Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield further, that is precisely the point. In the context which you mentioned of the Vice President, Mr. Cheney, indicating that we should pay the closest attention and give the highest credibility to the idea that links, and those are the phrases of choice of the Vice President, Mr. Cheney, links on the most peripheral basis, links on the periphery must be nonetheless taken very, very seriously. I hope the gentleman agrees that is a fair characterization of what Vice President Cheney has been doing, that the most elliptical connections must be taken with all seriousness. At the same time, he denies his links and connections to the Halliburton Company, to the oil companies that he has served slavishly throughout his career, have anything to do with the decisions that have been made with respect to Iraq, with the decisions, political decisions, made with respect to invading that nation.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would contend to him that it is not incomprehensible if the intention all along was to go into Iraq and to go into Iraq at the expense of the war on terror in Afghanistan. We can see what the results are. I would quote to the gentleman from the Financial Times of Monday, a report which indicated that a United Nations body will warn this week that Afghanistan is in danger of reverting to a ``terrorist breeding ground.'' That is the phrase utilized in the Financial Times story characterizing the United Nations' report, that Afghanistan is in danger of reverting to a terrorist breeding ground with an economy dependent on the illegal drug trade, unless the international community significantly increases development funding for the war-torn country. Now, we have billions and billions and billions, tens of billions of dollars to be expended in Iraq at the present time with its economy in collapse, except, we are told, for its ability to produce oil. The economy in Afghanistan is now reverting to the pre-Taliban days. If the gentleman will recall, we supported the Taliban to the tune of $40 million because it was involved in eradicating the drug trade. The drug trade has come back with a vengeance. It is now supplying funding in the absence of any international effort being made in Afghanistan and, as a result of the switch in emphasis on terrorism from Afghanistan to Iraq, particularly in the wake of what I contended to the gentleman at the beginning of my statement that it was deliberate. It is not incomprehensible if it is a deliberate policy of the administration to find a methodology of presentation to the country sufficient to raise the fear factor to a level that would allow this invasion to take place. That was the purpose and the intent all along, and the result that the administration has to be held to account for is that Afghanistan now is reverting to a status in which it could be called a terrorist breeding ground in a United Nations report.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield a moment before he continues on that point. The gentleman cited a part which implied, or not implied but I believe explicitly stated was true with respect to utilization of poison gas on Iraqis, more particularly Kurdish Iraqis. Does the gentleman know, and if he does not, perhaps he would find it of worthy interest to pursue, whether or not that gassing or the reference to it took place before or after the first Bush administration was in Iraq doing business with Saddam Hussein? And, if I am not mistaken, the person representing George Herbert Walker Bush and his administration is the present Secretary of Defense.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield on that point, my reference to that is not to disparage anything that the Secretary did in pursuance of policies which he was clearly following with respect to his service in the first Bush administration, but rather to illustrate that it is at best a bit tiresome, if not hypocritical, for the present Bush administration to cite that as if the United States was some innocent standby observer, shocked at the fact that this took place, disturbed that it had taken place, doing anything in the way of diplomatic activity to indicate that we disapproved of it in any way, shape, or form. Quite the contrary. What the United States did is stand by and not try to ``complicate'' the issue, and I say that with quotation marks around it, by making, from what I am best able to determine, any kind of significant demurer with respect to what Saddam Hussein had done in that instance.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Hopefully, September.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield, perhaps he could spell the word democracy for me. I believe it is spelled O-I-L. I believe they are synonymous with the gentleman to whom you are referring.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield on that point, I would contend and do contend that the biggest supporter of the invasion in Iraq was Osama bin Laden. It does not take a cracker-jack specialist in strategy to understand that when your enemy, i.e., the United States of America, is addressing all of its attention, its military prowess, and its funding in a direction opposite from where you are, that that is, in fact, very good for you.