment in time where
you can have a Secretary of State reject the information as inadequate for their
presentation to the United Nations, and yet is adequate and sufficient for the
President of the United States to stand in this well at that desk and address
the Nation, the world, and for this speech on why we need to go to war.
Now, I happened to have supported the resolution, but the entire
credibility of our ability to marshal the resources of the world as we relate to
North Korea and Iran are going to be heretofore questioned. And I always think
it is interesting if I were giving advice, not that I would be giving advice,
nor would they be seeking my advice, that before the President of the United
States was back from Africa, he would have the name, the phone number and the
forwarding address of the individual that gave that information because they
would not be in this White House any longer.
Mr. DELAHUNT. That is a point very well taken because several weeks ago,
the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), our colleague who has
joined us, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) and I were
having this discussion just as the gentleman pointed out, the President of the
United States in the State of the Union Address made that statement to the
American people; and one week later before the United Nations Security Council
when he made his presentation, Secretary Powell discarded that information. But
it has taken until today, today, more than 6 months later, that the White House
acknowledged that that information, and let me quote what they had to say, that
it was incomplete and perhaps inaccurate information from American intelligence
agencies.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my friend, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), if he could give an educated, speculative
assessment of what would have taken place had this same circumstance occurred
today during the Presidency of Mr. Clinton.
Mr. EMANUEL. Well, heads would have rolled. You cannot allow the President
of the United States to have gone up on any speech, let alone a State of the
Union, to address the Nation and in this case, this State of the Union was
unique, on the precipice of war, the world with information that was clearly,
because of Secretary Powell's actions, inadequate, not up to snuff. Heads would
have rolled. There would have been an accounting. There would have been an
internal accounting to that; and I think properly so, Congress would have asked
for it.
I would like to note, I cannot think what is worse, the fact that they
have used, since there is ample evidence to say that Saddam Hussein was a
dictator who used chemical weapons on his own people and started three wars, why
you would go and stretch information, damage your own case. I cannot figure out
what is worse, the fact that they used this phony memo, or the fact that they
have had no plan for the occupation and no strategy for our exit.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would the gentleman allow me to venture perhaps an
educated guess myself on that score? Because they were trying to establish a new
doctrine for the United States of preemptive warfare. Not that citations might
not have been made with regard to other military actions by the United States in
previous times, perhaps up to and even including President Clinton's Presidency,
but that there was to be established with this a new paradigm of preemption
based on an imperial view of the world that the stamp of the United States must
be placed upon the rest of the world.
I would venture to further my question to the gentleman from Illinois, if
President Clinton was in office today and this information was revealed today,
what do you think the response of some of our colleagues might have been?
Mr. EMANUEL. I can feel the foam and the lather building up. We would not
be arguing for 2 weeks whether Congress should call the inquiry an investigation
or not. There would be a full-blown investigation, and it would be proper.
Because the President of the United States at that point, at that Chamber, at
that speech, at this podium would be addressing the world as the President of
the United States speaking for all of us, not just the bodies in here and the
cameras up there.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I do not think we would be speaking in a Chamber as we
are tonight during Special Orders with, again, the press being absent. I will
presume perhaps some of them are watching on C-SPAN. We would not have an
empty Chamber. On the contrary, there would be a full-blown cry throughout the
opposition to Mr. Clinton indicating that he should be brought to account or
those around him who are giving advice should be brought to account. And I agree
with the gentleman, that would be true.
Mr. EMANUEL. I want to add one thing to this whole discussion if that is
okay with the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Yes, it is.
Mr. EMANUEL. Because as we talk about this memo from Niger and how it got
into the speech, how it got into the British dossier for the justification for
the war, what is equally telling and missing in the debate is the discussion of
reconstruction in Iraq. And if you go over and pull over at USAID, an agency
within the State Department, the plans for Iraq's reconstruction, I would like
to cite some statistics.
They call for 20,000 units of housing. Yet the budget for this country
only calls for 5,000 units of housing here in the United States; 13 million
Iraqis, half of the population, will get universal health care. Yet not a single
penny in the budget presented by the administration or passed by a Republican
Congress does anything to support health care for the 42 million working
uninsured in this country; 12,500 schools will be given full resources for
reconstruction and books and supplies. Yet in our country, teachers have to get
a tax credit because they have to take money out of their own budget, personal
budget, their salary to pay for supplies. Four million kids in Iraq will be
given early childhood education. In the President's budget, 58,000 kids cut from
Head Start. We have a deep water port in Iraq being built from top to bottom.
Yet the Corps of Engineers in this country is cut by 10 percent, their budget.
I think if we look at the history, the American people are quite generous
and quite supportive of our efforts and we support the notion of Iraq having a
new beginning. But I do not think they would ever support the notion that we can
deconstruct America while we reconstruct Iraq.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Given the extraordinary examples that the gentleman has just
cited of American generosity to help reconstruct Iraq, does the gentleman think
that we are winning the peace in Iraq?
Mr. EMANUEL. The fact is that there is nothing that has gone on post the
war in Iraq that we could not have seen ahead. Nothing new. There was no plan
for the occupation. In fact, there is no plan for the exit. We have 158,000
troops based there as far as the eye can see out to the horizon and there is no
family member who can count the days of when they are coming home because they
have no knowledge of when they are coming home. So nobody can check the calendar
at home when the husband is coming, the wife is coming, the sister is coming,
the brother is coming.
Remember, this is the heydays. These are the days we are getting the
[Page: H6341]
kisses, the hugs and the flowers. A year from
now they will be tired of our presence there.
Mr. DELAHUNT. If I may, the day of the hugs and the cheers really could be
numbered in hours. Since the official end of the hostility as declared by the
President, almost on a daily basis, tragically, American service men and women
are losing their lives.
Mr. EMANUEL. I checked that statistic. It has been 69 days since the
President on the Lincoln aircraft carrier declared our mission complete and 70
Americans have died; 69 days, 70 Americans since May 1.
