Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. The gentleman indicated that some, and very few, have questioned the patriotism of those who ask the questions that are being posed here tonight. It is my feeling and my position that it would be a failure, it would be unpatriotic not to pose these questions. And as others have indicated, this is not about partisanship. None of us here tonight and in the course of the past 4 or 5 weeks have indulged in partisan sniping. But I do believe that the President is at a particular moment in terms of his administration that he should intervene and stop the sniping that is occurring within the administration, among individuals and agencies. I mentioned earlier that a senior Iraqi intelligence agent who was arrested last week, who purportedly had that information meeting with Mohammad Atta, in that same report in the New York Times there was an attack on the CIA by Mr. Richard Perle who currently serves on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. I know the gentleman from Hawaii is aware that he resigned as chairman of the board because of potential conflict of interest concerns that he had since many of his private business clients stood to profit from contracts dealing with the reconstruction of Iraq. It should be noted that Mr. Perle is considered a leader among the so-called neo-conservative bloc in the administration. He also has close ties with certain Iraqi exiles, such as Ahmed Chalabi. And it is true, and this should be stated very clearly, he advocated in an article that he wrote for the New York Times shortly after September 11 that the U.S. must strike at Saddam Hussein. So he is clearly predisposed towards the policy that was effected by this administration. My understanding is he was one of the most significant proponents of the war in Iraq. Now, however, with the capture of this individual, Al-Ani, he fears that if the CIA conducts the interrogation that they will play down evidence that the alleged meeting with Mohammad Atta ever occurred. With all due respect to Mr. Perle, that is a very serious charge that impugns the integrity of men and women in the CIA that risk their life in behalf of their country every day of the year. Of course, the CIA properly responded in my opinion that they need to be presented with something other than the opinions of Mr. Perle and his suspicions; and they claim, and I have to agree, that he sounds to be more predisposed to a certain conclusion than anyone they are familiar with. This quote that I read was he is just shopping for an interrogator who will cook the books to his liking. We cannot have that sniping going on. It is time for the President to take charge and to intervene, be forthcoming, reveal all of the information. Presumably the interview with Mr. Al-Ani has occurred already. Let the American people know. Maybe he did have a meeting with Mohammed Atta; maybe he did not. But it is time to let the American people know.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is familiar with the report that was printed last week in The New York Times that a senior intelligence agent, Iraqi intelligence agent by the name of Ahmed Al-Ani was arrested. I imagine the gentleman does remember, however, that some suggested he had met in Prague and the Czech Republic with Mohammed Atta, who was the ring leader in the attack on the United States back on 9/11. That appeared in the media and administration officials said that that evidence held up. That alleged meeting occurred in April 2001, 5 months before 9/11. Since then, most intelligence agencies, both American and allies, have cast doubt on the credibility of that purported meeting; but it was used by administration officials to argue there was an alliance of some sort between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. And of course we all know that the rationale for the attack on Iraq was based on two premises: Saddam Hussein had in his possession weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons or close to achieving the development or the possession of nuclear weapons, and that he could provide and was purportedly inclined to use terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda for the use of those weapons against the United States. So that theory, as the gentleman suggests, was crucial, that fact of the alleged meeting was crucial to that particular theory. But again, there is serious doubt as to whether that meeting occurred. It is interesting to note that both the FBI and the CIA investigated and could find no evidence whatsoever that at the pertinent times did Mr. Atta leave the United States to go to the Czech Republic for that meeting. However, it did serve the purpose of creating a sense of urgency that quick action had to be taken against Iraq.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely essential that the American people receive the answers to that question and to all the other questions that have been offered. Earlier this evening the gentleman from the other side of the aisle mentioned the talk shows and the statements that are being made have a political context to them. We have been here, as the gentleman well knows, for 5 weeks posing these questions. This is not motivated by Democratic intent to secure political advantage. If we did not do this, we would be abrogating our responsibility within our system to find the truth. It is about a search for the truth, and I dare say it is now time for the President of the United States and Congress to come together to create an independent commission, not one that has partisan overtones, but one, for example, that served this country well under the leadership of two former Senators, a Republican from New Hampshire, Warren Rudman, and a Democratic from Colorado, Gary Hart, who I think made an extraordinary contribution by a year's worth of hearings, even more, which ended up with a product that tragically predicted what occurred on September 11. We need that because I do not want to hear on this floor accusations about partisanship. This is about the future of America. That is what this is about. This ought not be about politics. Let us depoliticize that now and let the Republican and the Democratic leadership with the White House create an independent commission to reveal to the American people the truth.

