Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I want to indicate I think we are down to our last 2 minutes. I would yield to the gentleman from Washington to close.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming the time, on that note of our analysis of what the domestic questions are that need to be answered in Iraq, it is probably appropriate that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) comes to us at this time, because if anybody is in the heartland of where domestic issues are in the forefront, I would say that it is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), his district and his State; and I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield, I will tell you exactly what Mr. Wolfowitz thinks on that subject. In the New York Times Magazine, interviewed by Bill Keller in September of 2002, a year after the 9/11 activity, I will tell you exactly what he said. ``There is an awful lot we don't know, an awful lot we may never know, and we have got to think differently about standards of proof here. In fact, there is no way you can prove that something is going to happen 3 years from now or 6 years from now. But these people have made absolutely clear what their intentions are, and we know a lot about their capabilities. Intentions and capabilities are the way you think about warfare. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the way you think about law enforcement. And I think we are much closer to being in a state of war than being in a judicial proceeding.'' That should give you a very brief summary of the answer that would be forthcoming to the questions you just raised, namely, it does not matter.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I do not have trouble understanding him.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I will answer the gentleman; but according to Mr. Wolfowitz today, terror is now being defined as the insurgency in Iraq. If there was not anything before, we have now created it as a result of the actions that we took based on this false information. So now the situation has been redefined. The war on terror has been redefined to be the activities of what are termed killers and terrorists and all kinds of anecdotal references as to what that means. We have to go no further than what happened today, an assassination in Mosul of the head of a law school and her husband being beheaded, killed with her and beheaded; another American soldier dying; roadside bombings, all the rest of these kinds of activities taking place so that what was going to happen, in my judgment, on July 1 is that the American military will be set adrift in a desert sea with no compass, with no direction, with nothing except to provide backup under this full partnership in these so-called joint operating centers to make decisions about what we are going to do with the military in Iraq. I was unable to determine today from Mr. Wolfowitz exactly what the role of the Guard and Reserve forces and what the deployment schedule are going to be. I asked, is there an end in sight? I got Korea, 50 years. I got Germany as an answer. I got Bosnia as an answer. I said, if that is the case, if you are going to cite Bosnia, which he does over and over again, in Bosnia there has been a steady drawdown of troops. Times and schedules are announced. Troops have been drawn down. If we are talking about Korea or Germany, none of the conditions prevail in South Korea or Germany that prevail in Iraq today. So, the analogies are at best totally inaccurate and have nothing to do with what is taking place today in Iraq. The question remains, if the reasons for going to war have now proven to be at best inadequate, and, at worst, false and misleading, and deliberately so in order to fulfill whatever ideological agenda was then in place in the Bush administration, the fact is now that the mission of the United States military is to somehow provide a backdrop, a foundation or background to this increasingly apparent civil war that is now underway in Iraq.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Because the question arose in several contexts, including questions and observations made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and others on the Republican side of the committee. We try very hard in that committee to work together as Americans to try to come to these conclusions. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) raised the issue of Iran. Other issues were raised with regard to Iran and Syria with the border police. The best that I can discern out of all of this is that somehow this war was to prevent this from taking place, that is to say, the increased terrorist activities to the degree it can be associated with reference to Syria or Iran, but I was unable to get out of his answers anything that would indicate how could we deal with it.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Can the gentleman yield, so I can tell him what Mr. Wolfowitz would respond, or how he responded today to the questions the gentleman is raising, and particularly what Mr. Inslee has cited in detail. I quote from page 8 of his written statement given to the Committee on Armed Services today. ``Although the reconstruction plans first envisioned in the summer of 2002 and submitted by the Coalition Provisional Authority to Congress last July have undergone substantial changes, it has been the coalition's ability to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances that has brought us now to the transfer of sovereignty and the beginning of representative government in Iraq.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The commitment is upwards of $150 billion. That does not include the taxes that are now being imposed, and I use that with quotation marks around it because that is how it is characterized, within the military itself. The existing military budget is being taxed, money extracted from it for operational purposes. The capacity to expend construction funds of $18 billion-plus are committed, but are not necessarily expended just yet. The plain fact is we are talking between $150 billion and $200 billion.