Mr. DELAHUNT. And they are all in our prayers. But I would like to make
one other observation if I can. I do not want the American people as they watch
here tonight to think that this is just simply four Democrats railing for
political purposes against the White House and the administration. I know that
many of our colleagues on the other side share our concerns. And I found
extraordinarily interesting an article that was penned by someone whom we all
respect, Senator RICHARD LUGAR of Indiana, who chairs the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee.
And if I might, just for a moment, read his words:
The combat phase of our war in Iraq ended with a speedy, decisive victory
and minimal loss of life. That impressive success is now at risk. Clearly, the
administration's planning for the post-conflict phase in Iraq was inadequate. I
am concerned that the Bush administration and Congress have yet to face up to
the true size of the task that lies ahead or prepared the American people for
it. The administration should state clearly that we are engaged in nation
building. We are constructing the future in Iraq, and it is a complicated and
uncertain business. The days when Americans could win battles and come home
quickly for a parade are over. And when some in the Pentagon talk about quick
exit strategies or say dismissively that they don't do nation building, they are
wrong.
This comes from a Republican, highly regarded and well respected. It is
important that we are doing this here tonight so the American people know that,
so they hear the truth.
Mr. EMANUEL. The fact is among us four we had different opinions and votes
on whether we should or should not go to war, whether there was a case for a
war.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I voted against the resolution. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) voted to support it, as did the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel); and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie) voted against it.
Mr. EMANUEL. But we are united in our view that an administration should
not mislead the America people; that a person who gave the President the wrong
information needs to be held accountable because all of our reputations are on
the line when the President of the United States is talking to the world with
our judgment and justification. Second, that as we plan for this occupation,
that if we had done the hard work of building allies on the front end, we would
have allies on the back end. And that the only faces in the occupation are
American and British and others, but dominantly American, and, therefore,
Americans bearing this burden alone, which it should not, in both financial and
human costs.
[Time: 22:30]
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, if I can follow up on the comments of the
gentleman, I certainly agree with him that we need to internationalize the
postconflict situation in Iraq. We are bringing on ourselves the frustrations of
those people. We do not have anyone sharing the burden other than the British.
We do not have anyone else sharing responsibility or blame for things that are
going wrong.
We need to bring in NATO to help with peacekeeping. We need to bring in
the United Nations to help with reconstruction. And, obviously, the United
States would be the major partner in both of those operations. We still would be
very deeply involved, but we would have international allies and international
institutions to help with resources and to help with credibility and to help
with responsibility for the work that needs to be done.
We need to turn over to the Iraqis as quickly as possible two things: One,
their oil; and, secondly, their government. We need to make sure that the Iraqi
oil industry is transparent, corruption-free, and the proceeds from which are
used to rebuild Iraq. And we have to turn over to the Iraqis their own
government. We are moving way too slowly to do that.
Paul Bremer, the viceroy occupier, I am not sure what his title is, has
postponed repeatedly the formation of an Iraqi interim government. He is now
calling it an advisory committee that he will appoint to advise him. I do not
think that is the way to give the Iraqis the stake in their future government
that they expect and deserve.
Mr. EMANUEL. If I can add one thing to this debate before I need to go. I
remember during the Reagan administration there was an open public discussion
between the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, which continued in
years past, about the fact that we could not get into a military operation
without an exit strategy. And I think it would behoove all of us in this
institution, regardless of party or regardless of position, if we could define
what the exit strategy is. What is the test? What is the standard?
When we have 70 deaths in 69 days, and some people, I think Senator
Lugar noted that we have to level with the American people we are here
maybe 5, 10 years, that does not sound very convincing for an exit strategy and
a standard that says here is when we know we are done. We cannot just say to the
American people that we will know when we are done when we are done. We cannot
have an open-ended checkbook and an open-ended sense of lives that are to be
lost.
Again, I remind my colleagues that these are the days that are supposed to
be flowers and kisses and hugs. A year from now we are supposed to be
experiencing what we are experiencing today. Not today.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Before the gentleman leaves, let me ask him if he has been
able to figure out what strategy the President was pursuing last week when he
suggested, in the face of the guerilla attacks and ambushes and assassinations
of American soldiers, that our opponents should ``bring 'em on?'' Could any of
the gentlemen joining me on the floor today tell me what they think the
President's strategy was with that comment?
Mr. EMANUEL. As a former staff person who worked for a President, I
believe that every staff person in that White House who was sitting on the side
cringed when they heard that, because you cannot but think that there was a
President whose rhetoric got ahead of where the policy is and what they were
saying.
Nobody would ever suggest that our men and women in uniform, who are doing
all of us proud, should be the focus of further attacks, this notion of ``bring
'em on.''
We have lost 70 Americans in 69 days. There are other Americans we have
lost in this whole battle, but 70 Americans who are fathers, who are mothers,
who are brothers, sisters, who are Boy Scout coaches, leaders in their
community, YMCA leaders. And the notion that somebody would sit here in the
comfort of our great country in our capital and say ``Bring 'em on'' to our
soldiers I think misses what they are facing every day. And I think it was a
very, very unfortunate choice of words.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman would yield a moment further in that
regard and in that context, I do think that the response to the gentleman's
question is that the President, and my point to my colleague is, I wonder if he
could corroborate or whether he would agree that the President, at least in my
estimation, has said that this is wide open; that this does not have an end;
that the calculations will be made on essentially an ad hoc basis; and that
there is nothing that he can foresee at this moment that would lead us to the
kind of exit strategy conclusions that the gentleman has raised.
Mr. EMANUEL. Well, my worry is not only do we not know the standard for
our exit, and that before you get into any military engagement, you should know
what your exit strategy is; that because we have 168,000 troops based now in all
of Iraq, with no ability of any ally to come and replace our troops at a serious
level, that our forces are stretched thin when it comes to the war on terrorism
because of their occupation and being tied down in the deserts of Iraq.
