Replies

WAR RECORDS -- (Senate - April 28, 2004)

[Page: S4451] GPO's PDF
---
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada. Nothing could be more poignant, as we view what has taken place in Iraq, than the bravado that led us into the battle and the boastful statements that were made, such as ``mission accomplished.'' What the mission accomplished was, was to get a picture that could be used in an election campaign. That was the mission that was accomplished.

People thought the President was talking about something else, and he did say the worst is behind us. It is a terrible memory for us to conjure up while people are dying in quantities hardly ever dreamed about, far more casualties in this war where we have 130,000 people in Iraq than when we had 540,000 people in the first gulf war because there were enough of them to protect one another; there were enough of them to get the job done quickly and effectively.

We have some memories, and I couldn't agree more with the Democratic whip, my friend from Nevada, about mistakes made and remembering ``bring them on,'' which I found so offensive.

This week is the anniversary of the photo on the bridge of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. Photo on the bridge--that is the memory that is going to be conveyed out there. This is the photo on the bridge. Here is the aircraft carrier looking very splendid in a display of power, but the timing was so far off and the statements were so empty: ``Mission accomplished.''

Ask the 600 families who have lost children; ask those 22 families of sons and daughters in the State of New Jersey whether they think the mission was accomplished May 1 a year ago. I don't think they would agree.

Yesterday, I had an opportunity to visit the World War II memorial that is going to be open to the public very shortly. I am a veteran of World War II, as are several other Members of the Senate. I came from a working-class family. My 42-year-old father was on his deathbed from cancer when I enlisted. My mother became a 36-year-old widow. I was 18 already. I did not enlist to be a hero. I simply wanted to do whatever I could to help my country. So when I looked at the memorial yesterday, it brought back some very significant memories.

I remember being in uniform. I remember climbing telephone poles and putting up wire. Once again, I did what I was supposed to do because I was in the Signal Corps and responsible in part for getting communications between those who are commanders and those who are in the field.

I had a fairly narrow perspective, but one thing I did respect was those who received medals, those who had a Purple Heart. They were my heroes, and we used to defer to them. Anyone who got a Bronze Star or a Silver Star was thought to be someone special. That was to those of us in uniform who were trying to bring America victory. That is what happened.

When you visit the Vietnam Memorial here in Washington, it pulls at your heartstrings to see 58,235 names on the wall and you are reminded of the gravity and the impact that conflict had on our Nation. But now we are in a different place. I do not believe, I must say, we should judge our politicians based on who served and who did not serve. But when those who did not serve attack the heroism of those who did, I find it particularly offensive, and I hope people across America will put aside that criticism of Senator JOHN KERRY who received three Purple Hearts and a Silver Star, which is a very high commendation for bravery. I find it offensive, and I hope every American and I hope every veteran will say: No, no, you can't talk like that,

[Page: S4452] GPO's PDF
pretending this man is soft on defense. He put his neck on the line, almost lost it, and saved someone else's neck in a very heroic deed.
That is what we are talking about: heroism. Max

Cleland lost three limbs in Vietnam, and they shamed him so that he was pushed out of office because he was portrayed as weak on defense. Where do they come off with that kind of stuff? I will never know, but I hope the American public understands what is being done.

We now have discovered a return of the chicken hawk. We thought they flew the coop, but in the last week or two, they have returned aplenty. If anyone is curious about what a chicken hawk is, I have a definition right here on this placard. We see the chicken in a uniform with medals. The definition obtained from the Internet goes as follows:

Chickenhawk, n.: A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else does the fighting, particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person's youth--

I am extending it--to serve their country, unless you had a good excuse, unless you had other priorities.

Chicken hawks shriek like a hawk, but they have the backbone of a chicken. We know who the chicken hawks are. They talk tough on national defense and military issues and cast aspersion on others. When it was their turn to serve, where were they? A-W-O-L, that's where they were.

