Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, but these are all actions that are directed at individuals. And I abhor them, and somebody should be held responsible. It is as if there is another enemies list. The gentleman alluded earlier to the Nixon years. There is something Nixonian about targeting individuals, attacking them, attacking them at a personal level, and clearly trying to undermine their professionalism and hurt their careers. We have seen it again and again. I began earlier with the radio spot that was used during the course of the Presidential election, the one that was masterminded obviously by Karl Rove, who is the political adviser and I am sure consults with the President on a regular basis. But the gentleman talked about former Secretary O'Neill. Mr. Clarke now. What happened to General Shinseki when he suggested that there was need for 2 to 300,000 troops if the peace was to be won in Iraq? He was castigated in an extremely dismissive way by Under Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, again as I indicated, I sympathize with these individuals, and I am confident that as time moves on, because America is truly about, at its essence, the search for the truth, that they will be vindicated. What I would submit is that time is vindicating them now, whether it be Mr. Clarke or whether it be David Kay.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Hans Blix. They are all being vindicated. But really what is at stake here is the prestige and the credibility of the United States. We heard a lot in the debate last week about appeasement. There is no appeasement when it comes to terrorism. We are all united, Republican, Democrat. I cannot imagine one Member of this House not being adamant that we pursue justice and that we win the war on terror. But if we continue to have our credibility undermined by this White House, we risk losing the war on terror.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let us hope that they listened to David Kay, who is imploring them to come clean with the American people. It is so important, because, well, let us look at the most recent example. If we are serious about the war on terrorism, we need to have the respect and cooperation and commitment of the entire world. If you remember, in the aftermath of September 11 there was information that came pouring into the United States about al Qaeda cells in some 60 different countries. In fact, we heard there were dozens of al Qaeda cells operating right here in the United States. What is happening now? The most recent statement by one of those nations that actually participated and has a number of troops in Iraq today, and I refer to the Polish nation, their President said, ``We were misled. They took us for a ride.'' That is his quote. The Spaniards, we are castigated by our friends for appeasement. I thought that was rather arrogant, considering the fact that the Spanish have dealt for years attempting to rid their nation of the terrorists who claim to be seeking independence, the so-called ETA. I found very interesting in the aftermath of the election in Spain that the new leader there declared that his most immediate priority will be to fight terrorism. There was a disagreement that Iraq was a distraction, that we went after the wrong enemy. And more and more people are coming to that belief. The South Koreans just this past week indicated that they did not want their troops transported to a venue that would most likely create a potential where they would be engaged in violence. The problem is, this is not about appeasement; this is about credibility in winning the war on terror.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Do you find it interesting that in the United Kingdom, and I disagreed with the Prime Minister there, Tony Blair. As you know, I voted against the resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. But I respect Tony Blair. He went before the Parliament, and for hour after hour after hour stood his ground in a respectful fashion and answered each question that was posed to him. There is a commission going on right now. I would hope that the President would reconsider and go before that commission, not behind closed doors, but for the American people to hear, so that the credibility not just of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, but the credibility of the United States can be restored and replicate exactly what the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom did in response to questions about the British role in Iraq.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, you know, again if I can take the time for just a moment, what I would propose, because I understand that the 9/11 commission that is currently sitting here today has agreed to, and I think mistakenly, has agreed to a 1-hour interview with President Bush, and only two members of the commission are going to be entitled to inquire of him. That just simply continues to raise questions. It will be interpreted as a lack of being forthcoming. What is necessary now, more than ever, as David Kay has said, let us open up. We are a democracy. I would go so far as a Democrat to suggest that the former President, President Clinton, and President Bush, go before that commission, one after another, sequentially, and stay there as long as there are questions to be asked regarding terrorism and the threat of terrorism to the United States. I would issue a challenge to both of them. Make it a bipartisan challenge. We have to take this out of the political realm. Yes, I am not naive; I know there is a Presidential election, and these are issues that should be discussed in a Presidential election. But they have to be vetted in a forum such as a commission, where all of the answers are put out. And if there are mistakes that have been made, both during the Clinton administration and in this