Now, I think we are there, and we have to help turn this country around,
but clearly now our troops are being targeted from guerilla warfare and
[Page: H6342]
from terrorists. Our ability to do what we need
to do around the world, both in Afghanistan and other corners of the world, our
resources are being stretched thin and spread thin when it comes to the war on
terrorism.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman mentioned Afghanistan,
and I know he has another appointment, but let us review for a moment where we
are in terms of Afghanistan.
How long have we been in Afghanistan? We are talking years already. And
yet what progress have we made in Afghanistan? The American people should be
aware of the fact that it is a mess. The President of Afghanistan, President
Karzai, whom we supported from the beginning, is unable to travel throughout
Afghanistan. He is just about able to leave the central district of the capital
city of Kabul. We did not conclude our work there before we took on another
military intervention of a much different magnitude, much larger size, when we
went into Iraq.
As has been stated by all three of my colleagues tonight, America's word
is at risk here. If we just go back again to the quality of the intelligence, I
do not want to leave the impression with those who are watching this
conversation that we are having tonight that this is, again, exclusively
restricted to Democrats. These are concerns that are shared across the aisle.
This is simply too important. Decisions were made regarding whether to wage war
based on this intelligence, and, clearly, that is, in our democracy, a question
of the most serious consequence, to wage war.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. May I follow up in that context?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Certainly.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Today, as I am sure my colleagues will acknowledge, and
not everyone who is observing us and listening tonight may be aware, we passed a
defense appropriations bill from this House. If anything should reflect the
concern of the administration with regard to the issues of resolving the
consequences of our attack in Iraq, it should be contained in here.
I have, for my colleagues' information, Mr. Speaker, referring to the
House Action Reports, a Congressional Quarterly publication, a fact sheet
edition published today on defense appropriations. In it, section 3 addresses
military personnel. It includes things like a military pay raise and a civilian
Defense Department pay raise. Active Duty personnel are listed at 1,388,100 in
fiscal year 2004, equal to the President's request of 1,600 less than the
current level. On Reserves, the bill sets a ceiling on Reserve personnel for a
total of 863,300 in the next fiscal year, equal to the administration's request
of 1,258 less than the 2003 level.
Now, think about it. We now have 150,000 plus people committed in Iraq
under the circumstances and conditions that have been discussed here tonight,
personnel deployed throughout the world, not just in Afghanistan, but the
Philippines, Yemen, and dozens of places, now possibly in Liberia, again under
circumstances that are not clear as to where we are going, what we are doing,
and who we are doing it with.
The President says, ``Bring 'em on,'' but here is the congressional
responsibility and obligation as manifested in the appropriations which follow
on our authorizing personnel. And what we are saying is, is that the same
deployments that have been taking place up until now, which have put such an
enormous strain on the Guard and Reserves are going to continue. We are not
adding a single person. We are not facing with any respect whatsoever the
realities of what these deployments and the obligations attendant upon them will
require of us.
That is why we are here in the evening during these Special Orders trying
to reach out to the American public to explain that we are not quiescent on
this. We are not merely observers. We are trying to participate in a respectful
and responsible way as Members of Congress. But we have to rouse the attention
of the American people to let them know that we are failing those men and women
in the armed services if we think for a moment that we are providing adequate
support and foundation for what we expect of them.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I would say to my colleague that that is only half the
story. When those men and women come home, when they are discharged from Active
Duty, and when they assume the title of veteran, what are we doing to them then?
What are we doing to them then? Well, what we are doing to them is, in some
respects, discriminating against them. We are creating new categories of
veterans who no longer will have access to veterans health care. That is
unconscionable.
We send them to war, and when they come home, we reduce their benefits
and, in fact, eliminate some of these heroes and heroines from having access to
health care provided by the Veterans Administration. That is shameful.
Patriotism is more than just simply raising the flag. The flag represents
respect, respect especially for men and women who serve this country in the
military, and we are disrespecting and dishonoring them. That is wrong.
Mr. HOEFFEL. If the gentleman will yield on that point, is he aware that
the Bush tax cuts in 2004 will reduce revenues about $60 billion, and that for
$1 billion we could fully fund our obligations to all of the veterans, including
category 7 and category 8 veterans, so that they all would get the health care
that we promised all veterans?
We are $1 billion short. Now, $1 billion is a lot of money.
Mr. DELAHUNT. But when it comes to Iraq, we are going to be sending
hundreds of billions of dollars, as the gentleman from Illinois indicated, to
build schools, to provide health care, and to provide deepwater ports, but we
cannot take care of our own veterans.
Mr. HOEFFEL. The gentleman is correct. We are appropriating $29 billion
next year for veterans health care. We need $30 billion to meet all of our
obligations, our moral obligations, and we are not measuring up, and it is
wrong.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman would yield in turn, to follow up on my
point in regard to our analysis, or rather not so much an analysis, I daresay,
but our observation that these offhand remarks, these ad hoc remarks by the
President, which take on the weight of policy, such as ``Bring 'em on,'' this
kind of childish assessment of what constitutes the ground operations in Iraq,
are now followed by an observation of the President that Mr. Taylor, the
President in Liberia, has to go.
Now, where he is going and how he is going and under what circumstances is
not said. And the questions from the press, the press which is absent, which do
not appear, at least as far as I can tell; now, whether or not people in the
White House are so covetous of being in the White House that they do not dare
ask the question that anybody with any journalistic bent worthy of the name
would ask, just who is supposed to replace Mr. Taylor when he does go, wherever
you think he should, provided you have got that far?
[Time: 22:45]
Mr. Speaker, the reason I raise this issue and the reason I raise it in
the present context is if you think we had no planning in Iraq, I can tell you
now and tell the American people and tell my colleagues we do not have a clue or
an idea of what we will do in Liberia in terms of who will replace Mr. Taylor
and who will prevail when he leaves.