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield on that point, I will point out in turn that come June 30 you are going to see what it is like to be alone. We are going to be cut loose in less than 100 days in Iraq, not just in Baghdad, but in Iraq; and our Armed Forces there will be adrift. There will be no one to report to. We have no status of forces agreement with anyone that can be enforced. We have no idea with whom we would enforce such an agreement. All our armed services, all our Armed Forces in Iraq after June 30 will be left to fend for themselves and make decisions on the spot as to what they will do and how they will operate and who they are working for and with. There will be no operative government whatsoever, and this is being done entirely for political reasons because of the utter failure of this operation. The gentleman will recall that I indicated back at the time of this invasion that this would not be a war, that this would be a lightning attack on Baghdad, and then the war would start. I trust the gentlemen, both of them, will recall me saying that; and I think it was quite clear to those of us serving on the Committee on Armed Services that was going to be the result, and even then we indicated as a result of the testimony of people like General Shinseki and others, upon whom we have relied to good effect in the past, that unless we were properly prepared with the logistics, even that lightning attack would suffer casualties and set us in circumstance less than what we could be in terms of the military might of this country. That is precisely what happened. That lightning attack was accompanied by consequences in terms of supply and logistics which harmed us and harmed those who served in that attack, and then the war began, and we are suffering from that kind of war right now, as we speak tonight; and on June 30, I can assure you that the level of combat in terms of what the United States is going to suffer is scarcely beyond imagination

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield on that point, all this is true, and I think we have to reiterate it, but that is retrospective. Prospectively, I think we have to look at June 30, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that when we have the opportunity next to come before you, Mr. Speaker, that we will be able to address that question.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I do not dispute that. We did not dispute it in committee. When the issue was raised in committee, what I said is that this issue does need to be resolved so that access is possible, ``Is this the best way to do it?'' Inasmuch as we had to make a decision on the spot, my contention was, and I believe many of us who are forced now, we are forced because the bill is on the floor under a closed rule, I have no choice but to try and oppose it.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that the discussion here has gone off in directions about what constitutes patriotism or what constitutes the proper recognition of the defense of democracy, because that is how all this argument started. Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the Members that this issue deserves a full discussion and not just on the floor. We would not be here and there would not be a motion to recommit, which will be made shortly, I can assure you, if we had a full discussion about this and then had gone, probably where it should have gone, to the Committee on the Judiciary, if it needed to go at all, or a decision could have been made as to whether that was the proper venue. I, too, can have recollections about what happened during Vietnam. I daresay that a lot of people on the floor, Members of this Congress, were not involved in any of that. I know what the first amendment is all about, and I do not think the first amendment says that the Secretary of Defense gets to decide what other people get to say or do in this country under threat of some kind of sanction. To the degree or extent that someone is prevented access that they are entitled to, they have recourse in the courts. That is what we do in a democracy. I do not notice that it is our job, certainly not in the Committee on Armed Services, to turn over to the Secretary of Defense, any Secretary of Defense, the opportunity to be a prosecutor and a judge and a jury and a sheriff all at the same time. Now, the facts are, as to the origin of this argument today, that there apparently have been instances in which people disagreed, apparently in some law schools in particular, disagreed with the ``don't ask/don't tell policy'' of the United States Armed Forces. This has nothing to do with what people said or did not say about the Vietnam War. It has nothing to do with what any particular Member's view of that American involvement in the Vietnam war was, let alone the war on terror or anything else. What it has to do is with the present policy, whether you agree with it or not, with the armed services. Now, if the Armed Services say they want equal access, what was being said apparently by the people at these various schools was that they did not have equal access to being able to join the Armed Services or the Department of Homeland Security, I suppose, or the CIA. Now that needs to be discussed, and it is not going to be discussed in 3 minutes or 5 minutes or 2 minutes here on the floor. It is not even going to come up. Now I could not find the proper way to make a motion to try to get this before the Committee on the Judiciary so we could have a discussion on what the proper sanctions might be, if they were needed at all, with respect to gaining access for the ROTC or anybody else that want to recruit. I am in favor of that. Those of us who oppose this bill are in favor of it. I resent on proper grounds here in the House being categorized as someone who somehow wants to thwart the war on terrorism or does not have the correct view on the Vietnam War because I am trying to defend the first amendment and because I would like to see these discussions held in a manner and in a place and in a venue which is appropriate to the circumstances. We need to talk about such issues as to whether everybody in this country is going to be treated equally with respect to being able to join the military or participate in the Department of Homeland Security or defend our security interests through the CIA and whether they can be hired on the basis of their ability and what they have to offer rather than on what they look like or what their sexual orientation is or anything else. This is not the bill to do it, and it is certainly not the Secretary of Defense who should be doing it. So what I am asking here is that the Members try to exercise some common sense, some common legislative sense, give us an opportunity to take up this serious issue, which does need addressing, and address it in a manner that will resolve it under constitutional methodology that is worthy of this body.