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I think the hearing that we had in the Committee on Armed Services today makes clear that they have moved from that position to the point that it does not matter. That is essentially the point that Mr. Wolfowitz was taking today, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, who is one of the individuals that has been cited here and has been involved in the decisionmaking based on this false intelligence.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, it is not interference at all, believe me, because this is complementary to what has been said. I can tell the gentleman on April 20 of this year, he is thinking about an army. Here is what he said to the Committee on Armed Services, Mr. Wolfowitz said, on April 20: ``There is no question it would be nice right now to have a larger army.'' These are the same people that were claiming, and reclaimed again today, that General Shinseki was wrong. He did not mention General Shinseki, but he went out of his way to make sure that everybody understood that we did not need a greater Armed Forces even though he said so; it would be nice to have a larger Army but absent that, after all, we can on the 200,000 security forces that he says are now in place. I have his testimony here before me, a written statement given today before the Committee on Armed Services in which he indicates on Page 3 that we are going to be full partners with the Iraqis. This has to do with the sovereignty issue, that they are going to take the lead, he says elsewhere, that they have 200,000 Iraqis in a security force that is a ``work in progress,'' an interesting way of looking at it, that according to the Prime Minister, as related by Mr. Wolfowitz, they are ready to take charge on July 1. There has been enormous progress. So I asked him today, well, is there an end in sight? And there is no end in sight. It is schizophrenic. I pointed that out to him today. On the one hand, everything is fine, everything is working according to plan, maybe a little bit behind schedule, but nonetheless working its way right along; and on the other hand, we are going to have to be there forever as some kind of partner. I asked partners, I understand the word ``partner'' and the phrase ``full partner.'' What does it mean in terms of who is in charge in relation to these young and men as well as some older members of the Guard and Reserves who are being killed and wounded? Who is in charge? I cannot get from General Pace, I cannot get from Secretary Wolfowitz, who is in charge. Who makes the decisions? They are talking about a partnership on all levels, regional, national, and local; a unity of command; a consensus on the way ahead. And it is supposed to be working out of what are called joint operating centers. How these joint operating centers are supposed to make any decisions regionally or locally or nationally is beyond me. What is clear from the testimony today is all the discussion that has been taking place about the reasons for going to this war have been entirely set aside; and now apparently what the mission of the United States is, is to act as some kind of backup force, according to them: ``U.S. forces are there to help out. They are backup.'' That is the motto, a backup force for whatever is to take place now to achieve some kind of nation-building. That is now what our mission is all about. It has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. It has nothing to do with anything else that was used as a reference point for why we are going to war, an immediate threat to the United States in terms of weapons of mass destruction, some kind of military connection to terrorist organizations that are an immediate threat to the United States.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I think the gentleman from Indiana missed that last comment. You might want to repeat it.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could prevail upon my good friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), who, I might say this evening is in sartorial splendor, as well as a good friend, if we might prevail upon him to maybe come back at another time when we can have a conversation on this, because it is vital to America's interests. I know the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has spent his entire congressional career addressing precisely that.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield? All this points up to the fact that this is ideologically driven. This has nothing to do with those facts. This is ideologically driven by people who are generally termed neoconservative. I am the conservative here. And my colleague should be the conservative here. He is conservative. It is the conservative position not to get trapped in these foreign conflicts, not to go off charging around the world to try and do these things. The ideology behind this is that Iraq was the key to being able to move into Syria, being able to move into Iran, that this is somehow a defense of the Likud version of what is in Israel's interest. The so- called neoconservatives that are behind this ideological thrust have wanted this war for years. It is not hidden. It is not a conspiracy. It is not some kind of subterfuge. It is an announced policy and possession philosophically they have had for years. The sad part is after Mr. Bush became President, was appointed President, they came into the forefront in terms of their appointments in the Defense Department where they were able to bring their philosophy forward. That is what is driving this. That is what the President has to face up to. This is where his difficulty is.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I will be happy to do that.