Now, are we to send in not tens of thousands of, but perhaps hundreds of,
American soldiers into a situation that we do not have the slightest idea, nor
has there been any discussion in the Congress about what we are going to do,
how, when or why we are going to do it, and what the circumstances will be upon
the action taken.
Now, I for one admonish all of us to take into account where we are now in
Iraq and remember that we face exactly the same circumstances in terms of lack
of forward-planning policy with regard to Liberia, and the consequences could be
just as severe. The numbers might be different, but the situation is the same.
We have an administration now that thinks that military action in and of itself
constitutes political policy. Furthermore, support for the troops is then
defined as being support for whatever political agenda they have. Now, that is
what we are facing this evening.
No one can say if only for the fact that we appear here on the floor
tonight that due warning has not been given to the American public by Members
serving in the Congress of the United States that we should have a full debate
with respect to what we are going to do in Liberia, most particularly in the
wake of what is taking
[Page: H6343]
place in Iraq, and that before any action is
taken in Liberia, the will of the Congress has to be determined.
I would hope that we take the most serious and sober view before we commit
American troops in furtherance of a political agenda, and that political agenda
is made manifest for the world to judge on the basis of action by American
troops.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I think
we need to learn our lessons and learn them well and ask the questions that need
to be asked and avoid the taunts and the arrogance that can get us into a lot of
trouble when we fail to think things through.
I would like to point out to my colleagues that editorial opinion is
focusing on the President's comments and on the post-conflict realities in Iraq.
The Philadelphia Inquirer on Sunday in response to the President's comments
about ``bring it on'' in their lead editorial title ``Bring Reality On,'' said
continued hubris in high places heightens risks for U.S. soldiers in Iraq. The
Inquirer asks: ``Mr. President, do you live in a playhouse or the White House?
Childish taunts such as that are not the calibrated words demanded of the United
States President at this turn of history's wheel.'' And the Philadelphia
Inquirer goes on to make several points about the reality that is needed in our
policy.
First, they say get real about the number of U.S. troops needed to
establish and maintain order for months to come; get real about the full scope
of reconstructing Iraq, its costs and duration; get real about cutting taxes.
The incumbent is the only President, the Inquirer says, in the Nation's history
to cut taxes in the middle of a hot war. They say get real about spurning the
value of the United Nations; get real about the democratic aspirations you
unwisely inflated among the long-oppressed, divided Iraqi population; and get
real about admitting mistakes.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, obviously we all make mistakes, but it is
important to acknowledge the making of mistakes. I would submit that if
Secretary Powell had information that was available to him a week after the
President of the United States in his State of the Union message referenced the
sale of uranium by an African country to Saddam Hussein, then it is almost
inconceivable that the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, would not have had a
conversation with the President suggesting or informing him that he did not find
that information reliable in terms of his presentation to the United Nations;
and yet for 6 months the White House, the President, has continued to insist on
the reliability of the intelligence that he selected when he made his
presentation to the American people.
The complaints are not coming just from this side of the aisle, but are
coming from the intelligence community. Even the top U.S. Marine officer in
Iraq, General James Conway, said U.S. intelligence was simply wrong in leading
the military to believe that the invading troops were likely to be attacked with
chemical weapons. I respect the general for making that statement; and it is
time that the administration, the President and those who, upon review,
discovered that the premises and the facts that supported those premises were
inaccurate or incorrect, it is time to acknowledge them and restore the
confidence of the American people and the people of this world in the integrity
of the United States and its leadership.
These are just some quotes from intelligence officials, individuals who
have no particular partisan ax to grind, and these are reports from the New York
Times, and I am quoting, ``As an employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency, I
know how this administration has lied to the public to get support for its
attack on Iraq. Some others see a pattern not so much of lying as of
self-delusion and of subjecting the intelligence agencies to these delusions.''
Another quote, `` `The American people were manipulated,' bluntly declares
one person from the Defendant Intelligence Agency who says that he was privy to
all of the intelligence on Iraq. `These people are coming forward because they
are fiercely proud.' '' He is referring to intelligence analyses at the Defense
Intelligence Agency, and those that are watching should be aware that there are
many intelligence agencies, but this is the consensus of their opinion, that
they are fiercely proud of the deepest ethic in the intelligence world, that
such work should be nonpolitical and are disgusted at efforts to turn them into
propaganda.
This is from an individual who retired in September after 25 years in the
State Department. His name is Greg
Thielmann, and he spent the last 4 years of his public service in the
Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and these are his quotes: ``The al Qaeda
connection and nuclear weapons issues were the only two ways that you could link
Iraq to an imminent security threat to the United States, and the administration
was grossly distorting the intelligence on both things.''
The outrage among the intelligence professionals is so widespread that
they have formed a group, an association, called the Veteran Intelligent
Professionals for Sanity, and they wrote to President Bush this past month to
protest what they called, and again this is their language, ``a policy and
intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions.''
I am quoting from their letter: ``While there have been occasions in the
past when intelligence has been deliberately wopped for political purposes,
never before has such wopping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our
elected representatives into voting to authorize launching a war.''
A comment by Larry Johnson, one of those talking heads that we always see
on those cable programs, he used to be a CIA analyst and worked at the State
Department, referring to the low morale among the intelligence community: ``I
have never heard this level of alarm before. It is a misuse and abuse of
intelligence. The President was misled. He was ill-served by folks who are
supposed to protect him on this. Whether this is witting or unwitting, I do not
know.''
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman is aware that there is a
perfectly rational reason why the White House admitted this week that they made
a mistake with the President's State of the Union speech in which he claimed
Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa. The reason that the White House had
to finally admit their error is they were basing this on British intelligence,
and the British system has resulted in an open inquiry where British
parliamentarians have investigated and continue to investigate the question of
the accuracy of their intelligence prewar, and the uses of that intelligence by
the Blair administration.
