Bill Delahunt

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I am sure that yesterday in New York had to be an experience that was poignant and emotional, but I think it is important to set the record straight, because 9/11 was a significant historical event in American history, and I think we have to credit the families of the victims of 9/11 for insisting upon the creation of an independent commission, a commission that was bipartisan, that issued a report that I think clearly most Americans would embrace as accurate and factual. And it is really unfortunate that the majority of recommendations made by that distinguished group have not been implemented. That is why when we hear a discussion about the war on terror and what kind of action, or let me rephrase that, how we are doing in terms of defeating terrorism, if one looks at the report card subsequently issued by the 9/11 Commission, we note failures and poor grades. And I think it really is unfortunate in light of the spirit you described when the country was united, when in fact the whole world was united in support of the United States. I am sure you remember the controversies that erupted about a year or 2 afterward between France and the United States. I always note that it was the French paper of record, Le Monde, that had as its headline ``Today We Are All Americans,'' and how that support, that political support has dissipated, has gone. Now we have a country, our own country, where there is a legitimate question as to whether we are being successful in advancing our national security interests in terms of terrorism.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman would yield for a minute, and I know that Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz will engage, but, you know, what the administration has attempted to do is to confuse the war on terror with the war in Iraq. They are totally different. I think it is very important to note that almost unanimously this House voted to support military action against the Taliban government that existed in 2001 and 2002 in Afghanistan because they allowed Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda group to train. And they provided Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda group to utilize their territory as a safe haven for attacks against the United States of America on September 11. That is irrefutable. And where are we today in terms of Afghanistan? Let me tell you where we are today. If you just bear with me for a moment, the Taliban is resurging. Just today, September 12, a letter was circulated by the chairman of the House International Relations Committee, a senior Member of this House, the well-respected gentleman from Illinois, Henry Hyde. This is a letter that he and another colleague, a Republican, Mark Kirk, also of Illinois, sent to the President: ``United States efforts in Afghanistan are failing.'' I'm quoting from that letter: ``Drug money continues to finance terrorism. That failure, coupled with the aggressive efforts of the terrorists, threaten to destroy Afghanistan's nascent democracy, a free government that Americans and coalition forces have died to support. To succeed in Afghanistan, we need to change our failing strategies.'' Let me submit this as exhibit A in terms of the realities on the ground in Afghanistan where, back before 9/11, al Qaeda trained and was provided a safe haven by the Taliban government that we defeated. It would appear that we only defeated them temporarily because now they are back and we have a British general, Brigadier General Brooks, the head of the NATO contingent there, saying send help quickly or we will lose the moment. This is being reported today, 5 years after 9/11. The threat of terrorism is greater today than it was on 9/11 and before 9/11, and we left Afghanistan because it was an obsession on the part of this administration to attack Iraq, and we have been mired in Iraq since the invasion in 2003. And do you know what we have achieved in Iraq, Mr. Meek? Ms. Wasserman Schultz? I think a picture says more than I can say. Let me put this poster so you can both see it with your eyes. Mr. Meek, do you recognize this gentleman?

Mr. DELAHUNT. What I am suggesting is the greatest beneficiary of the military invasion of Iraq by the United States is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Madam Speaker, you must remember, of course, when the President of the United States in his State of the Union address came to this floor and said there is an axis of evil club out there, and it is Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Well, you know what? I hope the American people take a good look at this picture.

Mr. DELAHUNT. The people in this country need to vote for a Congress that will ask those questions. How did we get him? How did we arrive here?

Mr. DELAHUNT. But they are really tough on the borders.