Mr. DELAHUNT. It is as if the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. It is as if nobody is in charge. That is the only reasonable conclusion that one can infer from this murky explanation, this passing almost a legalistic argument.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, can I just add to that? I was interested in the comments that were made by representatives of the administration during the course of the past 3 or 4 days, including the statement obviously by the director of Central Intelligence. Unfortunately, as my colleague points out, the statements themselves I think create more confusion. There is more ambiguity and less clarity now as to what happened. So while it might be that George Tenet, the director of Central Intelligence, ought to have made a comment about the inclusion of the accusation relative to the West Africa country of Niger, I guess the question is, who put those words in there to begin with? Who put it in there? I will tell my colleagues what I find. I think the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that we have different agencies or individuals within the agencies that have access to information, that we are not communicating with each other. And that should really profoundly disturb all of us in the aftermath of the tragedy of September 11 because we should have learned from the attack on the United States on September 11 that cooperation and coordination are essential. For example, the gentleman from Illinois references the President made a speech on October 7 in Cincinnati. There was a reference to the purchase of highly enriched uranium from Niger. During the course of the review of that particular speech, the CIA correctly warned the President not to use that intelligence in that particular speech. Maybe he forgot about that particular process. Maybe he was unaware of it.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Do they really say that in Chicago?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that those estimates, and my colleague just used them of $50 billion, are based on what we know today. The reality is, back in April, Secretary Rumsfeld recently acknowledged that the amount of dollars necessary, simply for the military presence, put aside the cost of reconstruction, that estimate has doubled from some $2 billion to $4 billion a month. I dare say that I would not be surprised if 6 months from now we find that that $4 billion estimate has mushroomed to a significantly higher amount. I think we also owe a debt to the recently retired General of the Army, General Shinseki, who when he mentioned that at least 200,000 troops was necessary to ensure peace and stability in Iraq, that estimate by the General was dismissed, in fact derided, by Secretary Rumsfeld, who mentioned a figure of 125,000. This is beginning to remind me of those CBO estimates, about surplus, of trillions of dollars of surpluses on an annual basis that have turned into deficits as far as the eye can see. So, again, the number of troops and the estimate of just the cost of sustaining a military presence there is $4 billion.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague put it also today, India has made a decision through its democratic process that it will not send troops unless there is a United Nations resolution. What I am very, very concerned about is, are we going to end up in Iraq with a vast majority of troops assigned there to ensure security and stability as Americans? We have heard from the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, that there will be additional foreign troops sent to Iraq, but when we ask the question where are these troops coming from, what are their numbers, we are met with silence basically. Again, there are reports coming from military sources that indicate that if the situation continues to deteriorate in Iraq we very well might need double, double, the number of troops to ensure again stability and security for the Iraqi people.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. As far as the eye can see.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And there were never any answers to those questions.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I would just simply add one other item that I would hope that tonight we can discuss and that our friend from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) has really, in my judgment, done an extraordinary job in terms of laying out for the American people what it is going to cost the taxpayers of the United States and the impact in terms of service cuts for Americans that that will entail. But if for a moment I could just simply go to the issue that the gentleman from Pennsylvania raised about the issue of weapons of mass destruction. It certainly is well-known that the two premises for the rationale for the military attack on Iraq as articulated by the President was, number one, links between the Saddam Hussein regime and the possession of weapons of mass destruction, coupled with an intent to use them by that regime that presented a clear and present danger to the United States and to our people. Since the end of the conflict, we no longer hear about links between al Qaeda and the regime of the tyrant Saddam Hussein. In fact, I would dare say there is a consensus now that there was no evidence to indicate any collaborative effort or any cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and, most likely, the opposite was true. I am sure the gentleman from Pennsylvania remembers and I know the gentleman from Illinois took note of the fact that about, I think it was in April of 2001, there was a report that Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of September 11, met with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent in the Czech Republic. It was later revealed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that that could not have happened because Mr. Atta at the time of the alleged meeting was here in the United States plotting against the American people. No longer do we hear about links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. So that argument proved to be false and inaccurate.

