Joseph Hoeffel

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, back to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), I just wanted to respond finally to the gentleman's suggestion that the prior administration, the Clinton administration, had not done enough after several acts of terror against this country. The act of terror on 9/11 did change the thinking of a lot of people. But if you will recall, in August of 1998, President Clinton did order cruise missile strikes in Sudan as a result of some of the acts of terror; and the Republican opponents in the Congress of the President at that time did not accuse him of doing too little; they accused him of doing too much. There was a great partisan uproar that President Clinton was trying to distract the public from his impeachment woes with the use of American military power.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wanted to thank our friend from Indiana for jumping into this discussion. We have been looking for some bipartisan debate back and forth; and the gentleman, if nothing else, has the courage of his convictions; and we welcome him here tonight. I wanted to respond to a couple things the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) said. I think he said that we were suggesting George Bush has been asleep at the switch in Iraq. That is not at all what we have been suggesting here. President Bush has been anything but asleep at the switch. He has been very aggressive regarding Iraq.

Mr. HOEFFEL. This is not a challenge. It is an invitation. In any event, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for talking about the whole question of whether or not the connection exists between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, a connection that the Vice President has repeatedly invoked. At one point the President himself tried to straighten out the Vice President and said, wait a minute, there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Yet the Vice President has continued to make this accusation, even in the face of the 9/11 Commission staff report that suggests that there was no working relationship, no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. There is no doubt that the inability of the coalition to secure Iraq is a tremendous impediment to everything that we are trying to achieve. I certainly share the goals of President Bush in establishing a peaceful and stable Iraq with a representative government, hopefully a flourishing democracy; but that fine goal and all the yardsticks leading up to it cannot be achieved without security. We are going to have no success with reconstruction, we will not have a legitimate turnover of sovereignty on June 30 without security. We cannot have elections without security. I wanted to do something I have not done before during Iraq Watch, which we started in, I think it was, April 2003. I wanted to read a few words that were spoken at a rally in Los Angeles on June 5 by a young man named Dante Zappala. Dante's brother, Sergeant Sherwood Baker, a member of the Pennsylvania National Guard, was killed in Iraq on April 26, 2004. I have met with Sherwood's parents, Celeste and Al Zappala. They gave me a copy of their other son's comments regarding Sherwood Baker's death. These are the words of Dante Zappala. I will have them entered into the Record. They are way too long to read tonight. I wanted to read the first paragraph and part of the last paragraph of these remarks. On June 5, Dante Zappala said of his brother Sherwood Baker: ``The tragedy that touches so many people in so many corners of the world, the tragedy of war, the tragedy of violence and sudden death, touched me on April 26 when my brother, Sergeant Sherwood Baker, was killed in an explosion in Baghdad. I speak today with my voice and with the voice of the countless others who have suffered personal loss as a result of this war, those many people with no microphone in front of them, those many people with no one to listen to their pain. As big brothers do, Sherwood protected me, he carried me, and he taught me.'' Dante went on to express his frustrations with our policy in Iraq and then he ended his statement with the following: ``We do not benefit from the deaths of our soldiers, nor do we benefit from the deaths of the Iraqi people. To honor Sherwood, I have vowed to follow his path, to lift my head and go to work. Our duty is to spread truth. Our duty is to combat the lies, the misrepresentations, the fear, the mongering and the people who mean to ruin our belief in this country. I have made a promise to my brother and that is to do as he would do, to not be angry about my circumstances, to not let bitterness overcome my heart, but to proceed with hope. ``Today and in the days ahead, do not let your anger carry you. Allow your desire to make change carry you. Allow the compassion towards humanity to carry you. Ride your commitment to peace. Share your soul with your country. Share your values with the world. Make it your job.'' Mr. Speaker, I find these words remarkable. A family devastated by the loss of a son and brother, and yet this brother, speaking in Los Angeles, calling upon the better sides of our nature, calling upon all of us to put anger and frustration aside and to talk about compassion toward humanity. The pain that so many American families have suffered as a result of this war is immense. The sacrifices that the armed services have made, the men and women, the loss of life has been tragic. I am sure it is true to say that they were proud to serve and in virtually all cases proud to honor their country, were there because they wanted to be there, and made a magnificent sacrifice to try to bring peace and stability to Iraq. What angers me, and I try to be inspired by Danta Zappala and not resort to anger, but what angers me, though, is the continuous reputations, he referenced them in his statement, the continued attempts to connect the Saddam Hussein regime with 9-11, a connection that is bogus, a connection that the gentleman just said was not made by the CIA, denied by the FBI, and yet the Vice President continues to want to use that nonexistent connection as a justification for taking us to war with half truths and with deceptions.

Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. This may be a breakthrough tonight. We have, through the 15 months that we have been handling the Iraq Watch duties on the floor, talked about how we would love to be joined by our Republican colleagues in a good- faith discussion about what is happening in Iraq, to discuss the pros and the cons and to question one another, talk to one another about what is working and what is not working. I do not want to put anybody on the spot, but I would be delighted to have a discussion right now. I am sure the gentleman from Massachusetts would yield and I would yield time to anybody who wanted to ask a question or challenge what we might have said.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Sgt. Sherwood Baker, a member of the Pennsylvania National Guard who was killed in Iraq on April 26, 2004. I would like to share with the American people the words of Dante Zappala, Sgt. Baker's younger brother, who spoke at a peace rally in Los Angeles on June 5: The tragedy that touches so many people in so many corners of the world; the tragedy of war, the tragedy of violent and sudden death, touched me on April 26th when my brother, Sergeant Sherwood Baker was killed in an explosion in Baghdad. I speak today with my voice, and with the voice of the countless others who have suffered personal loss as a result of this war, those many people with no microphone in front of them, those many people with no one to listen to their pain. As big brothers do, Sherwood protected me, he carried me and he taught me. With his heart and with his decisions, he taught me about commitment and about determination. When I would get bitter about the injustice brought to this world by the causes of the United States, he taught me that you can love this country and yet not love what people do in its name. He showed me that we can heal, we can learn and we can grow. He taught me, in the end, to be a patriot. With his silent exit into the desert night, he showed me the difference between empty language and quiet understanding, the difference between baseless political grandstanding and true patriotism. Sherwood had a great intellect and a life commitment to forge responsibility in an irresponsible world. He was a foster kid who knew he could have had a much different life. And it made him strong. As hardships inevitably found him. Sherwood never had the time or the desire to be angry about his circumstances. Not when he was a young father working three jobs, living in a housing project, trying to make a better life than he had known, and not when the call came to serve in Iraq. And when that call came, he took the most simple path--he went. He went with the hope of doing the impossible--make something positive happen in the grips of war. To no surprise, he lifted his head and went to work. Like most of us, he didn't like his boss but it became immaterial when it was time to do his job. He spent his life trying to be kind to people and he saw people in Iraq, and he thought that he could be kind to them. He left behind a son, a wife and a family that adored him for his beliefs. I feel pride, a pride knowing that my brother had honor even though the person who sent my brother marching to Iraq has no honor. George Bush is wholly un-American because he pimps the one value my brother held so true--devotion. He has sold out the core of America, the people who are this country--the truck drivers, field workers, the day laborers, the dishwashers, the waitresses, the teachers, the country workers, the mechanics, the janitors, the street pavers, the house painters and the housewives, and yes, the soldiers. All of us had hoped to live simple lives with our simple aspirations. George Bush has sold our futures to pay for his power lust, his greed, and his selfish world plans. He sold away my brother's future to pay for the privilege and favor of his friends. We, the people of this country, all of us, are not his friends. We are not in his circle of favor. We do not benefit from the deaths of our soldiers nor do we benefit from the deaths of the Iraqi people. To honor Sherwood, I have vowed to follow his path--to lift my head and go to work. Our duty is to spread truth, our duty is to combat the lies, the misrepresentations, the fear, the mongering and the people who mean to ruin our belief in this country. I have made a promise to my brother, and that is to do as he would do--to not be angry about my circumstances, to not let bitterness overcome my heart, but to proceed with hope. Today, and in the days ahead, do not let your anger carry you, allow your desire to make change carry you. Allow the compassion towards humanity to carry you. Ride your commitment to peace. Share your soul with your country, share your values with the world. Make it your job.