Mr. DELAHUNT. What is very interesting is that you talk about civil war. There was a story recently, and I had it with me, that described interviews with American soldiers on the ground, not generals, back in headquarters, and testifying before House and Senate committees, but the troops on the ground, and I will find the quote, because there were several of them, that said, there is a civil war going on and we are in the middle of it.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But, if I may, if I may, this picture, it explains it so well, and it explains the report, for example, from a highly respected British think tank. If I just might take a few seconds just to read certain extracts: ``The Royal Institute of International Affairs concludes that Iran, despite being a part of U.S. President Bush's Axis of Evil, has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East. Of particular note is Iran's influence in Iraq. Chatham House argues that the greatest problem,'' listen to this carefully, please, my friends, ``the greatest problem facing the U.S. is that Iran has superseded it,'' meaning the United States, ``as the most influential power in Iraq.'' Their conclusion is that ``in today's Iraq, Iran has more influence than the United States. This influence has a variety of forms, but all can be turned against the U.S. presence in Iraq with relative ease and it almost certainly would heighten U.S. casualties to the point where a continued presence might not be tenable.'' This is where we find ourselves today because of the misguided policies and the obsession with war in Iraq that was embraced by this administration, by the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of Defense. And today, today, what happened in the conversation between the President of Iran and the Prime Minister of Iraq? Well, here is what happened. This is the news report that goes with this photograph: ``Iran offered on Tuesday to help establish security and stability in Iraq after Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki held talks in Tehran on his first official visit. `We will give our full assistance to the Iraqi government to establish security in Iraq. Strengthening security in Iraq means strengthening security and stability in the region,' Ahmadinejad told a joint news conference after their meeting. The two sides signed an agreement covering these areas. ``The Prime Minister of Iraq had this to say: `This visit will be useful for cooperation between Iran and Iraq in all political, economic, and,''' listen carefully my friends, ``'security fields. ``Tomorrow Mr. Maliki meets with the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, the highest authority in Iran, and influential former President Rafsanjani on Wednesday.'' What we see here I would suggest is a new relationship, let's call it an alliance, between Iran and Iraq. Remember, these two countries have signed a military cooperation agreement between themselves. Iranians are building a pipeline from Basra to Iran.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Can I just suggest, just on those two items alone, I would submit that that is disgraceful.

Mr. DELAHUNT. That is the only adjective that comes to mind.

Mr. DELAHUNT. About a third less; is that fair?

Mr. DELAHUNT. If I could ask a question because I just find this stunning. How many enforcement actions against employers were brought in the year 2000 by the Bush administration?

Mr. DELAHUNT. My math might not be good but that is less than 1 percent.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Less than 1 percent. And this is the crowd, this is the crowd that is talking about border enforcement. We have to enforce our borders. But the truth is that there is a lot of talk, a lot of rhetoric, a lot of hot air, and when it comes down to doing it, Democrats have stood tall and have been willing to put the resources into doing exactly that.

Mr. DELAHUNT. We are glad you made it.

Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman would yield for just a moment.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I think we have got to underscore that the former Speaker was the leader when he served here of the Republican Party.

Mr. DELAHUNT. I have reviewed that particular interview with General Scheid. He goes on to say: ``Just as we were getting into Afghanistan, Rumsfeld came and told us to get ready for Iraq.'' Scheid remembers thinking, My gosh, we're in the middle of Afghanistan. How can we possibly be doing two at one time? How could we pull this off? It's just going to be too much. The Secretary of Defense continued to push us that everything we write in our plan has to be with the idea that we're going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave. You know, to think that the President has not demanded from the Secretary of Defense his resignation I think is a statement of arrogance, a statement that the American people are being insulted. And I hear this frequently: If this were done in the private sector, how long would the head or a CEO of an agency the size of the Department of Defense be allowed to continue? I mean, we all know that answer. That is a rhetorical question.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And yet on Sunday, on Sunday we have the Vice President of the United States being interviewed by Tim Russert, and this is what he has to say. Talk about an incapacity to embrace reality and to be honest with the American people. Knowing all that he knows, in retrospect, he concludes that the war in Iraq was the right thing to do; and if we had to do it over again, we would do exactly the same. Russert poses the question: Exactly the same thing? ``Yes, sir.'' I mean, we're refereeing a civil war. Reports are coming out of the Pentagon that western Iraq, we are about to lose western Iraq. This is the intelligence that is provided by a highly respected Marine colonel, and yet this crowd, these men have the hubris to stand before the American people and say that they would do the same thing again despite what we have learned, despite reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee that unequivocally say that they were wrong when they talked about al Qaeda and links with Saddam Hussein. And even as recently as August 21, the President infers that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Zarqawi. And the Senate Intelligence Committee in a bipartisan way says that is not the case. Do they think that we are stupid? But the tragedy is that our colleagues on the other side in the Republican majority refuse to ask those questions, refuse to insist that they come before the congressional committees and answer to these charges made by military personnel, by colonels, by generals, by boots on the ground that have been there and fought there for their country. That is arrogance.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. But we left too early.

Mr. DELAHUNT. They are training.

Mr. DELAHUNT. And they are going back.