They have concluded that while Prime Minister Blair did not himself
mislead the public, that this information regarding the purchase of uranium in
Africa was simply wrong and was based on forged documents.
This White House could no longer maintain the fiction that there was any
basis in anybody's intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy
uranium in Africa, and they simply had to because of a more open system in
England where their Parliament has been more aggressive than this Congress. They
had to face reality.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I am sure that C-SPAN viewers have witnessed those hearings.
Sources and methods were protected. No State secrets were given out. It was a
respectful discourse; and it informed the British people, a people, by the way,
who sent men and women into combat with the United States. But I do not believe
that is the only reason, and I am directing this to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) because while they admitted it today,
ironically Sunday there appeared an article in the New York Times written by the
individual, a former ambassador who, on behalf of the CIA, went to Nigeria to
investigate this assertion that, according to some newspapers, came via the
Italian intelligence service, and what he has to say in his words, one might
draw the inference prompted this response today by the White House. Some might
claim it to be an effort at damage control. But his name is Joseph Wilson, and
the article is entitled ``What I Didn't Find In Africa.''
He starts it by saying, ``Did the Bush administration manipulate
intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of
Iraq? Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up
[Page: H6344]
to the war, I have little choice but to
conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program
was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.''
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to read the whole article, but it is
extraordinarily informative. Maybe we can do it here in the United States as
well as they can do it in the United Kingdom.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure our colleagues as well as
those who may be observing and listening to us that we do not intend to make
this a 1- or 2- or 3-time deal.
[Time: 23:00]
This is not two or three Members of Congress off on some individual
crusade. We are not here simply to recount those things with which we have a
disagreement. What we feel very strongly about is what I believe is the views of
the overwhelming majority of the people of the United States and most certainly
those who have talked to me about that Members of Congress have not stepped up
to the plate with regard to the discussion of these issues in illuminating what
is at stake for this country, and that right now some of these
corporation-controlled media networks and the organs of the executive government
are controlling the message that is out there, and only free men and women,
freely elected with the faith and trust of the electorate, the people have put
us into these positions of trust here in the people's House.
It is up to us with that kind of an obligation placed upon us by the
people to speak out and to speak up, to speak forthrightly, to speak with as
much knowledge as we can bring to bear, to exercise such judgment as we are able
to bring to bear, and to keep the people of this country informed, and to let
them know that we will not be silenced in this, that we are going to be back
night after night after night, and that if we cannot get these issues discussed
during the regular business of the day, then rest assured we will be here in the
Special Orders that are given to us here in the people's House to make certain
that the hammer of truth is going to come down on the anvil of inquiry that is
required of a free people in a democratic society.
We are going to return here again. We invite our colleagues to engage in
this colloquy. We invite our colleagues to come forward and express their views.
We invite our colleagues to come forth and make inquiry of one another so that
we can be better informed ourselves, so that we do not have a circumstance that
comes to fruition again in this Nation such as we experienced in Vietnam.
If anything motivates me to be down here on this floor, I see parallels. I
am not drawing analogies, but I see parallels, distinctly fearful parallels, to
what took place in Vietnam in which we were urged to keep quiet, in which we
were urged not to say anything for fear it would be called dissent, as if there
was already an understanding as to what the correct position should be when it
comes to issue of life and death as we face now in Iraq and other places where
American troops are deployed.
I believe it is an absolute necessity of democracy that we have the
fullest and freest and the deepest and with the widest breadth of discussion
that it is possible to have, and that is what we are going to be doing on this
floor.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, we would be derogating our duty. And I applaud
the eloquence and the obviously genuine commitment that the gentleman from
Hawaii just respected. We would not be honoring our obligation, and additionally
we would be failing those members in the military that have fought as well as
they have, and we would be failing those individuals in the Intelligence
Community that have expressed their views.
It brings to mind a story that again appeared in the newspapers shortly
before we broke, I think it was the day that we broke, where someone stood up
and testified before a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. There
was a number of intelligence officials within this closed hearing. Of course, it
appears in the press, so I can speak about it. And this individual's name is
Christian Westerman, and he happens to be a top State Department expert on
chemical and biological weapons, and he told the committees that he had been
pressed to tailor his analysis on Iraq and other matters specifically pertaining
to Cuba to conform with the Bush administration's views. That is unacceptable.
He is viewed within the Department, according to reports, as a careful and
respected analyst of intelligence. He served in the Navy, and he was obviously
not comfortable making that statement, but that kind of courage is important if
we are going to ascertain the truth.
And whatever the truth is, the American people deserve the truth, and it
is our responsibility to make every effort that we can to seek it. And I want to
associate myself with the words of the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie).
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I
actually wrote those words down. ``The hammer of truth will be brought down on
the anvil of inquiry,'' and that is our job. It is our challenge here. It is not
unpatriotic to ask questions. It is not unpatriotic to seek accountability. It
is not unpatriotic to dissent. In fact, it is the highest form of patriotism to
seek the truth, to ask questions, to try to get to the bottom of this in the
name of the American people.
I know our time is short. Mr. Speaker, does either gentleman have any
concluding remarks?
The gentleman from Hawaii I thank for being here.
The gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if at some point in the future, and we
should discuss this with other Members of the House, but I for one would like to
extend an invitation to some of our colleagues who serve in the Parliament, in
the House of Commons, to come to the United States, or maybe some of us to go
there to further this discussion, because I was so impressed with British
democracy after viewing on C-SPAN those hearings that we have alluded to
tonight. And there is real deep concern among the British, and it is clear that
it is having an impact in Britain to a far more significant degree,
unfortunately, than it appears to be having in this country. Maybe at some point
in time, because I really believe it is necessary to have an independent
commission depoliticize this issue, take it out of the realm of partisan
politics.