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Chief Paul Kittredge who is celebrating his retirement from the Borough of Rockledge Police Department, in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. A police officer for 30 years, Chief Kittredge has dedicated his life to serving his community. He started his career in the Montgomery County Sheriff's Office. He later worked at the Police Departments in both the Jenkintown and Rockledge Boroughs and was named Police Chief nine years ago. Chief Kittredge went above and beyond the call of duty, serving faithfully and always striving to better the community, leading the efforts to expand and modernize the Rockledge police force. Over the years Chief Kittredge has proven himself to be a dedicated leader, protector, and manager for the borough community. Dedicated to his family as well as the community, Kittredge and his wife of 35 years are the proud parents of three children and the grandparents of two. It is my pleasure to recognize Chief Kittredge for his many years of service to our community. I congratulate him on his retirement and wish him all the best in the future.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Anthony F. Heisler of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on his commissioning as a Second Lieutenant in the United States Army. Lt. Heisler is a recent graduate of the George Washington University where he received a dual Bachelor of the Arts in German Languages and Literature and in History. A resident of Northeast Philadelphia, Lt. Heisler had always aspired to join the Army, and it is his work in college as a cadet in the Army Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) of Georgetown University of which he is most proud. In his capacity as a cadet, Lt. Heisler was responsible for the oversight of over 80 Army cadets. For his service, Lt. Heisler has won numerous awards, including the Lieutenant Harry W. Apraker, Jr. award, which is given to the cadet who contributes the most to the mission accomplishment of the Georgetown University ROTC program. Upon his commissioning, Lt. Heisler has been assigned to the Field Artillery branch of the Army. I am eternally grateful to Lt. Heisler for his service to the United States, and I wish him continued success as he begins his career in the United States Army.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) aware of how Mr. Chalabi allegedly got the information that he allegedly shared with the Iranians?

Mr. HOEFFEL. It is my understanding that the fact that the Iranians have an intelligence code in order for them to communicate secretly amongst themselves, that that code was broken by America, and we were able to know exactly what the Iranians were doing in Iraq with their agents in Iraq, and that that is the information that Mr. Chalabi allegedly gave to Iran, which is your code has been broken. The question is, how did Chalabi know? Well, he is under investigation and members of the Bush administration are being investigated because somebody had to tell Chalabi that the Americans have broken the Iranian code.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Do not forget that the President sat Mr. Chalabi right behind Mrs. Bush in this year's State of the Union address, right up there in that balcony 4\1/2\ months ago. There he sat in all his double-chinned glory, Ahmad Chalabi, directly behind the First Lady of the United States in the seat of honor 4\1/2\ months ago.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I admire the fervor that my colleague from Washington has for pointing out the truth about the failings of Chalabi; but the point he just made is a lot more important, frankly, than the fun we are having piling on a guy like Chalabi, who is clearly a fraud, clearly a spinmeister, the kind of guy that my grandfather would have called a floor flusher. To meet Chalabi, as I did once, is to understand that the guy is just full of hot air. But the question that my colleague poses to us tonight and to the Congress is, why did other people in the administrations not figure this out? And why are those who made mistakes not being held accountable for those mistakes? Because it would be a great injustice if we were to allow anybody watching tonight to get the impression that the problems of our policies in Iraq were solely the fault of Chalabi giving us bad information. He did give us bad information; and I believe, as Colin Powell believes, that it was willfully done, and he ripped us off for $40 million. And the passion of the gentleman from Washington on the subject is admirable, but the fact of the matter is, why did so many people in the administration believe what Chalabi had to say? It seems to me that he was telling them what they wanted to hear, and they did not listen to his information and apply a critical eye to it. I know that the CIA has been skeptical of Chalabi for years. I know the State Department has been skeptical of Chalabi for years. But the civilian leadership of the Pentagon, Mr. Rumsfeld, Mr. Wolfowitz, Mr. Feith, along with the support of the Vice President, Mr. Cheney, bought Chalabi's lies hook, line, and sinker. It is because he was telling them, in my judgment, what they wanted to hear. They honestly believed that we would be treated as liberators and not occupiers, and they made one policy mistake after another that has led us to where we are today after a year.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Oh, it absolutely does.