Mr. DELAHUNT. We won't find ourselves in the same position that Chairman Hyde and Congressman Kirk now discover with their letter of last week asking the President to change the strategy when it comes to Afghanistan. It is 5 years after 9/11, and they both said United States efforts in Afghanistan are failing. That is what the Republicans are saying 5 years after 9/11. Now we are going to have a visit once more from presumably the President of Afghanistan and we are going to hear the same words and the same rhetoric that we have heard, but we know what the reality is, and that is that the safe harbor and the genesis of where the attacks were planned and fomented and those individuals who attacked the United States train in Afghanistan, that our enemy there, the Taliban, are coming back. We won't let that happen because we will be asking the questions all along. If it requires one hearing every week on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and what is happening, we will do it. As Mr. Meek said, we will roll up our sleeves and get the job done because I think if anyone looks at this picture and reads the reports, the American people deserve some answers because the President of Iran and the Prime Minister of Iraq when asked at a joint press conference following their talks today about allegations that Iran was interfering in Iraq, the Prime Minister of Iraq said there is no obstacle in the way of implementing agreements between Iran and Iraq. And the President of Iran responded by saying we consider Iraq's progress, independence and territorial integrity as our own. He also said that Iran hoped the United States will leave Iraq soon. This is the President of Iran. He goes on to say that the triple strength and bilateral relationship Iran and Iraq as two brotherly neighbors will stand by each other and unwanted guests, and that's the U.S. Coalition, will leave the region, he said. The Prime Minister of Iraq described the talks as very constructive and called Iran a very important country, a good friend, and a brother. Can somebody tell me what is happening? Are we seeing the emergence of an alliance that presumably would be detrimental to the interest of the United States? What does the President say about this particular photo opportunity? Do you know, Mr. Meek or Ms. Wasserman Schultz? What is the position of the administration? Maybe the Prime Minister of Iraq can serve as our interlocutor with Iran on their uranium enrichment program because we are not talking to the Iranians. We don't talk to them and they don't talk to us because we sided with Saddam Hussein in that war that lasted from 1980 to 1988. Do you recognize this gentleman? That's Saddam Hussein? And you know who is shaking hands with him? That is Secretary Rumsfeld. That picture was taken in the early 1980s because Donald Rumsfeld, the current Secretary of Defense, he was the special envoy from the Reagan-Bush administration to Saddam Hussein.

Mr. DELAHUNT. But now we have a new picture. We have a picture of the President of Iran and the Prime Minister of Iraq. What have we done? Can anybody answer the question?

Mr. DELAHUNT. We know this, those questions will never get asked as long as the Republican Party is the majority party in Congress.

Mr. DELAHUNT

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think, tragically, and I mean this sincerely, tragically those of us who spoke out early against the invasion in Iraq, because we believed that there was not significant evidence which established that Iraq was a clear and present danger to the United States and our allies, we have been proven to be correct. Tim Bishop, our colleague from New York, used the term ``abandoned.'' Accusations have been made that some who have criticized the competence and the rationale of this administration regarding Iraq have ``abandoned'' the war on terror. That is patently false. That is untrue. There is no relationship between the war against terrorism and the war in Iraq. Now, let me put forth a hypothesis: this administration abandoned the war against terror in a very real way when we were distracted by the neoconservative vision of invading Iraq, because the consequence of the invasion of Iraq was in a large degree the diversion of those assets and initiatives that were necessary to secure Afghanistan, where al Qaeda had been harbored, where al Qaeda thrived, and where there was an opportunity to apprehend Osama bin Laden. But, no, we were more interested in Saddam Hussein, who was an archenemy of Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden considered Saddam Hussein an apostate, an infidel, an enemy of his version, his perverted version, of Islam. In fact, in 1994, it was Osama bin Laden who approached the Saudi royal family and suggested they combine forces and depose Saddam Hussein because he was an apostate; he was a defiler of Islam. So what do we have today? We have a situation in Afghanistan where the headlines now read: ``A Resurgence of the Taliban.'' That government that harbored and gave support to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, they are coming back. Another headline in the past 2 days, the British general who heads the NATO deployment in Afghanistan made this plea: ``I need more troops or we will lose Afghanistan.'' So who abandoned the war on terror? Who abandoned the war on terror? Do not confuse the war in Iraq and the war on terror. We all have an obligation to educate ourselves about the differences, the nuances, the realities on the ground. This is too important. This is about our future, and this is about the future of American generations far into the next decades. I know my colleague from Maryland who has joined us, Chris Van Hollen, has a specific interest in Afghanistan. What is happening today in Afghanistan is a disgraceful example of the incompetence and the legacy of this administration's policy by going into Iraq. And what have we achieved? We have achieved a resurgence of the Taliban and other terrorist elements in Afghanistan. By the way, what else we have achieved is we have created a new superpower in the region, Iran. Because while we are standing here discussing among ourselves this region in the world, let it be very clear to the American people that there is an emerging warm relationship between Iran and the new government in Iraq. Do your homework, and you will discover that there is a bilateral military cooperation agreement that exists today between Iraq and Iran.