administration, the American people will be better off, and, more importantly, America's role in the world will once again be respected. One only has to look at the polls. There was a recent study done, and I am not going to take the time, but let me just give you a quick example, and then one of you gentleman can close. This is rating George Bush, but substitute George Bush for America. In Britain, our closest ally, the favorability of George Bush is 39 percent; the unfavorably is 57 percent. In France, the favorability is 15; 85 unfavorable. Fourteen percent favorable in Germany; 85 unfavorable. In Russia, 28 favorable; 60 unfavorable. In Turkey, 21 percent favorable; 67 percent unfavorable. Pakistan, 7 percent favorable; 67 percent unfavorable. In Jordan, 3 percent favorable; and 96 percent unfavorable. This is true all over the world, not just in the Mideast, but Asia, all over Latin America. It is about the United States. We need allies. We are finding that out. We need cooperation. We have got to win the war on terror. We cannot tolerate appeasement, but we should not be doing it alone.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I am reminded of the words of Brent Scowcroft and others in the first Bush administration, those that served under President George Herbert Walker Bush, but particularly what Brent Scowcroft stated in a column that he wrote. He expressed a fear that a unilateral rush into a preemptive war would undercut worldwide support for the war on terror and cast America as an aggressor Nation for the first time in our history. Now, here is a gentleman, a lifelong Republican, presumably, a man well respected internationally, has an excellent reputation here in Washington as a serious person, a man of unimpeachable integrity. And I think we have all been saying in our own different ways what he said so eloquently. And sadly, we find ourselves in that very, very tragic moment where we are losing allies, we are losing the respect of the international community; friends are beginning to turn their backs on us. And, if that occurs, the war that we must win, the war on terror, is very much at risk.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can, what I am going to do is what is rather boldly stated here on the cover of Time magazine in February, when the question is posed, and I would suggest that the question is now being posed in very real terms as we witness the string of revelations that are occurring now on an everyday basis: Believe Him Or Not: Does Bush Have a Credibility Gap? This is about credibility. It is not just about the President, because the President speaks for the United States. The President's credibility becomes our credibility. Not Republican credibility, not Democratic credibility, but the credibility of the United States in a very dangerous moment in world history, when we are all united to defeat terrorism. There was a fascinating story in my hometown paper, the Boston Globe, this morning. I think it is worthy to present it to the gentleman tonight and to have the viewing audience listen. The former chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq warned yesterday that the United States is in grave danger of destroying its credibility at home and abroad if it does not own up to our mistakes in Iraq. That is David Kay. That is the individual who universally has received praise and respect from policymakers and people involved in this particular issue. He was appointed by this White House, this administration, to lead a team to go to Iraq and determine whether there were weapons of mass destruction. It is he now that is imploring this White House, this President, this Vice President, to use his words, to ``come clean with the American people'' because, as he points out, the cost of our mistakes with regard to the explanation of why we went to war in Iraq are far greater than Iraq itself. This issue is so profound that it is now the credibility of the United States, the prestige that we have earned through decades, through the centuries, that is at risk. ``We are in grave danger of having destroyed our credibility internationally and domestically with regard to warning about future events. The answer is to admit you were wrong, and what I find most disturbing about Washington is the belief you can never admit you are wrong.'' It is like I indicated earlier, there have been newspaper reports that the director of the CIA, Mr. Tenet, privately corrected the Vice President on his statements linking Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. And yet the Vice President has not had the decency to come forward to the American people and say, I was wrong, when I was wrong. And in another interview Mr. Kay goes on, and when asked what his opinion was of the statement of Vice President Cheney that weapons of mass destruction might still be found in Iraq, his response was, ``What worries me about Cheney's statements is I think people who hold out for a Hail Mary pass delay the inevitable looking back at what went wrong.'' That is what this 9/11 commission is hearing this week. The message that we send out to the rest of the world is that we are strong and a mature democracy if we tell the truth, and we will not have a credibility gap. I believe we have enough evidence now to say that the intelligence process and the policy process obviously crafted by the President, President Bush, and Vice President Cheney that used that information did not work at the level of effectiveness that we require in the age we live in. I mean, this is absolutely the most profound issue, in my judgment, that is currently confronting the United States with long- term implications.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I applaud the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for spending an hour, although I do not quite agree with some of the facts that the gentleman stated.