Yes, there are congressional committees going on, but we know that there
was an independent commission that was chaired by former Senator Rudman and
former Senator Gary Hart that, unfortunately, they examined national security
and just about predicted the events of September 11. It is so important to
restore the confidence of the people in our national security, in our system. I
think that happens to be the answer, but I would really welcome the input from
the members of Parliament, from the House of Commons that sat in on those
hearings to come and give us their observations.
I was particularly impressed with former Minister Robin Cook and a female
former member by the name of Claire Short. I would think that if we invited
them, they would come here, and hopefully the American media, as the gentleman
from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) have put up with, finally start to take a
good look, because this is an issue that is not going to go away because it is
about time that we reflected and began to see ourselves as others are viewing us
if we are going to continue to claim a certain moral authority in this world.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I
would only add it would also be nice if we could be joined by our friends across
the aisle in some of these discussions during these special orders. I thank my
colleagues for being part of this discussion.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the
Special Orders matter related to Post-Conflict Iraq and the U.S.-U.N.
involvement therein. I ask that our colleagues remember that two wars and over a
decade of sanctions have crippled Iraq's infrastructure. With respect to the
events that led to the need for Iraq rebuilding, I renew my concerns that there
has been an apparent break down in U.S. intelligence as to the search for
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) that suggests that the current administration
may have misled the public in order to garner support of the war in Iraq.
Secondly, because the international community looks, in large part, to the
United States as the nation with the best ability to aid in the job of
rebuilding Iraq, it is important that our leadership respect its humanitarian
needs, especially of the
[Page: H6345]
right to self-determination and ensure that
these needs take precedence over capitalistic prospect. Moreover, as will be
evidenced by my introduction of a bill to authorize the formation of a women's
peace commission, I strongly advocate the involvement of women in the peace and
rebuilding process in leadership capacities. In fact, not only should the
women's peace commission be composed of Members of Congress, American small,
minority, and women-owned businesses should also be active in the rebuilding
process.
As to the potential misleading of the public as to the U.S. motive for
waging war on Iraq, I will offer a resolution calling for the establishment of
an independent commission to study the performance of U.S. intelligence agencies
in gathering and disseminating intelligence on WMD in Iraq, the current
administration's knowledge of WMD in Iraq, and the accuracy of the information
given to the public. During a Presidential address on March 17, 2003, President
Bush stated, ``Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no
doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most
lethal weapons ever devised.'' Thereupon, the administration initiated Operation
Iraqi Freedom on March 19, 2003. Although the public justification for this war
was Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of WMD, we have seen nothing to date in
the form of
WMD in Iraq. This failure to locate any WMD in Iraq or any evidence that
WMD have been destroyed or relocated strongly suggests the U.S. intelligence's
inaccuracy or the inaccurate communication of this information to the public. At
this point, thorough assessment of the performance of U.S. intelligence agencies
with respect to the gathering of information as to WMD will be required to
restore public confidence in the American Government before we are in a position
to efficiently offer genuine aid in the rebuilding process of Iraq.
The United Nations (U.N.) has been in the nation-building/rebuilding
business on a worldwide scale for over a decade: East Timor, Cambodia, Kosovo,
Bosnia, Haiti, and to some extent El Salvador, Guatemala, and parts of Africa.
Although the U.N. has experts and experience, it does not have sufficient
resources in which to undertake the task of rebuilding Iraq. While, as I
mentioned above, the international community looks to us for the lion's share of
support resources, we must yield to the U.N. as a legitimizer of a new order in
Iraq. Legitimacy through international alliances and high overt purpose is vital
to an effective rebuilding process. The U.N. power is that bestowed upon it by
its member-nations; however, it has great capacity to bestow legitimacy to this
effort. In obtaining legitimacy through the U.N., we must not abuse the interest
in self-determination of the Iraqi people. All ameliorative efforts should aim
toward the goal of facilitating Iraqis in running their own trials without the
involvement of U.N. international expertise. Furthermore, the United Nations
will aid the effort to build internationally acceptable electoral machinery and
run elections for the rebuilding nation. Experienced U.N. advisers could remain
in government ministries, for years if necessary, without creating looking like
an occupation.
As to the method of rebuilding Iraq, I have suggested the creation of a
bipartisan, bicameral working group on Iraqi reconstruction. I proposed the
convening of an immediate working group to craft a comprehensive strategy for
the reconstruction of Iraq. I am deeply troubled by the reports we are receiving
from Iraq. The picture that was painted for us before the war--what we would
find and how the Iraqi people would respond to being ``liberated''--seems to be
wholly inaccurate. It seems that our forces, as well as the American people,
were unprepared for the challenges we are now facing. It is essential that we
develop a truer vision for the future of Iraq, and a realistic plan for making
that vision come to be. Doing so will demand all the expertise and experience
that Congress has to offer.
To tap into those skills, we should form a working group, composed of a
diverse array of qualified and committed Members of Congress. Conceptually, we
must immediately dispense with partisanship and turf-wars and come together to
form a plan that is right for our troops, right for the people of Iraq, and
worthy of support and financing by the American people. We do not have the
luxury of time to start this discussion in both the House and Senate, a dozen
committees, and then assimilate ideas later. So, I propose that we convene a
joint House-Senate bipartisan working group on Iraq.
Since tensions began to escalate in Iraq last year, I have consistently
fought for resolving the crisis with four goals in mind: minimizing the loss of
American lives; minimizing the impact on the Iraqi people; minimizing the costs
to the American taxpayers; and ensuring that our work in Iraq leads to long-term
peace and stability in Iraq and the Middle East. I believe that those of us
against the war, as well as those who supported it, can all agree on those four
principles. We owe it to our troops and to the people of Iraq to acknowledge the
problems that exist, and to make the investments of time and money necessary to
get the job done--so we can bring our troops home.
4C) Time to Face Facts on Iraq
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, last fall I stood out in front of the
Cannon Building and said I believed that we might indeed be misled by our
leaders in the stampede to go to war against Iraq. When I was in Iraq a few
weeks later, I was interviewed by ``ABC This Week'' and asked if I stood by that
statement. I said I did. I got death threats for saying that.
