SENATE COVERAGE -- (September / October '04)

IRAQ -- (Senate - September 22, 2004)

[Page: S9474]  GPO's PDF

---

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to help frame the issue in Iraq. The American people deserve straight forward answers on issues of war and national security; especially when their lives are directly threatened and our military forces are engaged around the world in the war on terrorism. And it is not just our military forces that are at risk; our diplomats, intelligence professionals, and ordinary civilians working in war zones all face enormous danger from a very treacherous and barbaric enemy.

The recent, brutally grotesque beheadings of innocent Americans Eugene Armstrong on Monday and Jack Hensley yesterday are just two of many examples of the kind of evil that we face and why it must be eradicated.

Ambiguity is something we probably should expect in a heated political campaign, but anything less than total candor on national security issues is not acceptable.

The junior senator form Massachusetts has accused President Bush of ``colossal failures of judgment'' on his plan for Iraq. He then went on to lay out his own four-point plan for handling the conflict in Iraq. His four points were, No. 1, to get more help from other nations; No. 2, provide better training for Iraqi security forces; No. 3, provide benefits to the Iraqi people; and No. 4, ensure democratic elections can be held next year as promised.

I have no problem with this plan, because it is the short term and long term plan now in place by the Bush administration. Our President has consistently and assiduously worked with our allies to get more help in Iraq.

Sure, we would like to get more countries on board with us, but this is tough business and it takes bold, visionary leadership--like we see in Great Britain, Italy, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Australia, and dozens of our closest allies. To imply, as some of my colleagues have, that the United States is not getting help from our international friends is simply untrue. As terrorism spreads to other countries, as it did recently in Russia, we should expect--and provide--even more help.

And let me point out the obvious about some allies, like France, who have not been supportive of our policies in Iraq. Their foreign policy decisions are based on internal political considerations and not on the personality of the President of the United States. For some of my colleagues to imply that some countries will change their policies toward Iraq if we change our President is ludicrous and misleading. The French will change their foreign policy when they change their President, not when we change ours. I have a great deal of trust and confidence in the common sense of the American people and I am sure they will understand exactly what I am saying.

The junior Senator from Massachusetts has also called for better training for Iraqi security forces. I am glad that he also agrees with President Bush on this point. Training Iraqi security forces is a high priority of this administration.

Let us look at the facts. The Iraqi Army has more than 62,000 members. Of these, almost 46,000 have been trained and another 16,000 are currently in training. All 27 battalions of the Iraqi Army will be operational by January 2005.

Speaking at New York University recently, the Democratic Presidential candidate said, ``Of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one, not one, has completed a 24-week field training program.'' Just yesterday, however, The Washington Post reported that the head of strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lt. Gen. Walter Sharp, said that Kerry's accusation was just not accurate. According to Gen. Sharp, who is in a position to know, basic training for new Iraqi police officers is eight weeks, followed by 26 weeks of ``on-the-job'' field training. The Post article went on to say that Gen. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, estimates that Iraqi security forces will be in `local control' of the majority of Iraq by the end of December, which is just 3 months away. Gen. Casey defined `local control' as a combination of having Iraqi security forces in place, plus an assessment of the ability of local political leaders to govern

[Page: S9475]  GPO's PDF

and to manage economic reconstruction efforts.

Others have criticized the President for not getting NATO involved in Iraq. Too bad they didn't read yesterday's London Financial Times. If they had, they would have read that, ``NATO is close to a deal to establish a military training academy in Iraq. The academy, which would have a staff of about 300, is intended to give substance to a decision by a NATO summit in June to provide training to the war-torn country as it seeks to build up its institutions.'' I hasten to add, that this NATO initiative was put forward by our President. So getting NATO involved is another area where the Democratic Presidential candidate agrees with the administration's policy in Iraq. Let me also add that 15 of 26 NATO member states are sharing the military burden on the ground with us in Iraq.

Charles Colton's famous quotation, ``Imitation is the sincerest of flattery,'' certainly applies to my colleague, Mr. Kerry. His four-point plan is not new and it certainly is not original. A careful review of President Bush's policies in Iraq clearly shows that the administration has been implementing all the points addressed by Senator Kerry well before he even articulated them.

We need to judge the President's policy in Iraq, not by the rhetoric of his detractors, but by those who know the facts. Tomorrow, the Congress will welcome, in Joint-Session, the interim Prime Minister of Iraq, Dr. Allawi. Let us hear from him how things are going in Iraq. Let us listen to him to find out what the Iraqi people think of our policies and programs for restoring security and getting the Iraqi economy going.