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think what is important here then to get across this evening is that calling people to account is what we do. The oversight function of the Congress has a long history. I can go back to the time in which some people wonder how Harry Truman got to be chosen as Vice President of the United States just prior to Franklin Roosevelt's death, before his last campaign. Of course, he had made his reputation on an oversight committee in the Senate looking into war profiteering, is what he had done, trying to hold people to account. That is what this is all about. If someone wants to take up the position that this is a concentration on President Bush for partisan activity, he is the President. He is making the decisions, and those decisions are subject to scrutiny. As the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) very well knows, back at the time when Mr. Clinton made decisions about Bosnia and Kosovo, I found myself in opposition to him and said so. I think at least as far as this Member is concerned, I do not have to take a back seat to anybody in trying to bring anybody to account in the executive, Democrat or Republican, if I think that is in order. If I know my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), well, and I think I do, he does not stand for anybody telling him who should be brought to account either. He has stood up on more than one occasion, perhaps even singularly, calling for an accounting on various issues. I think that is his function and our function, and that is what this Iraq Watch is all about, I can guarantee you that. If we think somebody is doing the right thing, we are going to say so; if we think somebody is not acting necessarily in the best interests of the United States, regardless of what their motivation might be, it is up to us to say so and engage in a dialogue to try to illuminate where the interests of the American people are. I know that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) agrees with that, and I look forward to any discussion we might have in the future along those lines.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Hau oli la hanau, which means happy birthday. Take my word for it, it means what my colleague thinks it does.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) very much for yielding. All of this would be well and good except that it is not working. I know my colleague did not intend to do this hour, and I will not use his time or his colleagues' time but merely to say, and perhaps we can carry this on at greater length, maybe even tomorrow night if it is okay with the gentleman. I do not want to interfere, but just to say on the points that he raised, if this was the right war and the right place, that would be one thing; but it is not nitpicking to say that we are doing the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time and actually undermining our capacity to be able to take on terrorists, and in fact, creating more terrorists as a result of it, with fewer allies. I do not bring that up to try and dispute my colleague tonight; but merely to say I think there is an alternative point of view that is worthy of discussion, and perhaps we could do that at another time when our colleagues do not have the time for the topic they want to discuss.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, June 1, 2004, I was necessarily and unavoidably unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall 210--House Con. Res. 295, congratulating the Focus: HOPE organization, ``yes.'' Rollcall 211--House Con. Res. 612 recognizing and honoring those fighting the March 26, 2004, fire in Richmond, VA, ``yes.'' Rollcall 212--House Con. Res. 147 honoring the Tuskegee Airmen, ``yes.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I, unfortunately, believe that we probably have a pretty good idea what is going to happen at that point. I believe that the American Armed Forces will be set adrift on a desert sea of anxiety, insecurity, and ineptitude. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has characterized the present situation with respect to our policy as one of rampant incompetence, but I think that it is unfortunately all too safe to say that that will manifest itself on June 30 with an utter incapacity to discern even momentarily what the military mission of the United States Armed Forces will be at that point, other than to try to survive the day, survive the week, survive the month, survive any stop-loss that the Secretary of Defense might impose on the troops there and then get home. Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Perhaps it would be useful for us to note at this point that Mr. Chalabi does not occupy his position as a result of unilateral action on his part. Mr. Chalabi occupies this position because of the overt policies of this administration. The reason he is there, the reason that we are unable at this stage, at this stage, just prior to June 30, to say exactly what his position will be in the future is because he continues to receive the favor of this administration. He is there because Mr. Bush saw that he went there. He is there because he is supported to this day, to this moment by this administration. Everything that has been said concerning him this evening is true. It is factual. It is contextual. We understand the meaning of what he said when he said we were heroes in error. And I happened to see that announcement; and let me tell my colleagues the words do not convey the sense of triumph, the sense of disdain, the condescending attitude or sense of his countenance when he pronounced those words. He was pleased with himself that he had been able to mislead the administration and that he was getting away with it. It is one thing to deliberately mislead someone. They may not know what was going on. They may not know what happened. Maybe they should have known. Maybe they should have been paying more attention in the administration, but to give them the widest benefit of a doubt, perhaps they did not. But once someone announces to your face that you have been misled, and deliberately so, to continue to receive the favor of the person who made the appointment and allows it to continue, tells more about the person who does the appointing and ostensibly holds the power than it does about Mr. Chalabi.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So we can make absolutely sure, this is Mr. Hersh reporting what information was coming to him, that that was the intent of this approach; is that correct?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield on that point.