Now the chicken hawks are cackling about Senator JOHN KERRY. The lead chicken hawk against Senator Kerry is the Vice President of the United States, Vice President Cheney. He was in Missouri this week claiming Senator Kerry is not up to the job of protecting this Nation. What nerve. Where was DICK CHENEY when that war was going on where 58,235 young men died and many more wounded and many with wounds that were never visible, but you could see it in their emotional structure and in their psychology? It was a war everyone thinks in retrospect was misguided. But JOHN KERRY volunteered for hazardous duty on a swift boat going up a river with people shooting at him all over the place. Cowardly? What an insult. I plead with veterans across this country. Look at what they are saying about your service. Exemplified: Max Cleland lost three limbs. What a sacrifice he made, and they beat him in the election, beat him in the polls because they characterized him as soft on defense. Now they want to take JOHN KERRY who served nobly and establish that he, too, is soft on defense. I don't know where they get it.

He fought for our country. He still has shrapnel from the battlefield. Vice President Cheney said: At the time he had other priorities in the sixties than military service. He ought to tell that to the parents of those who lost their lives in Vietnam, and ask them what they think.

I heard someone--I think it was Karen Hughes--on the television the other night. Why are they talking about a 35-year-old war? A 35-year-old war? Ask those who served in Vietnam whether they ever think it is a 35-year-old war.

Come on, America, face up to what we are doing here. This is the ultimate disgrace: Risk your life and then be abused by those in the highest office in the country? The chicken hawk has no idea what it means to have the courage to put your life at risk to defend this Nation.

They are quick to disparage those who did sacrifice. I do not understand how their conscience permits them to challenge Senator Kerry's commitment to our Nation's defense.

The reality is the chicken hawks in this administration are doing a lousy job of bolstering our Nation's defense and supporting the troops. Case in point: Mission accomplished.

I want to discuss this 1-year anniversary because I think it summarizes this flawed thinking and policy planning of the administration regarding its activities in Iraq after the initial invasion. We are all familiar with the imagery of May 1, 2003. My colleagues can see it on this placard. President Bush is dressed up in a flight suit--well, here he is wearing civilian clothes--playing soldier that day. The theatrics that followed were a production carefully choreographed by the White House political unit. It was nothing more than a staged circus act.

When the President switched to substance, it was almost more disturbing. He declared that ``major combat operations are over.''

He was, unfortunately, wrong. He was certainly wrong over 600 times because people died in that relatively peaceful postwar period of time.

Since the President declared mission accomplished on May 1, 2003, we have lost 585 American troops in Iraq. Before that day we had lost 139. That is a total of 724. In the first gulf war, with over 500,000 troops abroad, we lost a total of 293 troops.

When the President made his speech on the May 1 mission, it was not accomplished. Major combat operations were not over. It was a naive miscalculation. The troops on the ground in Iraq knew trouble was brewing, even though they heard that declaration that the mission was accomplished. They knew trouble was brewing as insurgents were launching more and more attacks.

When these attacks on our troops became more frequent, what did the President say last July? I could not believe what I was hearing. He said, ``Bring 'em on,'' in this gesture of bravado, in this gesture of toughness, bring them on. But he was not brought on. He was brought on to the deck of the aircraft carrier but he was not brought on to the battlefield in Vietnam when there was a chance to do something.

I do not think our soldiers are so happy about the President's dangerous comment.

I served in Europe in World War II. The last thing I wanted to hear from my Commander in Chief, or my local commander, is to dare the enemy to launch attacks on us.

The President and his allies are charging Senator Kerry with being a flip-flopper, but is it not a more dangerous flip-flop to tell our enemies to bring it on and invite attacks? Is it not a flip-flop when one says they support the troops and then--I heard it directly on our recent trip to Iraq when a captain in one of the reserve units--no, he was full service--when I asked if there were any complaints, he said, Senator, those flak jackets, the new ones, I have seen them on Spanish coalition members and I have seen them on other coalition members. We do not have them, Senator.

He then pointed to his rifle. He said, You know, there are smaller, more efficient, and better sidings and better

sights on smaller, lighter weapons. We do not have those. We need more armored Humvee vehicles.

When I was in Iraq in March, soldiers complained to me they are not receiving the best equipment they could have.

What about the President's flip-flop to military families? He is arbitrarily extending tours of duties despite promises to families that loved ones would be returning home.

