War

VIOLENCE IN THE MIDDLE EAST -- (Senate - July 28, 2006 )

   Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart concerning the violence taking place in Israel and Lebanon . On July 12, Hezbollah committed a reckless act of aggression against Israel by killing eight soldiers and kidnapping two others.

   Following this outrageous act, I joined with all of my colleagues in the Senate to support a resolution reaffirming Israel 's rights to defend itself. I stand by that commitment, because Hezbollah and its large cache of arms is a threat to Israel and to America .

   But I also watched the last 2 weeks, and those last 2 weeks have brought bloodshed on both sides of the Israel-Lebanon border--innocent people dying, families being torn apart, communities being destroyed. It has gone on too long, and it must stop.

   I am proud to represent the great State of Michigan . When you come from Michigan , violence in the Middle East isn't just a news story. It isn't just ``over there.'' It is here, and it affects thousands of people--friends of mine, people whom I know and respect. In the case of Lebanon and Israel , this violence affects mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children, and whole communities on both sides.

   Some people call Bint Jubail a Hezbollah stronghold--and I understand that. But 15,000 of my constituents call it their hometown. In fact, Dearborn , MI is home to the Bint Jubail Cultural Center that provides sort of a home away from home for many families.

   Tragically, many Michigan families, their relatives, and their loved ones are trapped in Bint Jubail at this moment. They are caught in heavy fighting between Hezbollah and Israel , and people are dying on both sides. Today I pray for them and grieve with their families.

   The lucky ones were able to get out--such as Rania Horani from Dearborn who was vacationing with her family in Bint Jubail when the fighting broke out. Fortunately, Rania was evacuated, but she spoke to the Associated Press about this terrifying experience. She said:

   You're waiting, you're scared, you don't know if you are going to die. But you have to get out because you're going to die either from starvation, fear, stress, or a bomb. Thank God we're [in Cyprus ].

   We share that sentiment.

   But the tragedy continues for hundreds of others stuck in Bint Jubail right now. The State Department must not stop the evacuations until every American and their family is safely out of Lebanon .

   Last evening I spoke with one of the assistant Secretaries of State about American citizens and their family members who are still there. And I appreciate the attention of the assistant Secretary and of the Embassy, but we can not stop the ships.

   We can not stop the rescue missions until all Americans and their families can come home. Too many people are still stuck there.

   On the Israeli side, there is also too much destruction and loss of life. I understand how they must feel. Thousands of Americans fear for their families. Thousands of people in Michigan , friends of mine, hundreds of Michigan teenagers were evacuated in the middle of a summer trip to Israel because they were close to Hezbollah rocket attacks. I know their families and the fear of their moms and dads about whether their children would come home safely from a summer trip.

   Brandon Lebowitz, a student at West Bloomfield High School, was a few miles away from the bombings in Tiberius. He talked about his harrowing experience:

   We saw the missiles hitting the city and the smoke and we heard them from across the sea. We were pretty close to the missiles exploding.

   I know how I would feel if that were my son.

   Innocent Americans from both sides of the Israeli-Lebanese border have fled to Michigan, have come back home to escape the violence, watch the news every day, waiting to see what will happen to their families.

   Unfortunately, many civilians did not escape the violence. Over 400 Israelis and Lebanese have died in the fighting. This has got to stop. The U.S. Government must push hard to stop the hostilities and the violence against innocent citizens. Innocent citizens are being killed in Lebanon and in Israel . I believe it is our responsibility to stand up and do everything possible to bring that violence to an end. That is why I am pleased to be a cosponsor of a resolution with Senator Dodd, my colleague, Senator Levin, and Senator Sununu that expresses support to attain a cessation in hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel . We know this is not easy, but we know innocent people--families, Americans--are counting on us to show leadership.

   Regrettably, over the last 5 years our Government has not played the leadership role so critical in the Middle East, the leadership role played by every other administration, whether Democrat or Republican. It is time to assert our leadership and put a stop to the violence as soon as possible. The innocent people of Lebanon and Israel have had enough of the violence and bloodshed. It is time for them to be able to live their lives in peace.

   ARMY RECRUITMENT -- (House of Representatives - July 11, 2006 )

   Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

   As the cost of the war in Iraq climbs past $300 billion, and there are estimates that suggest the total financial cost will far exceed $1 trillion, there is another cost that is less measurable but no less significant: that is the stress on the military itself and the consequences for our fighting men and women, for innocent Iraqis, and the capacity of our Armed Forces far into the future.

