Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, can I interrupt, because I think that is very important because that has been an assertion that I think is extremely misleading to the American people. My colleague referenced the no fly zone; yet I imagine that there are many of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and a number of Americans that are watching this conversation tonight that we are having and if you hear it without understanding some of the nuances, you hear al Qaeda was in Iraq, but as that famous radio commentator, I think his name was Paul Harvey, said, there is another half of that story. Yes, there was a group that had some nebulous link to al Qaeda, and they were in Iraq; but they were not in Iraq in the part that Saddam Hussein had sway over. They were not in the part of Iraq where Saddam Hussein had influence. They were not in the part of Iraq that Saddam Hussein had any control. They were in the part of Iraq, as my colleague mentioned, in the so-called Kurdish area up in these mountains. There was a group of some 200 or 300, and they were not directly linked to al Qaeda; but, yes, they were a terrorist group and one that we should not in any way countenance. They were a threat, if you will, to people of goodwill all over this world; but they were not a part or had any relationship, collaborative or otherwise, with Saddam Hussein. And yet again and again, this White House continues to talk about al Qaeda and Iraq, but what they do not say is that it was a group that was in Iraq that was outside of the influence of Saddam Hussein. It was in, as indicated, in the so-called no-fly zone. Saddam Hussein did not dare enter that zone.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I would like to submit that the real danger here is because of this diversion which is a military intervention, a war on Iraq that it subverts, detracts from the real war that threatens the American people. The war by fundamental Islamist terrorists that, because of our intervention in Iraq, are every day spawning new groups and new terrorists. The policy of this administration in terms of the so-called war on terror is creating, I would submit, a situation where if it continues, yes, we have won the war in Iraq, but we will lose the war on terror. It is very important that the American people, those that are watching our conversation here tonight, understand that there is a profound distinction between this adventure in Iraq for reasons that at some point in time we should really get into: Why did we end up going to Iraq? Well, we know this from people within the administration, far in advance of September 11, the day of our national tragedy, plans for war against Iraq were being designed.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Why did we not go into Iran? Why?

Mr. DELAHUNT. It is called the big lie theory.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I can interrupt, and we are joined by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). We all remember, of course, that it was again this White House that assigned a former United Nations inspector to go and search for the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. His name is David Kay. He is universally described as someone of great integrity, of great expertise. He does his job, and he comes back and he claims that we were all wrong. That is months ago. This particular cover of Newsweek is dated February of this year. We were all wrong. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There were no links to al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. And yet he is befuddled and disturbed by the fact that this President and this Vice President will not own up to the fact. He was interviewed by a British newspaper, and his recommendation to President Bush and particularly Vice President Cheney, because if there is anyone who has pushed this particular adventure, it is the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney. Let us just put it out here tonight. And I am quoting him, assigned by this White House, presumably a Republican, a hawk on the war, he says, ``It is about confronting and coming clean with the American people, not just slipping a phrase into the State of the Union speech. He should say we were mistaken and I am determined to find out why.'' And they will not let go. They will not let go.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, when are they going to go and fight the war on terror and absolutely defeat terrorism?

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman will yield, can I ask a very brief question? What did he say about the terrorist cells that now exist in Iran, in Syria, in Pakistan, in Sudan, in Indonesia, and I could list a long litany of other terrorist cells that are a threat to the United States? What did he say, if anything; or is he just simply focused on Iraq?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Have the terrorists left Iran and Syria and Sudan? What is he saying?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Already to date it has cost the American taxpayers $200 billion to build roads in Iraq, to provide Iraqis with good health care, to clean up their environment and to stimulate their economy.

Mr. DELAHUNT. That goes back to the issue of competence, and that is where, in addition to the issue of credibility, this administration, this White House, has failed miserably.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman will yield, can the gentleman tell me and tell those that might be watching our conversation tonight, what has been the cost, not in terms of the lives of our children, but what has been the cost to the American taxpayers for this adventure?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, we know, we know what the commander of the VFW, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, a highly-esteemed organization serving veterans in this country, had to say about this administration's submission of a veterans budget to the United States Congress. That commander called it a sham and a fraud. So this is not inconsistent. If I could just leave my colleagues with one question. We have talked about we could not find the weapons of mass destruction. We cannot find the links, if you will, of the collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Has anyone looked for the plans that were crafted by Saddam Hussein that indicated that he was prepared to attack the United States?

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if one reviews the 9/ 11 report, they are very clear that there were more connections, more connections between Lebanon, between Iran and al-Qaeda than there ever were between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda, in fact, Osama bin Laden, in 1990 right after the invasion of Kuwait, went to Saudi Arabia and met with Prince Sultan, who was the defense minister and said that we have to do something about that secularist. Let us join forces and destroy Saddam Hussein. He considered Saddam Hussein as an apostate, a corrupter of Islam. The point is, and again, another report that came out today, Chairman Kean, again suggests that the connections between Pakistan, between Iran and Hezbollah, far exceeded the connections between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. There was no collaborative relationship. We continued to hear about al-Qaeda bases in Iraq. They were in northern Iraq under the protection of the no-fly zone.