No, when it comes to supporting the troops the President is a flip-flopper. He says one thing, does another. Supporting the troops means careful planning of military operations, both pre-and postinvasion.

We know the administration did not want to hear any dissent about the unrealistic assessment of what the Iraqi operation would require. When General Shinseki, a distinguished military leader, said we need more troops, that over 300,000 troops would be required, he got fired. Instead, we have 130,000 troops in Iraq. That is what is favored by Secretary Rumsfeld.

Our excellent troops are fighting a treacherous insurgency launched by both Sunni and Shi'a elements. Combat operations are not over. They are raging. It is obvious the administration miscalculated and misunderstood what would happen after we deposed Saddam. In fact, the administration's beliefs bordered on the delusional. Experts warned them at the time, but they refused to listen.

According to Bob Woodward's account, Secretary Powell was all but excluded from the war planning among the key Cabinet officers. Colin Powell is the only one who ever saw combat in that group and they excluded him.

George McGovern, a friend, a decorated veteran, said this war was clearly planned by people who have never seen a battlefield. Look at what Vice President Cheney said on March 16, 2003:

We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. ..... I think it will go relatively quickly ..... (in) weeks rather than months.

[Page: S4453] GPO's PDF
February 23, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld said the war ``could last 6 days, 6 weeks. I doubt 6 months.'' Now it is over a year later and the war is still going on. A total of 724 American troops have been killed, 585 of them after President Bush declared major combat operations had ended.

We are in a quagmire that is the result of miscalculations and poor planning by the administration, but for the sake of our troops it is time for the chicken hawks in this administration to end the arrogance and the bravado that has put us in the mess we are in right now.

If we want someone effectively to defend our Nation and support our troops, I say let us look to someone who understands what it really means to answer the call and defend your country.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. For the information of Members, there are still 4 minutes 30 seconds remaining. Does the Senator wish to yield back the time?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield back all the time, yes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I came to the floor to urge consideration of the Internet Tax Moratorium Act, the proposal, debate, and voting on germane amendments. As I came to the floor, I heard this attack on the President of the United States and the administration. It was pretty rough stuff, calling people chicken hawks and talking about service to the country or lack thereof.

I am sure the statements just made by the Senator from New Jersey reflect the intense partisanship and recent discussions and charges and countercharges on talk shows and cable television and radio all over America. I think it might be an interesting and maybe sometimes entertaining exercise--the little drawing of the chicken hawk was kind of clever. I have to hand it to whoever the artist is.

But isn't it a fact that we are now engaged in a war? Isn't it a fact right now that, as we speak, our marines are attacking Falluja and I am sure incurring casualties, these brave young Americans?

I don't know if they get C-SPAN over in Iraq, but here they are with their lives literally on the line, trying to bring freedom or ensure the freedom of the Iraqi people. They get television--if not C-SPAN, I know they get Armed Forces Television in many of the bases in Iraq--what do they see? They see us attacking each other about service or nonservice in a conflict that ended more than 30 years ago.

All of us who stand here--I haven't known of an elected or nonelected politician who hasn't said: We are all behind the troops; we are behind the men and women in the military; we support them 100 percent no matter what. What are they supposed to think? Are we really supporting them and are we interested in bringing about a successful conclusion to the Iraqi conflict?

Senator Kerry, the Democrat nominee, says we have to stay the course. He may have different views as to exactly how to do that than the President and the administration, but we are in agreement. Meanwhile, what are we doing on the floor of the Senate? We are attacking the President's credentials because of his service or lack of service in a war that ended 30 years ago, more than 30 years ago.

I think that is wrong. I wish we would stop it. I wish we would just stop, at least until the fighting in Iraq is over.

Second, maybe we could devote some of our time and effort and energy in coming up with a bipartisan approach to this conflict. Yes, there are enormous difficulties. No, things haven't worked out as well as they should have. Yes, I, myself, would have had different approaches to the challenge in Iraq. But we are there. We are in a very crucial moment. Why don't we all join together and sit down and work out, with the administration, both sides of the aisle, a common approach so we send a single message? Not that we are refighting the Vietnam war, but that we are committed to seeing this thing through in Iraq because we cannot afford to fail. We cannot afford to fail.