   The Pentagon has announced that the Army has met its recruiting goals for the 13th consecutive month, but we are seeing an erosion in the quality of recruits in our Armed Forces as more and more young Americans who disagree with what we are doing in Iraq have chosen to stay away. In order to meet recruiting targets, the Army has relaxed restrictions against high school dropouts and have started letting in more applicants who score in the lowest third on the Armed Forces aptitude test, a group known as category 4 recruits. Since the mid 1980s, category 4 recruits were kept, as a matter of policy, to less than 2 percent of all recruits. But by the end of 2005, the percentage of recruits who fell under this lowest category has reached double digits.

   In my district, not only has the Army lowered its standards but recruiters have been pushed to violate the remaining standards in order to meet these recruiting targets. We have had two examples of where autistic young men have been recruited into the Army despite the regulations. As I have discussed on the floor of the House how outrageous this was, indeed, one of these young men did not even know that there was a war going on in Iraq . This all has terrible consequences for our efforts against the global war on terror.

   This weekend's papers were full of articles and editorials about the role that our lowered recruiting standards may have played in the recent spate of reports of servicemembers being accused of atrocities in Iraq . What does this tell us about our efforts to eliminate the insurgency and win the hearts and minds of people in the Middle East?

   We must also consider the long-term cost to our national security and to the military itself. These lower standards are impacting the Army's capacities and will continue to do so for at least a generation into the future.

   There was a RAND Corporation study last fall that showed replacing a gunner who had scored 3A on the aptitude test with one who scored that category 4 that I mentioned a moment ago, reduced the chances of hitting targets by 34 percent. In another study, 84 three-man teams from the Army's active duty signal battalions were given the task of making a communications system operational, what you need to do in a theater of battle. Teams consisting of the category 3A had a 67 percent chance of succeeding. Those with category 4 personnel had only a 29 percent chance. More than two-thirds to barely more than a quarter.

   There is also damage to the reputation of the good name of the United States military. We are intensely proud of the young men and women who have served under such difficult circumstances. It is not fair for their hard work and heroic efforts to be tainted by the action of others or for their job to be made more difficult or more dangerous due to substandard soldiers who are finding their way into the Armed Forces. When we lower recruitment standards or recruit those who have no business in the military at all, the consequences will be felt by our military in Iraq today and by the entire Nation for years to come.

   One of the reasons it is imperative to have a sensible plan to scale down and transition our activities in Iraq, handing them over to the Iraqis, themselves, is to stop this erosion of our military capacity that has occurred because of the sadly inept management of the occupation by this administration and the Secretary of Defense. There was never a doubt about our winning the war in Iraq . They just weren't prepared to win the peace.

   Our young men and women in the armed services deserve for us to get it right, because their lives are at stake. And we owe it to every American, because there are dangerous people around the world and the integrity of the military is critical to our fight to protect America .

   THE OCCUPATION OF IRAQ -- (House of Representatives - July 11, 2006 )

   Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.

   There was no objection.

   Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on March 1, 2003, the United States stopped fighting a war in Iraq and became the occupants of Iraq . That was when the U.S. occupation began.

    March 1, 2003, is the day that President Bush, speaking under a huge banner with the words ``Mission Accomplished'' declared major combat operations in Iraq had ended. At that moment, the United States military should have left Iraq .

   Military commanders and policy experts advised the President, but he failed to grasp that deploying hundreds of thousands of soldiers to Iraq and invading Baghdad would be like sticking your hand in a beehive and trying to remove it without getting stung.

   Even the President's father, President George H.W. Bush, agreed on this point. That is why during the first Gulf War during 1991, he stopped short of having the U.S. military actually enter Baghdad .

   If we had left after, according to the President, the ``mission'' had been ``accomplished,'' we could have prevented the deaths of over 2,400 American soldiers. More than 18,000 others wouldn't have returned home with life-changing injuries, and thousands of others wouldn't suffer from severe psychological trauma as a result of fighting a war halfway across the world. And countless thousands, tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who have been killed might still be alive in Iraq .

   The last 3 1/2 years since the President's ``mission accomplished'' speech have been unsuccessful in all ways in Iraq . This war has drained America 's coffers of nearly $400 billion, money that could have been used for underfunded programs right here at home, like addressing key homeland security needs, providing health care to all Americans, giving all American children a first-class education.

   This war has diminished America 's role as an international leader. Our role and our image have suffered great damage as a result of our involvement in Iraq . We are even less safe here at home, and Iraqis are less safe in Iraq than before the United States invaded Iraq .

   It is actually the very presence of 150,000 American soldiers in Iraq that has enraged and dissatisfied the people of the Arab world.

   Mr. Speaker, this is not a war; this is an occupation. The Pentagon and the White House have turned our troops into occupiers against their will, placing them in an absolutely impossible situation. This is not what they were trained for. Soldiers can win a war, but how do they win an occupation? An occupation is by its very nature unwinnable. There is no winning; all you can do is come home.

   The President does not seem to understand this truth which is made very clear in comments he makes like ``we will accept nothing short of total victory in Iraq ''; or ``we will stay in Iraq until the job gets done.''