Well, folks, it is time to face the facts. The American people were misled
and Members of Congress were misled. But who misled us? Apparently we were
misled by the White House speechwriters. I do not know.
I do not question that the motive was to do what they sincerely believed
would be the best thing for our country. I do not question that they believed
and still believe going to war against Iraq was the right thing to do.
But for those who would not have supported this war save for the official
dossiers and intelligence and information they relied on, my friends, you were
misled.
Those who believed that whatever the President said would have been
carefully confirmed and who never doubted that what the President said in the
State of the Union Address would have been gone over with a fine-tooth comb, my
friends, you were misled.
So far, 212 young Americans have died in Iraq. Someone will die tonight
and tomorrow and the day after. And now what? Now the administration does not
even claim that weapons of mass destruction will be found. Instead, we
are told that evidence of a program that would have eventually created weapons will be found.
This afternoon, today, according to Reuters, Mr. Rumsfeld, the Secretary
of War, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that there was nothing new
going on in Iraq. He said there was ``no dramatic new evidence,'' just old
evidence seen in a new light.
Is that the impression you had? I ask, because that is not what I heard. I
heard urgency. I heard new revelation after new revelation. I heard that we were
in imminent danger.
The fact that nothing that we expected, nothing like storehouses of
terrifying weapons has been found,
certainly backs up Mr. Rumsfeld's contention.
What we found are mass
graves in Iraq, body upon body, people killed for no reason by the government of
Saddam Hussein. So this is where the administration is turning to justify its
actions in Iraq.
The United States has never, never invaded a foreign country simply to get
rid of an evil dictator. That is not what our young people signed up to give
their lives for. That is not what our taxpayers have given their money for. That
is not what America does. At least until now.
Well, our troops in Iraq, these fine young people went into the service to
protect America, not to bring democracy to someone else's country, not to stop
human rights abuses or get rid of dictators, because if that was the basis of
our military policy, there are a lot of governments out there that we would be
ready to overthrow.
[Time: 19:30]
Not to get rid of a bad guy because we are tired of messing around with
containment. They enlisted to protect our country. What did our country need
protection from? From biological and chemical weapons that could be launched within 45
minutes? Apparently not. From a nuclear arms program that was not just an
aspiration of a madman, but was so far along that it was importing uranium from
Niger? Apparently not. The President denied
[Page: H6434] GPO's PDF
that
today. From gallons of nerve gas and rooms full of test tubes and trailers full
of equipment so sophisticated that biological and chemical weapons could be pumped out on Saddam's
command? Apparently not that, either.
We had a policy with regard to Iraq. It was a frustrating policy, but it
was working. It is the same policy President Reagan used on the Soviet Union:
containment. We had an embargo in place that the rest of the world supported. We
had U.N. inspectors in place that the rest of the world supported. They did not
have as long to look for weapons
as our people have now had, but they were looking, and while they were in Iraq,
Saddam was not going to be able to fulfill any of his evil dreams.
Containment worked from the end of the Gulf War until the day we invaded.
If you believe that the United States should go to war to get rid of dictators
who would most likely want to have weapons of mass destruction if they were not watched
closely, I will give you a list. If you believe the United States should go to
war to get rid of dictators who have people tortured, I will give you another
list. If you believe that the United States should go to war bringing democracy
to someone else's country is a mission worth the lives of our young soldiers, I
will give you a list.
But if you share the belief of John Quincy Adams, the sixth President of
the United States, that our country is blessed, in part, because ``she does not
go abroad in search of monsters to destroy,'' I say to my colleagues, we were
all misled, and it is time for us to have a bipartisan committee, select
committee, to look at this issue and find out who was it that misled us?
I read in the paper today that Mr. Blair gave us some bad information, and
our President took it, swallowed it hook, line and sinker, and now says, I did
not know; it was Blair that gave me this bad information. Mr. Blair answered
questions for 2 1/2 hours before the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We ought
to have that kind of thing going on here.
4D) Inaccurate Intelligence Information
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, there has been a great deal of debate in Washington, DC, about the circumstances leading up to the invasion of Iraq earlier this year. No one has come to the defense of Saddam Hussein, nor should they. He was a tyrant who oppressed his people. The fact that he is out of power is in the best interest of not only the people in Iraq but in the Middle East and the world.
But leading up to our invasion of Iraq were a series of statements and events from the administration justifying our role and our leadership. They were hotly debated on the floor of the Senate last October, leading to a vote on the use of force resolution--a vote which 23 of us opposed, believing that if we were going to be engaged in Iraq, it should be on an international basis, using the United Nations and other countries to join us in a coalition that would not only lead to a successful military
invasion but also to a successful peace afterward, stability in Iraq for years to come.
The prevailing view, the majority view in the House and the Senate, was otherwise, giving the President the authority to go forward with this military invasion of Iraq. And so, for the months that followed between October and the ultimate invasion, the administration came forward with additional evidence, additional statements, and additional rationalization for our role and our leadership.
One of the key moments in the development of this case against Iraq and support by the American people was President Bush's State of the Union Address. It is a historic gathering each year, where a joint session of Congress comes
together in the House Chamber, joined by the President's Cabinet, the Supreme Court, the diplomatic corps, and scores of people in the balconies, as the President comes and speaks from his heart to the American people. It is probably the most closely watched and covered Presidential speech of any year, and should be, because the President really tries to outline where America is and where it is going.
So we listened carefully to each word. And many times during the course of that speech, President Bush made his case for the United States invasion of Iraq. One of the statements he made during the course of that speech has taken on quite a bit of controversy. It was a statement that the President made, attributing to British intelligence sources, which suggested that from the African country of Niger there was a sale or shipment of uranium which could be used for nuclear weapons in Iraq. President
Bush said those words in his State of the Union Address. And, of course, this was growing evidence of our concern about the increased militarization of Saddam Hussein and his threat not only to his people and the region but to other nations as well.