Mr. DELAHUNT

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

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, by the way, how many Iraqis were on that plane?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome my colleagues, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). We have been here doing this so-called Special Order for the past 8 months, discussing and reviewing developments in the Middle East and, specifically, what has occurred over the course of the past week involving Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terror. As I had indicated earlier, there was a resolution that was considered today by the House. There was a spirited debate, and I was reviewing specific provisions for the benefit of the people that, at least here on the East Coast, are up late and surfing the channels and want to listen to the conversation that we have among ourselves. I had indicated that as part of the resolution, there is a reference, and the only reference, I find this interesting, to the issue of weapons of mass destruction because, as we know, this was the premise that was put forth by the President, the Vice President, and other administration officials for the rationale for going to war. Of course, we have discovered subsequently that the intelligence was faulty, that the premise for the war, meaning stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons simply did not exist, and the implication that was put forth by the President and specifically the Vice President, because he has reiterated it even recently, that there were links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, turned out to be without any substance at all. But the one allusion to the use of weapons of mass destruction is contained in this resolution, and I will read it. It says, ``Whereas, on March 16, 1988, Saddam Hussein's regime had unleashed weapons of mass destruction against Kurdish citizens, killing nearly 5,000 of them.'' Well, this is about a city in Iraq. That city is called Halabja. And it is true that Saddam Hussein slaughtered some 5,000 Iraqi Kurds, men, women, and children. The provision in the resolution that we did debate today appears to suggest that this crime against humanity, and it is a crime against humanity, provides some justification for the invasion of Iraq 15 years later. The tragic truth is, and to our own shame, is that we did nothing, nothing in 1988, in 1989, in 1990 about this crime, this despicable act, this act of terrorism. We did not do anything because under that Bush administration, Saddam was our ally, and many of those currently serving in this Bush administration were key figures during that moment in our history. Our Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, was a special envoy to Saddam Hussein. Even before his first visit to Baghdad in 1983, Iraq was removed from the terrorist list, and after his full diplomatic relations were restored and billions of dollars of loan guarantees were provided to Saddam Hussein, the sale of dual-use technology for the development of weapons of mass destruction was approved by the Reagan- Bush administration. I would suggest that no wonder, in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, we learned that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons program because, in reality, we helped to build it. And we let other countries supply Saddam Hussein with American military equipment, and we even shared highly sensitive satellite intelligence with Saddam Hussein. Even though we knew that Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons against Iran, that Bush administration prevented the United Nations from condemning Iraq. The Vice President, this gentleman here, Mr. Cheney, was Secretary of Defense for the first President Bush. The Secretary of State, Colin Powell, served as both National Security Adviser and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Well, according to a Congressional Research Service report, not only did we support Saddam Hussein during Mr. Cheney's and Mr. Powell's and Mr. Wolfowitz' time in service to that Republican administration, but when the House and the Senate in 1989 and 1990 attempted to impose sanctions for the use of chemical weapons, that Bush administration blocked it. They used their influence in Congress to ensure that there were no sanctions imposed on Saddam Hussein. I fear that we are making the same mistakes now that they made back then, the first President Bush and Richard Cheney and Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz. Because like then, we are also today forging unholy alliances in our war on terror. For example, in Uzbekistan, we are supporting another dictator who, according to our own State Department reports, heads an oppressive regime that perpetrates gross violations of human rights and has more than 5,000 political prisoners in custody today. The most recent, notorious, was when this individual and this regime, through torture, boiled in water a political prisoner. I am sure that conjures up memories of Saddam Hussein. And in Turkmenistan, we are allied with another Stalinist thug by the name of Sherman Bashi who is creating a personality cult that rivals that of Saddam Hussein. He has renamed the month of January after himself and the month of June after his mother. And this is who we are allying ourselves with in the war on terror, just like we allied ourselves with Saddam Hussein back in the late 1980s. And, of course, we know the results. So I would suggest to my friends and to those that are watching at this late hour that we remember those lessons of history. And I specifically would recommend that the Vice President, who constantly refers to the fact that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people, remember that he was part of an administration that was aware of that and did nothing back then, much to the chagrin of the rest of the world and the United States House of Representatives and Senate that served in this building and this institution back then. And what happened? Did we encourage Saddam Hussein? I guess that is a question we will never know. But we should remember the lessons of Halabja, that city in Iraq, where chemical weapons were used against Iraqi citizens by Saddam Hussein. Because I believe if we speak of democracy and liberty, let us practice it. And every time the President and the Vice President stand up and proclaim that we are fighting this war on terror to promote democracy, what about Uzbekistan? And what about Turkmenistan? What are we doing there, allying ourselves with despots and tyrants and thugs that at some future point could very well be the new Saddam Hussein? Let us not ally ourselves with illegitimate heads of state if we are sincere about the war on terror, who are truly terrorists who terrorize their own people. That would be my position.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I could, clearly there is language in the resolution that we considered here today that praises the troops. But the reality is that the rhetoric does not match the action.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to welcome our friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek), as part of our conversation tonight. It is easy to indulge in rhetoric. It is easy to involve in a resolution with laudatory words about the courage and the heroism and the professionalism of the American military. It is just a little bit more difficult to ensure that all of our veterans, from whatever struggle, from whatever war, from wherever in terms of our history, are delivered, for example, the health care that we promised. And this administration has failed them. This administration, this Vice President and the President of the United States, is failing them. The talk is fine, and the actions are not matching the rhetoric. As the commander-in-chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars recently stated within the past 2 weeks, the budget submitted by the President of the United States and the Vice President of the United States is a sham and a disgrace. So, if this resolution is about the veterans, then I dare say that should be there, support from the Vice-President and the President to ensure that the funding source for veterans' health care benefits in this country is mandatory and not discretionary. Stand up and do the right thing by our veterans and just do not simply indulge in rhetoric

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think you make an excellent point, and I see our colleague and friend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) standing up, and I am going to recognize him in a minute. I heard the word today on the floor ``appeasement.'' I think it is important for those that are watching to understand, and I think I speak for every Democrat, appeasement is not part of our vocabulary when it comes to the war on terrorism, absolutely. I think there was only a single exception out of the entire body, but it was with one exception, one vote, a unanimous authorization by this body and by the U.S. Senate to authorize the attack against the Taliban and the al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and we will never surrender to terrorism. We will never indulge in appeasement of terrorism, but Mr. President and Mr. Cheney, we insist on the truth. Never appeasement, but always the truth. What I find fascinating is in recent testimony in the United States Senate, the CIA chief, Mr. Tenet, told a Senate committee that he had privately intervened on several occasions to correct what he regarded as public misstatements on intelligence by Vice-President Cheney and others and that he would do so again. I would just make a simple request of this administration and the Vice President. Just tell it like it is. As David Kay, the weapons inspector, said recently in an interview in The Guardian, a British publication, ``Come clean.'' Just level with the people.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington for any comment that he would wish to make.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If you know, how many Saudis were implicated in the attack on America on September 11?