Mr. HOEFFEL. But, Mr. Speaker, I must tell my colleague that not everybody was being conned. The CIA saw through Chalabi, the State Department saw through Chalabi, and yet the civilian leadership of the Pentagon did not.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, it is not just that mistakes were made by American policymakers, and it is not just that Chalabi gave us bad information. The other part of the equation is that the ideologues in the civilian leadership, in the Pentagon and in the White House simplified, distorted, took information and twisted it in such a way as to persuade the Congress and the American people that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that we needed to invade to keep that part of the world and this country safe from attack. Let us not forget the fact that the intelligence information being given to the White House in the fall of 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency report of September, 2002, the National Intelligence Estimate of October, 2002, was not available to the three of us at that time when we had to vote but was made available to us 6 or 7 months later. Those intelligence reports given to the White House were replete with uncertainty and caveats about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Now, they were wrong apparently to even think they might have been there, although we do know Saddam Hussein had them in the 1980s. They were wrong to conclude that he probably had them, but the reports were saying we think he has these weapons of mass destruction. He probably has them. We have been told he has them. None of that uncertainty was passed on to the Congress in public statements or private briefings that we all attended, or to the American people in the fall of 2002 when we were asked to vote on the war authority. We were told with complete certainty that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and we had to go get them. In fact, the one member of the administration who had the most credibility in my opinion, Colin Powell, repeated this didactic approach, these statements with complete certainty, 4 or 5 months later in February or March of 2003 when he spoke to the U.N. He identified where the weapons were. He showed us pictures. He told us how much they weighed. He has 500 pounds over here; he has such and such over there. They talked about those two mobile chemical labs on flatbed trucks. Colin Powell assured the United Nations and all of the world that these things existed. They did not. The intelligence they were basing these statements on was full of uncertainties. They deceived us. They led us to war with deceptions, and we have to hold them accountable for that. It is not just the mistakes. It is not just Chalabi's lies. It is the fact that some in the Bush administration were willing to twist that information, and this goes to the President himself, to get us to go to war.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I agree with the gentleman that we have probably heard too many slogans and that slogans do not really help resolve complicated problems. But I would say to the gentleman that we need to get more troops in Iraq, preferably international troops, so we can get security. That is essential. Then we can get elections and get an Iraqi government freely elected in charge so America can get out.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, let me just add to the gentleman's wise comments. We are at risk of losing in Iraq if we do not get security in that country. We all share the President's goals of creating a stable and peaceful Iraq with a representative self-government, hopefully a flourishing democracy. We all share that goal. But we cannot achieve that goal or any of the benchmarks without security. We cannot reconstruct that country without security, we cannot have a meaningful transfer of sovereignty on June 30 or any other day without security, and we certainly cannot have elections there without security. So we have not accomplished the fundamental task of this occupation. The President keeps saying, well, we are going to turn things over June 30 and get out. Well, the military occupation is not ending, and it cannot end because the country is not secure, and it is not able to secure itself.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the Corporal William A. Sydnor Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #3398, located in Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, on its 55 years of community involvement and dedication. Since its beginning in 1939, Post #3398 has represented the efforts of an entire community. The building itself has changed several times, but the underlying spirit has never wavered. Post #3398 has a long history of helping the community. The Post's involvement includes sponsoring several annual community events such as the Children's Halloween Party, the Senior Citizens Dinner, the Easter Egg Hunt, and Memorial Day Services. In addition, each year Post #3398 presents the William C. Purcell Scholarship to students planning to attend college. The Post now has four registered service officers to take care of the needs of veterans, widows, and the families of veterans. Today the Corporal William A. Sydnor Veterans of Foreign Wars Post #3398 has grown from 36 Charter Members to over 250 members, and approximately 75 Ladies Auxiliary members. I wish the members of Post #3398 continued success and commend them for 55 years of service.