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

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, the latest information is that today, today, the White House announced that when the President made the statement regarding the sale of highly enriched uranium to the Iraqi regime by a country in Africa, they made a mistake. Better late than never. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, we would be derogating our duty. And I applaud the eloquence and the obviously genuine commitment that the gentleman from Hawaii just respected. We would not be honoring our obligation, and additionally we would be failing those members in the military that have fought as well as they have, and we would be failing those individuals in the Intelligence Community that have expressed their views. It brings to mind a story that again appeared in the newspapers shortly before we broke, I think it was the day that we broke, where someone stood up and testified before a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. There was a number of intelligence officials within this closed hearing. Of course, it appears in the press, so I can speak about it. And this individual's name is Christian Westerman, and he happens to be a top State Department expert on chemical and biological weapons, and he told the committees that he had been pressed to tailor his analysis on Iraq and other matters specifically pertaining to Cuba to conform with the Bush administration's views. That is unacceptable. He is viewed within the Department, according to reports, as a careful and respected analyst of intelligence. He served in the Navy, and he was obviously not comfortable making that statement, but that kind of courage is important if we are going to ascertain the truth. And whatever the truth is, the American people deserve the truth, and it is our responsibility to make every effort that we can to seek it. And I want to associate myself with the words of the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am sure that C-SPAN viewers have witnessed those hearings. Sources and methods were protected. No State secrets were given out. It was a respectful discourse; and it informed the British people, a people, by the way, who sent men and women into combat with the United States. But I do not believe that is the only reason, and I am directing this to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) because while they admitted it today, ironically Sunday there appeared an article in the New York Times written by the individual, a former ambassador who, on behalf of the CIA, went to Nigeria to investigate this assertion that, according to some newspapers, came via the Italian intelligence service, and what he has to say in his words, one might draw the inference prompted this response today by the White House. Some might claim it to be an effort at damage control. But his name is Joseph Wilson, and the article is entitled ``What I Didn't Find In Africa.'' He starts it by saying, ``Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq? Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.'' Mr. Speaker, I am not going to read the whole article, but it is extraordinarily informative. Maybe we can do it here in the United States as well as they can do it in the United Kingdom.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, obviously we all make mistakes, but it is important to acknowledge the making of mistakes. I would submit that if Secretary Powell had information that was available to him a week after the President of the United States in his State of the Union message referenced the sale of uranium by an African country to Saddam Hussein, then it is almost inconceivable that the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, would not have had a conversation with the President suggesting or informing him that he did not find that information reliable in terms of his presentation to the United Nations; and yet for 6 months the White House, the President, has continued to insist on the reliability of the intelligence that he selected when he made his presentation to the American people. The complaints are not coming just from this side of the aisle, but are coming from the intelligence community. Even the top U.S. Marine officer in Iraq, General James Conway, said U.S. intelligence was simply wrong in leading the military to believe that the invading troops were likely to be attacked with chemical weapons. I respect the general for making that statement; and it is time that the administration, the President and those who, upon review, discovered that the premises and the facts that supported those premises were inaccurate or incorrect, it is time to acknowledge them and restore the confidence of the American people and the people of this world in the integrity of the United States and its leadership. These are just some quotes from intelligence officials, individuals who have no particular partisan ax to grind, and these are reports from the New York Times, and I am quoting, ``As an employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency, I know how this administration has lied to the public to get support for its attack on Iraq. Some others see a pattern not so much of lying as of self-delusion and of subjecting the intelligence agencies to these delusions.'' Another quote, `` `The American people were manipulated,' bluntly declares one person from the Defendant Intelligence Agency who says that he was privy to all of the intelligence on Iraq. `These people are coming forward because they are fiercely proud.' '' He is referring to intelligence analyses at the Defense Intelligence Agency, and those that are watching should be aware that there are many intelligence agencies, but this is the consensus of their opinion, that they are fiercely proud of the deepest ethic in the intelligence world, that such work should be nonpolitical and are disgusted at efforts to turn them into propaganda. This is from an individual who retired in September after 25 years in the State Department. His name is Greg Thielmann, and he spent the last 4 years of his public service in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, and these are his quotes: ``The al Qaeda connection and nuclear weapons issues were the only two ways that you could link Iraq to an imminent security threat to the United States, and the administration was grossly distorting the intelligence on both things.'' The outrage among the intelligence professionals is so widespread that they have formed a group, an association, called the Veteran Intelligent Professionals for Sanity, and they wrote to President Bush this past month to protest what they called, and again this is their language, ``a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportions.'' I am quoting from their letter: ``While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately wopped for political purposes, never before has such wopping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize launching a war.'' A comment by Larry Johnson, one of those talking heads that we always see on those cable programs, he used to be a CIA analyst and worked at the State Department, referring to the low morale among the intelligence community: ``I have never heard this level of alarm before. It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The President was misled. He was ill-served by folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this is witting or unwitting, I do not know.''

