Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, our occupation in Iraq is being characterized by ineffectiveness, by incompetence. If one just reads the daily newspaper and sees comments and admissions by the Secretary of Defense Mr. Rumsfeld and the Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Myers, the number of cities in Iraq that are no longer under the control of the Interim Iraqi Government and American occupation forces grows on a daily basis. Fallujah, Ramadi, Baquba, Samarra, Najaf, Karbala, and perhaps soon a significant section of Baghdad are no longer under the control of the Interim Iraqi Government. The Baath Party is experiencing a resurgence, President Bush, except Saddam Hussein is no longer the head of it.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. I appreciate this conversation tonight. I think what is interesting is that while we speak about Osama bin Laden, we have to be very clear that because of the delay that has occurred and the diversion of effort and resources into securing Afghanistan and nurturing democratic institutions, not only has Osama bin Laden, who is obviously a symbol to those who share his world view but has encouraged new groups, al Qaeda has morphed into a number of groups, some of which have names, some of which do not have names, and that terrorism is spreading throughout the world as we speak today. If the President is suggesting that the invasion of Iraq somehow served as a deterrence to these terrorists, he is absolutely wrong. It is interesting to read that in terms of the efficacy of Iraq, of the invasion of Iraq, an NBC news analysis that was reported September 2 of this year showed that of the roughly 2,900 terrorist-related deaths since the 9/11 attacks on our homeland, 58 percent of them, in excess of 1,700, have occurred this year. This year. So terrorism is burgeoning. We identified the wrong enemy, and now we are playing catch-up, and the world is more dangerous. And I would like to just to conclude with a quote from someone whom we all respect who has served this country well, a good Member of Congress, the Vice Chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of this branch, a conservative Republican from Nebraska who retired recently to assume a new position of some stature in terms of foreign affairs, by the name of Doug Bereuter. He wrote a letter to his constituents because he recognized what we have been talking about, and this is what he said: ``It was a mistake to launch'' the invasion of Iraq. ``Our country's reputation around the world has never been lower.'' In other words, our credibility is suffering. ``And our alliances are weakened. Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world.'' That is from Doug Bereuter, a good Member, someone who made substantial contributions to the debate and discourse in this House, who is a Republican with excellent conservative credentials. This is nonpartisan. It should not be a partisan issue. This is about identifying the right enemy and taking the necessary action to defeat those who would harm the United States.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, it reminds me of the issue of weapons of mass destruction when the Polish Prime Minister at the request of the President of the United States made a commitment of Polish troops, obviously at some political risk to himself, and when it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction said publicly, ``We were misled.'' What does that do to the credibility of the United States when the Prime Minister of Poland, an ally, someone who has made a contribution of men and women of his nation in terms of the effort in Iraq, the military invasion, makes that statement? Again, we have the example of David Kay, appointed by this President, who took the charge of this White House, who went to Iraq, who led the efforts to determine whether there were weapons of mass destruction, who concluded that there were none, and then later and subsequently when this White House, this President and this Vice President refused to accept unequivocally the conclusion reached by their own appointee that there were no weapons of mass destruction, then finally David Kay, a hawk on the war, by the way, spoke to the Guardian, an English newspaper and said, ``The administration's reluctance to make that admission was delaying essential reforms of U.S. intelligence agencies and further undermining its credibility at home and abroad.'' Admit the mistake, Mr. Bush, come clean with the American people, accept responsibility rather than shift it because of an election-year gambit. That is what that is about.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Of course.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I just want to follow up on the point the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) has made, and I welcome my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), as well. I found it particularly offensive that the President of the United States stood up once more and misled the American people and did not accept responsibility. As the gentleman indicated, the body armor issue was well-known or should have been well-known to this administration prior to the invasion of Iraq. It was clear. It was something that we all again repeatedly encouraged, and with the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) presumed the matter was being attended to, and it was represented to us that it was being attended to. It had nothing to do with the $87 billion supplemental budget.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I just want to read into the Record a quote by a former distinguished Member of this body that commanded respect on both sides of the aisle. I refer to a good Republican from Nebraska, Doug Bereuter, who was the vice chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and, as you well know, one of the most respected Members of this House. In a farewell letter to his constituents, this is what he had to say: ``It was a mistake to launch the invasion of Iraq.'' And to underscore the point that the gentleman from New York was making, ``Our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened. Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and in general in the Muslim world.'' I daresay what he is saying is our credibility is at its lowest point probably in modern American history. That does present a threat to our national security as we go forward.