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for bringing the Seymour Hersh article to the attention of the House today. I read that this afternoon, and I agree with my colleague, the impact of that article clearly is this was a planned special operation that did not originate with the privates and the sergeants but at the highest levels of the Bush administration. But the question I wanted to ask my colleague, what I got out of the article was that not only was this a very clear attempt, if the article is accurate, by the Bush administration to set up an intelligence- gathering mechanism and operation that would be free and clear of any congressional oversight, but that they were taking these procedures and methods from Afghanistan, where we were clearly fighting terrorists and had terrorists in custody, and were interrogating terrorists and where we had announced, rightly or wrongly, that the Geneva Conventions would not apply. Then we were taking these methods and procedures to a more traditional war zone in Iraq and applying them to the detainees in the Iraqi prisons, notably Abu Ghraib, where the detainees were a bunch of people off the street, street criminals, rock throwers, hoodlums, maybe some terrorists, but certainly a wide number of just disaffected Iraqis who got swept up by the police and by the Army in an urban setting that was a traditional war zone. Yet, here the American operation was using these same interrogation approaches that we have been using against known terrorists in a lawless situation in Afghanistan. This seems to me to be the root of the problem. First off, there is clear accountability to the very top of the Defense Department and the White House, and every time those gentlemen talk about just a few bad apples, it sets my hackles on edge because clearly they are trying to avoid accountability and responsibility. The fundamental error they made was, in my judgment, taking this from a terror interrogation into interrogation of street criminals and routine suspects that have so badly backfired on our image in Iraq. So I wonder, does the gentleman read the article the same way as I do?

Mr. HOEFFEL. Very aptly known as SAP, S-A-P.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Well, I was just going to say that we have as much of a clue as the American officials in Iraq have, which is no clue at all. I do not think anybody has any idea what is going to happen on June 30.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Sure.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, just over a year ago at one of our first Iraq Watches, I recounted a visit that Mr. Chalabi paid to my office, as I think he did to most members of the Committee on International Relations in October 2002, just before the vote here in the House on the war authority on Iraq. I talked to Mr. Chalabi for 10 or 15 minutes. He had an aide with him, and my chief of staff was with me. They left, and I turned to my aide and I said, That is the kind of man that my grandfather would have called a four-flusher. I do not think I have used that term since my grandfather died in the 1980s. I am not quite sure what it means. I think it must come from poker where a player has four cards for a flush, does not have the fifth, and you are all hot air and cannot be trusted and you are just a spin doctor. That is exactly the impression that I got from Ahmed Chalabi that day, that he was spinning. He was spinning me, he was spinning the Congress, he was not a man of substance and not someone we should trust. The sad fact is, as my colleagues have said here tonight, the administration trusted him. Paul Wolfowitz trusted him, Doug Faith, Donald Rumsfeld trusted him, and because those individuals trusted him, our President trusted him; and he is not worthy of our trust. As a matter of fact, I think we need to talk about all of this talk about resignations in the Department of Defense. I do not think we should allow those civilian authorities in the DOD the luxury of resigning. The President ought to fire them. He ought to fire Rumsfeld and Faith for the bad advice they have given him, for believing in people like Chalabi, for the lack of planning in Iraq, for sending troops over there without enough numbers, without the armored vehicles to keep them safe. The failures of leadership in the Department of Defense are so great, including believing Chalabi, that the civilian leadership ought to go. While the President is at it, he ought to get rid of George Tenet for the bad intelligence regarding the failure of the weapons of mass destruction intelligence. The only person that ought to resign in the administration is Colin Powell, because his advice is not being listened to, but that is another matter.

Mr. HOEFFEL. I remember. It was Mr. Chalabi.