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if at some point in the future, and we should discuss this with other Members of the House, but I for one would like to extend an invitation to some of our colleagues who serve in the Parliament, in the House of Commons, to come to the United States, or maybe some of us to go there to further this discussion, because I was so impressed with British democracy after viewing on C- SPAN those hearings that we have alluded to tonight. And there is real deep concern among the British, and it is clear that it is having an impact in Britain to a far more significant degree, unfortunately, than it appears to be having in this country. Maybe at some point in time, because I really believe it is necessary to have an independent commission depoliticize this issue, take it out of the realm of partisan politics. Yes, there are congressional committees going on, but we know that there was an independent commission that was chaired by former Senator Rudman and former Senator Gary Hart that, unfortunately, they examined national security and just about predicted the events of September 11. It is so important to restore the confidence of the people in our national security, in our system. I think that happens to be the answer, but I would really welcome the input from the members of Parliament, from the House of Commons that sat in on those hearings to come and give us their observations. I was particularly impressed with former Minister Robin Cook and a female former member by the name of Claire Short. I would think that if we invited them, they would come here, and hopefully the American media, as the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) have put up with, finally start to take a good look, because this is an issue that is not going to go away because it is about time that we reflected and began to see ourselves as others are viewing us if we are going to continue to claim a certain moral authority in this world.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Certainly.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman mentioned Afghanistan, and I know he has another appointment, but let us review for a moment where we are in terms of Afghanistan. How long have we been in Afghanistan? We are talking years already. And yet what progress have we made in Afghanistan? The American people should be aware of the fact that it is a mess. The President of Afghanistan, President Karzai, whom we supported from the beginning, is unable to travel throughout Afghanistan. He is just about able to leave the central district of the capital city of Kabul. We did not conclude our work there before we took on another military intervention of a much different magnitude, much larger size, when we went into Iraq. As has been stated by all three of my colleagues tonight, America's word is at risk here. If we just go back again to the quality of the intelligence, I do not want to leave the impression with those who are watching this conversation that we are having tonight that this is, again, exclusively restricted to Democrats. These are concerns that are shared across the aisle. This is simply too important. Decisions were made regarding whether to wage war based on this intelligence, and, clearly, that is, in our democracy, a question of the most serious consequence, to wage war.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I voted against the resolution. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) voted to support it, as did the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel); and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) voted against it.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But when it comes to Iraq, we are going to be sending hundreds of billions of dollars, as the gentleman from Illinois indicated, to build schools, to provide health care, and to provide deepwater ports, but we cannot take care of our own veterans.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I would say to my colleague that that is only half the story. When those men and women come home, when they are discharged from Active Duty, and when they assume the title of veteran, what are we doing to them then? What are we doing to them then? Well, what we are doing to them is, in some respects, discriminating against them. We are creating new categories of veterans who no longer will have access to veterans health care. That is unconscionable. We send them to war, and when they come home, we reduce their benefits and, in fact, eliminate some of these heroes and heroines from having access to health care provided by the Veterans Administration. That is shameful. Patriotism is more than just simply raising the flag. The flag represents respect, respect especially for men and women who serve this country in the military, and we are disrespecting and dishonoring them. That is wrong.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And they are all in our prayers. But I would like to make one other observation if I can. I do not want the American people as they watch here tonight to think that this is just simply four Democrats railing for political purposes against the White House and the administration. I know that many of our colleagues on the other side share our concerns. And I found extraordinarily interesting an article that was penned by someone whom we all respect, Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And if I might, just for a moment, read his words: The combat phase of our war in Iraq ended with a speedy, decisive victory and minimal loss of life. That impressive success is now at risk. Clearly, the administration's planning for the post-conflict phase in Iraq was inadequate. I am concerned that the Bush administration and Congress have yet to face up to the true size of the task that lies ahead or prepared the American people for it. The administration should state clearly that we are engaged in nation building. We are constructing the future in Iraq, and it is a complicated and uncertain business. The days when Americans could win battles and come home quickly for a parade are over. And when some in the Pentagon talk about quick exit strategies or say dismissively that they don't do nation building, they are wrong. This comes from a Republican, highly regarded and well respected. It is important that we are doing this here tonight so the American people know that, so they hear the truth.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana, my friend, who has demonstrated a commitment that is extraordinary in terms of this particular issue and to the people of Colombia. I hope that everyone that is watching tonight and listening to the gentleman's Special Order takes note. Much of what the gentleman said, practically all of what the gentleman said I agree with. And I think it is important to understand that the commitment to Colombia has to be a sustained commitment. Unfortunately, those of us who enjoy the benefits of this country are sometimes susceptible to a lack of patience. This is not a problem that is going to go away overnight in Colombia, but I think that the gentleman made the link that absolutely cries for patience by the American people and by the Congress, and that is that here in the neighborhoods of the United States, there are young people and people of middle age that have been addicted to narcotics and have led lives that reduce them to hostages and prisoners in their own body. And if we are ever going to address that problem and the link that it has to crime and violence in the United States, our commitment has to be sustained. I felt the need to say that. I know the gentleman has been on the floor. I am here with some colleagues to address a separate issue, but I want to applaud the gentleman's efforts. We have worked a long time on this particular issue, and I believe that the Colombian Government is making great strides. The gentleman pointed out that the Colombian Government is making strides in terms of human rights.