Mr. DELAHUNT. 29th birthday today, I think this has been a very good discussion. We really do welcome this conversation with my colleague. He knows we have respect.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I hope we do, too. I would issue a challenge to my friend because he and I have traveled together and it is an experience, and it is a very positive experience, but there are people that are in the custody of the executive branch, those so-called senior intelligence Iraqi agents, that continually deny any knowledge whatsoever of Iraq or meeting the gentleman that allegedly met with Mohammed Atta in Prague in the Czech Republic, is in our custody. Let us challenge together the executive branch and my colleague, myself, and anyone else who wishes to join us, go together and exercise the oversight responsibility and function of this Congress and interview Mr. Al-Ani and make that decision ourselves and come back and report to the American people.

Mr. DELAHUNT. That Republicans do not criticize Republicans. I will have to defend Paul O'Neill.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Again, because we have a good discussion going here tonight, I think it is important for all those that are watching, because we will chew right into our friend's time too, I think it is important here tonight that the American people understand that this is good discourse. This is the kind of debate that this institution needs. Despite the fact that we have disparate views and profound disagreements, the reality is that we do have mutual respect, and in the case of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) we have affection.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am not going to repeat the praise I gave to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). Only once he gets the kudos. While the gentleman might disagree with Paul O'Neill, the former Secretary of the Treasury who was appointed, obviously, by this President, I wonder if he disagrees with an observation or an anecdote that was related by Bob Woodward just recently in the book that is on, I understand, the President's Web site, where, again, I am quoting from the book. I do not want in any way to infer that this is coming from me or any of my Democratic colleagues. But in response to this desire for war against Iraq, Bob Woodward writes, ``Powell thought that Cheney had the fever. The Vice President and Wolfowitz kept looking for the connection between Hussein and September 11th. It was a separate little government that was out there. Wolfowitz, Libby, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and Feith's gestapo office, as Powell privately called it. Cheney now had an unhealthy fixation. Nearly every conversation or reference came back to al Qaeda and trying to nail down the connection with Iraq. He would often have an obscure piece of intelligence. Powell thought that Cheney,'' Powell not, not O'Neill, ``took intelligence and converted uncertainty and ambiguity into fact. A conversation would suggest something might be happening, and Cheney would convert that into a we know. Powell,'' not O'Neill, ``Powell concluded we didn't know and no one knew.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think it is important to note that. Again, I am not sure about whether it was an aspirin factory, but I think what is really important is the point that the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) just made about oversight. It is clear that there are no weapons of mass destruction. It is clear that the kind of relationship that has been suggested by the administration, particularly the Vice President and the President, does not exist. It is, I dare say, hurting our credibility. We come to this as Americans. You know that, I know that, and we all know that. And this information comes from a variety of sources, whether it be from Bob Woodward, who describes a conversation that Secretary Powell has, or whether it is Paul O'Neill. In the case of Richard Clarke, the terrorist chief, in the aftermath of 9/11, he writes in his book he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq. ``Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq,'' Clark said, ``and we all said no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said, there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan, and there are a lot of good targets in Iraq. ``Well, there are a lot of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Initially I thought when he said there are not enough targets in Afghanistan, I thought he was joking. They wanted to believe there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting at that particular meeting, and the FBI was sitting there, and I was sitting there, and we looked at the issue for years, and we reached a conclusion that there was no connection.'' The point is, let it go. To follow the admonition of David Kay, it is time to acknowledge our mistakes as a Nation and to begin to restore some of our credibility internationally. I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I could, because I want to respond to my friend from Indiana, because I know that he holds in high regard David Kay, who was selected by the administration to go to Iraq and review the various assertions and the concerns that they had about weapons of mass destruction as well as a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, and this is a statement that appeared today in fact in The Boston Globe and it quotes David Kay: ``'At various times al Qaeda people came through Baghdad and in some cases resided there,' said David Kay, former head of the CIA's Iraq survey group, which searched for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorism, 'but we simply did not find any evidence of extensive links with al Qaeda or, for that matter, any real links at all.' '' He was referencing the statement by the Vice President. Again, ``Cheney's speech is evidence-free,'' Kay said. ``It is an assertion, but does not say why we should believe this now.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Of course.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to hearing his response. I would be happy to engage.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, again, I think it is absolutely critical to understand that there is no one that is unhappy with the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. But the question that we are posing here tonight is the allegation that there was a collaborative relationship between al Qaeda and the Saddam Hussein Iraqi regime. And what we are talking about is the credibility of the White House, the President, and, therefore, the United States. As I said earlier, we discovered what happened when it came to the issue of weapons of mass destruction, and here we are again, even after the report by the 9-11 Commission, even after a statement by David Kay, not only relating to the issue of weapons of mass destruction, but the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

Mr. DELAHUNT. We are dear friends.

Mr. DELAHUNT

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