Let me close by quoting from President Bush's speech, which he gave at the UN yesterday. I believe it clearly shows why we are in Iraq, something that others do not seem to grasp. The President said:

Our security is not merely found in spheres of influence, or some balance of power. The security of our world is found in the advancing rights of mankind. These rights are advancing across the world--and across the world, the enemies of human rights are responding with violence. Terrorists and their allies believe the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Bill of Rights, and every charter of liberty ever written, are lies, to be burned and destroyed and forgotten.

He went on to say:

We are determined to destroy terror networks wherever they operate, and the United States is grateful to every nation that is helping to seize terrorist assets, track down their operatives, and disrupt their plans.

The Acting Secretary of the Army, Les Brownlee, has eloquently framed why Iraq is important in the war on terrorism when he said:

This is not simply a fight against terror--terror is a tactic. This is not simply a fight against al Qaeda, its affiliates and adherents--they are foot soldiers. This is not simply a fight to bring democracy to the Middle East--that is a strategic objective. This is a fight for the very ideas at the foundation of our society, the way of life those ideas enable, and the freedoms we enjoy.

Thank you Mr. President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, it is said that politics is the art of the possible. And while certain things are simply not possible, it is our duty to try all the same.

So today, I will try to explain the unexplainable. The distinguished junior Senator from Massachusetts has made so many statements on this country's involvement in Iraq that he has taken every conceivable position possible, and many that are simply not possible. The result is a record of ``dizzying contradictions,'' as Charles Krauthammer recently wrote, so confusing that the more he speaks, the less we understand.

Mr. President, John Kerry has spoken on so many aspects of the liberation of Iraq. He has been on both sides of just about every coin in this entire debate. I want to address just four different positions he has taken.

What is more disturbing is that he has taken these four positions on the most basic question of the liberation of that country. The question is not nearly as difficult as the multiple answers we continue to get.

The question is: Would you have used force to remove Saddam Hussein?

Back in 2002, the answer was clear enough. Citing Saddam Hussein's use of weapons of mass destruction, his terrorist-like actions, and the fact that he was part of a global scourge of terrorism, Senator Kerry said he completely agreed with the President to effect regime change in Iraq, unilaterally if necessary. So he voted for the Iraq war resolution in October of 2002. Support in October of 2002.

Nine months later, Senator Kerry started to use another answer. He now claimed that the war resolution he supported in October 2002 did not empower the President to engage in regime change.

By January of 2004, around the time of the Iowa caucuses, Senator Kerry had a new position. He was now the ``antiwar candidate.'' In January of 2004, he was now the antiwar candidate, campaigning in the Iowa caucuses, having been, in October 2002, entirely supportive of the war.

He then went on to lock up the Democratic nomination for President. So we are into the general election season, Mr. President. When challenged by the President to answer whether he would have gone into Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein based on what we now know, KERRY stood on the edge of the Grand Canyon--a dramatic pose facing the Grand Canyon--and said on August 11:

Yes, I would have voted for that authority.

In August of 2004, in the general election, he seems to be back where he was in October of 2002. He has gone from support to oppose and back to support.

But that was last month. A week ago, on the ``Imus in the Morning'' show, Senator Kerry was asked:

Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq?

That is a pretty simple question. Here was Senator Kerry's response:

Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see.

This was last week. A month ago, he was in support of the war, but last week he was back in opposition to the war. He says:

I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The President distorted that, and I've said that. I mean, look, I can't be clearer. But I think it was the right vote based on what Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right thing to do to hold him accountable. I've said a hundred times, there was a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. The President chose the wrong way. Can't be more direct than that.

Let's try this one more time. Senator Kerry, on the ``Imus'' show last week, said, in answer to the question:

Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq?

He said:

Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see. I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The President distorted that, and I've said that. I mean, look, I can't be clearer. But I think it was the right vote based on what Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right thing to do to hold him accountable. I've said a hundred times, there was a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. The President chose the wrong way. Can't be more direct than that.

When KERRY finished his interview with Imus, here is what Imus had to say about it. Don Imus said:

I asked him a number of questions about Iraq and I can't tell you what he said.

That was Don Imus' summary of John Kerry's position on Iraq on his program last week.

Well, Mr. Imus, you are not alone. The top ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden, recently stated:

I don't think John should go back and try to explain accurate statements that are unexplainable.