There will be plenty of time after this conflict is over. We may even have a commission. We have commissions for everything else; why not have a commission after we have democracy in Iraq to find out where we failed in Iraq? That would be fine with me. I wouldn't particularly want to serve on it, but let's have a commission.

But in the meantime, don't you think our focus and attention is misplaced? We are talking about chicken hawks. When the President of the United States is the one whose most solemn responsibility is to be Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, and to prosecute a conflict that was authorized by an overwhelming vote in this body, and we are calling him a chicken hawk--please. Is that the appropriate time and place for this kind of activity?

I do know some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't like this. I know my friend Senator Lieberman proposed that we all join together to try to come up with a common approach. I don't know if that is possible in this day and age, but it is certainly something worth consideration. But at least, could we declare that the Vietnam war is over and have a cease-fire and agree that both candidates, the President of the United States and Senator Kerry, served honorably--end of story. Now let's focus our attention on the conflict that is taking place in Iraq, that is taking American lives as I speak on this floor.

I don't want to belabor the subject, but I do want to expand on it a little bit. It is a symptom of the extreme partisanship that exists in this body today on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, could I ask the Senator to yield for a brief comment?

Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield to my friend from Nevada.

Mr. REID. I had to step off the floor for a phone call, and I apologize. But what I wanted to say to the Senator from Arizona, the Senator from Arizona, in my opinion, is exemplary in his statements on the floor and off the floor about what has been going on between the two people who are going to be running for President in November.

I believe the Senator from Arizona has defended the Democratic nominee, his war record.

Mr. McCAIN. And the President of the United States.

Mr. REID. That is right. I was going to say, and the President of the United States. We would be better off if everyone in this very delicate Presidential election would follow the lead of the Senator from Arizona. We do not need, in my opinion, to get into what went on in Vietnam.

We are proud of what Senator Kerry has done, and whatever President Bush has done, he is Commander in Chief now. It would be better off for everybody, I repeat, for the second time, if we followed the lead of the Senator from Arizona and not question what went on during those war years.

I would say, though, to my friend from Arizona, I feel as if I am in high school now--``They started it,'' that kind of thing. I think we need to get back to the real issues; that is, how we are going to finish the situation in

[Page: S4454] GPO's PDF
Iraq, what we are going to do about the economy, health care, the environment, and all those other issues.
The third time: We would all be better off if we followed the example of the Senator from Arizona. That is basically what I want to say. I apologize.

This is a he-said, she-said, they-said. My friend from New Jersey is a war veteran himself. He has a right to speak, as we all know. But I am sure he would not have spoken had this not started some other place. But I appreciate very much the Senator from Arizona yielding.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada who is a good and dear friend of many years, who I also know decries this.

Let me repeat one more time that I believe that honorable service was performed by the President of the United States in the National Guard. Almost 40 percent of the forces that are in Iraq today are guardsmen and reservists. They are superb young men and women.

Obviously, I know the Senator from Nevada shares my view that service in the National Guard is honorable service, as is service on Active Duty, as that performed by Senator Kerry, in my view. But it is time to declare a truce.

I would also say to my friend from Nevada, there is nothing we can do about what talk show hosts do, or outside commentators. That is freedom of speech.

I am sorry so much focus is on that, and I don't pretend to say I could do anything about that. But I hope Members of this body could declare a truce on this issue, if I may use that word, and then we could move forward in addressing the compelling issues of the day.

I will be glad to hear the response of the Senator or, if he doesn't mind--I yield to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, that would be easy to do. I think we can get people on this side to stop the discussion. If the administration wouldn't be doing what they are doing with ads and things of that nature, we would all be better off.

I repeat that I am not questioning someone's military record. As the Senator knows, this is an ongoing issue. I can't do anything about talk show people, but we can do something about the two Presidential candidates--one sitting President and one sitting Senator--and have them and their organizations not discuss this. I think it doesn't accomplish anything. Someone might say: They started it; we are going to try to finish it. We should wash our hands of that and try to start anew and not be talking about the service of either one.