Mr. DELAHUNT. The gentleman's point is corroborated by an American military officer. Let me read what a U.S. officer in Sadr City, which is that restive part, a slum area, if you will, in Baghdad, what he said. He spoke on condition of anonymity, but this was reported in Jane's Weekly, a highly respected defense journal published in Britain. I am quoting him now: ``We're supposed to turn our zones over to the Iraqi National Guard by October. They are not ready for that. So unless it is coincidence, it seems politically driven bearing in mind the Presidential election in November. I know how it must have felt in Vietnam. Everything we do is driven by political considerations. We don't have enough forces to stay here. We move into Sadr City and then we leave and each time the Mahdi Army, that is the army of the Mullah Saddah, comes straight back in.'' That is the reality of Iraq at this moment in time, and it is only worsening and it is underscored by what happened this week. Tragically, tragically, the 1,000th U.S. hero was killed in Iraq.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yet meanwhile, and these are very valid points that you are making, the United States is bogged down in Iraq. Reports from media outlets just this week, the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers, now admit that we have lost control of parts of Iraq. The number of cities not under U.S. or central government control is growing. Pause and think of that for a moment. First Fallujah, then Ramadi, Baqubah and Samarra, now Najaf and Karbala, perhaps soon part of Baghdad City itself, Sadr City. This is reported by the New York Times. The reality is that security is so bad that a U.S. general says it may be necessary to delay or skip over voting in violent areas in order to hold elections in January. But clearly what would that do to the legitimacy of the interim government? What would that do to the future of democracy in Iraq?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into politics, but I think the gentleman makes an excellent point with clarity by identifying the issue, and the issue is it is important that we all understand what enemy are we describing and talking about when we talk about a threat to the United States. The administration continues to suggest that somehow by invading Iraq, we will have deterred terrorism, but the reality is it is just the opposite. Attacks are on the rise throughout the world. An NBC News analysis that was viewed on September 2, just last week, showed that of the roughly 2,930 terrorism-related deaths since 9/11, 58 percent of them have occurred this year. That is in excess of 1,700. We just picked the paper up this past weekend and witnessed a horrific incident.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Four hundred million dollars annually over a 30-year period, my math was never too good, but it clearly pales in comparison to the $200 billion that we have already expended in Iraq.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, how much on a yearly basis is expended by this White House?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I wonder out loud whether that $200 billion that we have already expended of taxpayers' dollars in Iraq, if that had been diverted to deal with the real enemy, and I think the gentleman makes an excellent point, it is absolutely essential that we agree to identify the enemy that poses a threat to the United States. I am not referring again to nation states.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, given what happened on September 11, 2001, it just makes common sense to accelerate the Nunn-Lugar efforts to reduce that 30 years to a significantly shorter period of time, make it months rather than 30 years, to protect not just the homeland, but to protect the world from a nuclear disaster.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman will yield just for a moment. Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman's point. I guess what I am underscoring, though, is the repeated claim of a certain morality, a certain moralism, the distinction between good and evil. Yet the truth is we are allying ourselves, for convenience purposes, to individuals that are as evil as Saddam Hussein, who by the way we allied ourselves with back in the 1980s.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think we all agree, and there is not a single individual in this House that would disagree with the statement that Saddam Hussein represented the kind of a despot and the kind of thug and the kind of dictator that we all find reprehensible. But what I find ironic is that in our effort to undermine and to defeat Saddam Hussein, we have now allied ourselves with similar thugs, with similar despots, with similar reprehensible heads of state. I find it fascinating that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld visits Uzbekistan and praises the President of Uzbekistan, Ivan Karimov, who to call a thug is a disservice to the term thug. He is absolutely a replica of Saddam Hussein. There are some 6,000 political prisoners today in Uzbekistan. And what do we hear from the White House, what do we hear from the Department of State? Nothing. Nothing. Yet when we read the Department of State's report on human rights abuses in Uzbekistan, it is damning. It is damning. What do we hear about the thug, the despot by the name of Turkman Bashi, who resides in Turkmenistan, who is also our new friend and ally, who by the way not only is a thug but is clearly a psychopath? Maybe the gentleman is unaware of this, but he changed the month of January, the name January, and named it after himself. But he has displayed a certain filial affection for his mother, because he then went forward and changed the name of the month of April and named it after his mother. And these are our new friends.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman would yield on that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, Mr. Speaker, again, I guess my frustration, if the gentleman will continue to yield, is that in the aftermath of our national tragedy, if this proposal, and I presume it was put forward sometime from September of 2001, several months thereafter, if it had been acted on in good faith, with full cooperation from the White House, with the support of both parties in this House and in the Senate, we very well might have had the exact same report that we now have, that was presented to the American people just recently, months if not years ago so that we could have been in a position in the distant past to have acted in a responsible, thoughtful way to adopt those limitations that passed through the legislative process. Where would we have been?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Right, Mr. Speaker, better than 2\1/2\ years at this point in time this concept was introduced. We know from newspaper reports, from statements made by the leaders of the Republican Party in this House, as well as statements made by President Bush and others in the administration that there was a reluctance to cooperate with the 9/ 11 Commission.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, now here we are, heading towards an election, with obviously complex legislation to be drafted based upon those recommendations put forth by the Commission so that our homeland, the security of the United States, is enhanced, and yet, and maybe you can inform me and the American people who might be viewing us this evening, when was the concept, the idea of the 9/11 Commission first proposed in the aftermath of the attacks on our homeland on September 11?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I could interrupt, and if the gentleman would yield, my memory of the press conference conducted by Chairman Kean, the Republican from New Jersey, and by Lee Hamilton, the Democrat from the Indiana, with the unanimity of the bipartisan Commission, underscored and emphasized the need to move expeditiously to protect the United States from a recurrence of the kind of attack that occurred on 9/11. Is that an accurate statement?

Mr. DELAHUNT. And he was the Chairman, and that was a bipartisan Commission.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman would yield once more, I believe it is important that the American people and our colleagues be reminded that this independent Commission that produced a document, again that has been widely praised and embraced, now by President Bush, by the Republican majority, by Democrats and others, and the American people, that this independent Commission was bipartisan in nature. You and I are aware that the former ranking member on the House Committee on International Relations, Lee Hamilton, was the vice chair. Mr. Hamilton was a Democrat and continues to be a Democrat, and the former Governor of New Jersey, Tom Kean, is a Republican, continues to be a Republican.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, now they embrace, and I congratulate them with enthusiasm, the 9/11 independent Commission's report, and hopefully before we adjourn for this year, for this particular session, a review of their recommendations with appropriate legislation can be passed.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, again, just to be clear in my mind, and I am sure that those who might be viewing our conversation this evening want clarity, what you are suggesting is that when the concept or the proposal of an independent commission looking into the events and the failures that led to our national tragedy on 9/11, it was President Bush and Vice President Cheney that steadfastly refused to accept the creation of that Commission; is that correct?