This was one of many elements in the President's case against Iraq, but it was an important one because there was the belief that if Saddam Hussein had moved beyond chemical and biological weapons and now could threaten the world with nuclear weapons, he had to be viewed in a different context, as a much more dangerous leader than ever before. So people listened carefully to President Bush's statement.
But then, after that State of the Union Address--within a matter of days--questions were being raised as to the truthfulness of the President's statement, whether or not it was accurate to say that uranium or any type of nuclear fissile material had been sent from an African nation to Iraq. The debate ensued for many months, even as the invasion started.
Last night, CBS issued a special report based on statements coming out of the Central Intelligence Agency. Those statements are very troubling. Those statements indicate that America's intelligence agencies came to the White House before the State of the Union Address and told the National Security Council there was no credible evidence linking Niger or any African nation with providing nuclear fissile materials to Iraq, and despite that statement from the CIA to the National Security Council,
and to the White House, decisions were made in the White House for the President to go forward with his speech saying exactly the opposite, carefully wording it so that it attributed that information to British intelligence sources, carefully making certain that the President did not allude to the fact that American intelligence sources thought that was not a credible statement.
So where do we stand today? The President said earlier this week that he apologizes, that that was an unsubstantiated remark and it was not accurate. And now, with this release of information from our intelligence agencies, reporters, who are traveling with the President and his group in Africa, are asking the leaders of the White House who made this decision, who decided to go forward with the statement in the President's State of the Union Address which was not accurate, which was misleading.
Condoleezza Rice, the President's National Security Adviser, insists that George Tenet of the CIA approved this information that was included in the President's speech.
George Tenet, in a press report, said he did not, he was not involved in making that statement to the White House. Two of the highest officials in the Bush administration are at odds as to who was responsible for that information. That question has to be asked and answered, and it has to be done so immediately.
I can think of nothing worse than someone at the highest level of leadership in the White House deliberately misleading the President or deliberately misleading the American people about something as essential as whether or not nuclear materials were being sent into Iraq before our invasion.
What was at stake, of course, was not just another foreign policy debate. What was at stake was an invasion of military force, largely led by the United States, putting American lives on the line.
The case was being made in that State of the Union Address for the American people to rally behind the President, rally behind the troops, and invade Iraq. And now we know that one of the elements--one of the central elements--in that argument was, at best, misleading--that in fact we knew better. We knew, based on our own investigation, based on a visit by former Ambassador Joe Wilson, based on the evidence of forged documents, that uranium and other fissile materials were not in fact transported
from Niger to Iraq. Despite that, in the State of the Union Address, exactly the opposite was said.
Yesterday, on the State Department authorization, I offered an amendment, a bipartisan amendment, joined in by several of my Democratic colleagues and many of my Republican colleagues, calling on the inspectors general in the Department of State and the CIA to get to the bottom of this, and do it immediately. I believe the American people deserve an answer. We need to know what White House official decided to distort the intelligence information and give the President a statement which was in
fact misleading.
I want to make it clear that there is no evidence whatsoever that the President knew this information was inaccurate. I do not make that accusation, nor will I. But someone knew. Someone in the White House knew the National Security Council had been briefed and told that this information was not accurate, and yet it was still included in the State of the Union Address. It really calls into question the leadership of the White House and our intelligence agencies. And I can tell you, now, more
than ever, we need to have the best intelligence sources in the world.
You cannot successfully wage a war on terrorism without the very best military intelligence, without the best information about those threatening the United States. It has to be credible evidence. The people in the intelligence agency have to have a sound working relationship with the White House and the Congress. What we saw in the State of the Union Address was a breakdown of that relationship. That does not make America safer. It makes us more vulnerable.
Secondly, this is a Nation now pledged to a policy of preemption. We are prepared, according to this President, to invade a nation that may threaten us, even if they do not apparently pose any imminent danger to us at the time. How do you reach the conclusion that a nation threatens us? Clearly from intelligence information. Clearly, the intelligence coming out of the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and others has to be delivered to the National Security Council
and to the President in a credible fashion. Yet we have clear evidence that the chain of communication which we count on for the security of our Nation broke down when it came to the President's State of the Union Address.
The credibility of our President is on the line. I believe he should move forward as quickly as possible to call for a full investigation. We should be able to point to those people responsible for putting this misleading language in the State of the Union Address. They should be held accountable, and they should be dismissed. That is inexcusable conduct by someone at that level of government to mislead the President or allow him to mislead the American people.
It is interesting to me that this issue is gaining ground and velocity as the President travels overseas. I certainly wish that were not the case. It would be better for him to be home because he has an important mission in Africa and a message that now will not be as clear because of this surrounding controversy. It is incumbent on us in Congress in our oversight role, and it is incumbent on the press corps in America to stand up to their responsibility to ask the hard questions and, in asking
those questions, find out who should be held accountable for this misleading statement in the President's State of the Union Address. We owe it to the American people to give them the answers, to tell them that in the war on terrorism our intelligence sources are credible, that they have a good linkage and dialog with the White House and that the linkage will make America a safer place.
Someone made a decision to twist and distort this information for reasons which have yet to be disclosed. As we led to the buildup to the invasion of Iraq, that was one of the things the American people believed because they heard it from their President. The President in the State of the Union Address speaks from the heart to the American people. He should be believed. In that situation, he needs to have the very best advisers and staff near him giving him accurate information. We now know that
the President has been embarrassed by information which he said and has now had to say to the American people was not true. That has to change. People have to be held accountable. That should be done immediately.
If Congress cannot force this investigation, the President, as our leader, as the person responsible for the executive branch, should initiate this investigation on his own, find those responsible, hold them accountable, and dismiss them from the Federal Government.
I yield the floor.
Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.