Mr. DELAHUNT. One of you noted recently that the individual who was responsible, the Pakistani who is responsible for the proliferation of nuclear weapon technology to North Korea and Iran has been identified, and what have we heard from this administration, this President and this Vice-President about that? Nothing.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding. We are here to review today's proceedings relative to the resolution. As the gentleman is well aware, there is a group of us, and we describe ourselves as the Iraq Watch and we will be joined shortly by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and of course the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee) is an integral part of our conversation. And I am sure that tomorrow morning there will be some coverage of what occurred on the floor today because we did consider a resolution that was put forth by the Republican majority without any input of course from Democrats, as we talk about the process that has become the norm here in the House. Unfortunately, it has become exclusionary. And I think we can concur that that is indeed unfortunate if we want to have an open and respectful debate. So during the course of time, during the course of the debate, sometimes passions become very fierce. But I think it is important to review this resolution today for a variety of different reasons. The resolution was about supporting troops and respecting their professionalism and their courage. We all agree on that. It also commended the Iraqi people for these early steps towards democracy.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, Halabja is alluded to in the resolution before us. Because Halabja is where Saddam slaughtered some 5,000 Iraqi Kurds with chemical weapons. The resolution appears to suggest that this despicable act--this crime against humanity--provides some justification for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. But the tragedy of Halabja occurred in March of 1988. And we did nothing then. Because Saddam was our ally. And many of those currently serving in the Bush Administration were key figures in that alliance. They were fully aware of what happened in Halabja. Our Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, was a special envoy to Saddam. The Vice President, Dick Cheney, was Secretary of Defense for the first President Bush. The Secretary of State, Colin Powell, served as both National Security Advisor and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The history of our relationship with Saddam is important so that we do not repeat the errors of the 80s and 90s in today's war on terror. Under Presidents Reagan and Bush, Iraq was removed from the terrorist list. Full diplomatic relations were restored. Billions of dollars in loan guarantees were provided to Saddam. The sale of dual-use technology for weapons of mass destruction was approved--no wonder, after the first Gulf War, that we found that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons program. We gave them the tools to build it. We let other countries supply U.S. military equipment. We even shared highly sensitive satellite intelligence with Saddam's army. And even though we knew Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iran, the U.S. prevented the United Nations from condemning Iraq. According to a Congressional Research Service report, which I will insert into the Record, not only did we support Saddam, but when the Congress tried to impose sanctions on Iraq for the use of chemical weapons, the Reagan and Bush Administrations blocked those efforts. I fear now we are forging similar unholy alliances in our war on terror. In Uzbekistan we are supporting a tyrant who, according to our own State Department, heads an oppressive regime that has more than 5,000 political prisoners. In Turkmenistan, we are allied with another Stalinist thug, by the name of Turkmenbashi, who has created a personality cult that rivals Saddam's. He's renamed January after himself, and the month of April after his mother. So let us remember the lessons of Halabja. If we are going to speak of democracy and liberty, let us practice it. If we are going to talk about human rights, let us defend them. If we are sincere about the war on terror, let us not ally ourselves with those illegitimate heads of state who terrorize their own people. Let us keep what credibility we have left.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), is present here with me tonight; and we anticipate that we will be joined by several of our colleagues to continue our weekly hour where we discuss events in the Mid East, with a particular focus on Iraq and Afghanistan and, hopefully, reveal to the viewing audience some information that they may be unaware of. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).