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, on March 25, 2004, because of my leave of absence, I was unable to vote on legislation. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall 84, Previous Question on H. Con. Res. 393, ``no''; Rollcall 85, H.R. 3786, allowing the Treasury to print documents for foreign governments, ``yes''; Rollcall 86, H.R. 2993, Extend the Commemorative Coin Act, ``yes''; Rollcall 87, H.R. 254, North American Development Bank, ``yes''; Rollcall 88, H. Con. Res. 393, Budget Resolution, Congressional Black Caucus Substitute, ``no''; Rollcall 89, H. Con. Res. 393, Stenholm/Blue Dog Substitute, ``yes''; Rollcall 90, H. Con. Res. 393, Spratt/Democratic Substitute, ``yes''; Rollcall 91, H. Con. Res. 393, H. Con. Res. 393, Final Passage, ``no''; Rollcall 92, H.R. 3095, Allowing Local Officials to Order the Lowering of the U.S. Flag to Honor Deaths of Current or Past Local Government Employees, ``yes''.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, point of inquiry to the Chair. So that we can be sure that we do not violate any of the rules, I believe the gentleman was not making specific reference. He was referring to an article by way of reference. He was not referring directly. He was reporting something else.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield on that point, I have no difficulty with that. My point here was in response to the gentleman from Washington's observation that there is at least one grand jury meeting right now.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That is what I say, at least one meeting now. Perhaps there may be more. My point is that there are so many accusations with respect to why, how, when, should we, et cetera, having to do with Iraq that you simply cannot continue to assassinate the personalities or the characters of the various individuals that we have been citing and at some point not say, look, somebody's either telling the truth or not, and let's put it to the test.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, it is quite clear that Mr. Kay is clearly taking the high road in terms of his characterization of what took place and is giving the broadest benefit of a doubt with respect to whether there were misinterpretations or misunderstandings as to what the true facts were and what the implications of those facts were in terms of whether we went into Iraq or not. Others have a different interpretation. I quite agree with the gentleman that this is the most profound issue that we have faced perhaps in our lifetime because we have to go all the way back to the Nixon Administration to find a situation in which there was a deliberate misleading of the American people as to what the facts were with a given situation, in this instance the general question of Watergate, everything that that implied and involved. But at least there what was being done was a cover-up, essentially, of rather sordid and almost banal and mundane political machinations. The rather sad spectacle of the President of the United States engaged in third-rate theatrics, burglaries, false presentations as to where money came from and where it went and so on, sordid and stupid and tawdry. But in this instance, I would posit for my friend and for those who are listening, in this instance we have accusations made that there was a deliberate undertaking geared towards moving this Nation to war, a preemptive war, based on information and perspectives presented to the American public which were untrue, were known to be untrue, and were in fact the ideological leanings of a small group of people determined to take this Nation into war with Iraq regardless of whether it served either the strategic interests of this Nation or whether it satisfied anybody's definition by any measure of the truth.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield, the gentleman makes reference to the question of a grand jury. I believe that if one takes an oath to speak before a committee of the Congress or one that is authorized by the Congress and the executive, that one is subject to perjury. I believe that is the case. I would have to defer to the gentleman from Massachusetts, I suppose, on the question of prosecution of that, but we have a commission now, the so-called 9/11 Commission, which is now meeting, and there have been severe criticisms that amount to open accusations that Mr. Richard Clarke, referred to in various ways by different officials in the administration as someone who apparently, if one is to believe the designations attached to him by members of the administration, is lying. Not distorting, not misinterpreting, not misunderstanding, not having a different point of view, not engaged in an academic exercise of confrontation and different contending visions of what might have taken place, but on the contrary, specifically that Mr. Clarke is lying, that he is not telling the truth. I believe Mr. Clarke is going to testify to the Commission tomorrow. I am not familiar with whether or not the witnesses taking the stand there in front of that Commission are under oath. But given the seriousness of the circumstances, I certainly hope that they are.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman will yield, because I do not want to incur the ire of the Chair, I think what we need to do here, and perhaps the Chair can enlighten us if we are in violation, if we would refer to a Senator unnamed who happened to be running for President at a particular time, people can make their own reference. Is that allowed?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, he was publicly rebuked, the chief of staff of the Army who had come up, I will tell the Members, from the ranks. I happen to know about General Shinseki because he is a true son of Hawaii. The son of humble people whose family was interned in World War II for the crime of being Japanese Americans, who served our country from the ranks on up to becoming chief of staff of the Army, was rebuked by this little man.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. We do not want to violate anything. We would not refer to a particular Senator, but at least one Senator ran for President in the last election. Can we do that? Can we at least refer to the fact that there was a Senator who ran in the last election?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I thank the Chair. I appreciate the Chair taking the time to make that clear.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

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