That is our colleague in the Senate, an enthusiastic supporter of Senator Kerry. He said why try to explain the unexplainable, referring to Senator Kerry's various positions on Iraq.

We could all use clarity from John Kerry with regard to Iraq's liberation, but none more than Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who will be here among us addressing Congress tomorrow morning. Dealing with the terrorists and Baathist insurgents, he needs, more than anyone, to know that the U.S. position of supporting the liberty of Iraq is clear, unequivocal, and steadfast. He would not get that from reading John Kerry's numerous positions.

Mr. President, a Senator's position on Iraq should not be all that hard to explain because it is not a complicated question. It is, however, a tough question, representative of the sort of tough issue any Commander in Chief

[Page: S9476]  GPO's PDF

frequently gets. In trying to answer and re-answer the most important issue of this election, central to the struggle for freedom today and tomorrow, we have a Presidential candidate who constantly changes his mind. This is not some little issue; this is the biggest issue confronting the country today. We are 6 weeks from the election, and this is a man who flip-flops like a fish on the deck of a boat, back and forth, back and forth, who doesn't know where he stands on the most important issue we are confronting in our era.

For example, when asked if he would have gone into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, KERRY recently answered:

You bet, we might have.

Let me read that one more time. When asked if he would have gone into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, KERRY recently said:

You bet, we might have.

Not exactly Winston Churchill. Perhaps there is some nuance here, such as an exclamation point or a question mark, that tells whether this is a declaration or a question, but the answer to the most critical issue in this election should not leave the world wondering and more confused than before.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Sec. Rumsfeld & Gen. Myers Testimony on Global Posture Review

Caller on the Bill Bennett show today mentioned that we should watch the Rummy and Hillary Q & A.

He said Rummy tore her apart and said by the time he was done talking she was gone.

Now I don't know if he ment she got up and walked out I'm going to find the spot on the tape.

I'll report back w/ the time.

2hr :05min

Chamibliss goes over Draft Rumor......

"I'll report back w/ the time."

Please let me know, if you get a chance. Sounds like don't miss tv.

http://armed-services.senate.gov/e_witnesslist.cfm?id=1313

Still look for Clinton............

PITVIPER Clinton starts @ 2hrs. 47mins...........

Pitviper, LOL. Thanks.

Her 1st question isn't the one Rummy goes of on it's her second one.

Yeah, That was good........But I've seen Rummy hotter then that.........

"Of course we make plans, that's what we do!"

Senate Floor Schedule for Friday, Sept. 24, 2004

10:00 a.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.

Thanks for the heads up

Are you watching Kerry on FNC giving a speech?

No, I don't have a TV at work.

What's he lying about now?

John Cornyn up now talking about the WOT & Kerry........

Just got back ... Hatch is ripping into the Dems about words

Let me know more about this matter, OXENinFLA. I just got my DSL back and am behind in my reading.

http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segid=4941&schedID=298

Unfit for Command and Reckless Disregard
John O'Neill and Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson
Watch

Description: John O'Neill, co-author of "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," and Col. Robert Patterson, author of "Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security," talk about their books at the Commonwealth Club of California. Following their remarks, the authors take questions from the audience.

Kerry, from mon., on C-span now. [Barf alert]

HEADS UP!!!

C-span2 03:55 pm est Public Affairs Event Unfit for Command: Book Party John E. O'Neill , Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Hope I still got power............

Senate Floor Schedule for Monday, Sept. 27, 2004

1:00 p.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.

Thereafter, begin consideration of S.2845, the Intelligence Reform Bill.

USING GEORGE H. W. BUSH'S QUOTES ABOUT NOT GOING INTO BAGHDAD IN THE 1ST GULF WAR AGAINST GEORGE W. BUSH

Any one catch HARKIN up about an hour ago?

I don't know how what he said couldn't be called a Kerry Campaign commercial.

I didn't catch all of it, when I started HARKIN was talking about "Bush removing equipment from Afghanistan and diverting it to Iraq," specifically mentioned the Predator drones..

He then reached into his little bag of dirty tricks and pulls out a quote from Pres. H. W. BUSH from back in 1992 (I think) where he, Bush, talked about not going into Baghdad and that it would be a failure. It was low, really low.

I'll post the entire thing tomorrow but start to look for this in the dems' playbook...........

Harkin said something like "All he had to do was pick up the phone and call his dad to find out this would be a failure."