   Mr. Speaker, the American people understand that there is no such thing as ``getting the job done in Iraq '' because it is not a job, it is an occupation. What Congress needs to do is take back the powers it gave to the President more than 3 years ago. It is time to rescind the legislation that gave him the authority to use force in Iraq . And while we are at it, let's do the right thing for our soldiers, their families and the entire country: end the occupation.

   The least we can do for our troops is thank them for their service and bring them home to their families.

   NORTH KOREAN MISSILE LAUNCH -- (House of Representatives - July 11, 2006 )

   (Mr. MILLER of Florida asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. MILLER of Florida . Mr. Speaker, on America 's birthday, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il thought it was wise to fire six ballistic missiles. The international community condemned these launches, and Kim Jong Il responded by firing an additional missile on July 5.

   Having been to North Korea in 2003, I can tell you that their government does nothing for its people and uses blackmail as its primary foreign policy tool. Kim Jong Il and some of our opponents on the other side of the aisle believe that if North Korea fires missiles that it should be rewarded with direct talks and various forms of assistance. I don't believe in blackmail or rewarding bad behavior.

   As President Bush has said recently about Kim Jong Il, he can verifiably get rid of his weapons programs, stop testing rockets, and there is a way forward to help his people. The choice is his to make.

   Our military and intelligence professionals, along with our allies in this region, will continue to keep a close watch on North Korea. I have confidence in their abilities.

   But let us not forget the 37,000 servicemembers and their families currently stationed in South Korea. I thank them for what they do and wish them continued safety in such close proximity to a despotic and unstable self-appointed leader.

  IRAQ -- (House of Representatives - July 11, 2006 )

   Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the important progress being made in Iraq . Let me remind my colleagues and the American people of the incredible accomplishments United States troops and the Iraqi people have achieved over the last 4 years.

   Saddam Hussein is behind bars, and al Qaeda's top leaders have been eliminated. Iraqi security forces currently participate in more than 90 percent of all security operations, and the Iraqi people are increasingly coming forth with actionable intelligence about terrorist activity.

   But, Mr. Speaker, the progress in Iraq cannot be measured solely on our military success. The Iraqi people can now watch commercial television. They can read independent newspapers. Women are part of the political process. In fact, women secured 31 percent of the seats in the Iraqi National Assembly. Primary school enrollment has increased by nearly 3 million children, and Iraqi medical schools now graduate more than 2,000 doctors a year.

   So, Mr. Speaker, as we congratulate the Iraqi people on these successes, let's not forget to thank our troops for the important work they are doing in Iraq, training soldiers, building schools, working every day for security and freedom in the Middle East.

TIME FOR THE IRAQI PEOPLE TO ASSERT CONTROL OVER THEIR POLITICAL DESTINY -- (House of Representatives - April 25, 2006 )

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) is recognized for 5 minutes.

   Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, the Iraq war is now in its 4th year, and I, like many of my colleagues and millions of my fellow citizens, are troubled about the direction the conflict is taking.

   I have been to Iraq three times to visit our troops there, and I have spent time with our wounded here and in Germany . They have done everything we have asked of them, and they have done it magnificently. While we have a moral obligation to do whatever we can to avoid having Iraq spiral into an all-out civil war, now is the time for the Iraqis themselves to decide if they wish to be one country. And, Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to take steps that will ensure that 2006 is a year of significant transition to full sovereignty for the people of Iraq .

   This is a conflict that has come to grief in many ways. In the fall of 2002, I voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq because of the threat that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and because I was concerned that he had an active nuclear weapons program. If you go back and look at the debate in the House and Senate, this was a decision taken by the Congress to prevent Iraq from acquiring or using or transferring nuclear weapons.

   Months later, as American forces pushed across the Kuwaiti frontier and into Iraq , we were on a hunt for weapons of mass destruction. Delivering the Iraqi people from the brutality of Saddam Hussein was a noble act, but the promotion of democracy in Iraq was not our primary reason for going to war. Similarly, we knew the Shiite majority had suffered terribly under the Ba'ath regime, and freeing them from the oppression of the Sunni minority was an added benefit of the invasion. But reordering the ethnic balance of political power in Iraq was not our primary purpose for going to war.

   Soon after the fall of Baghdad , it became clear that many of the pre-war assumptions that had guided the President and his advisers were wrong. There were no chemical or biological weapons, there was no nuclear program, and while many Iraqis celebrated the ouster of Saddam Hussein, they did not line the streets of Baghdad to greet our troops with flowers. In fact, within days, there emerged the beginnings of what would become an organized and deadly insurgency that would quickly put an end to General Tommy Franks' plan to pare down the 140,000 troops in April 2003 to about 30,000 by September 2003.

   In recent months, even as our military has become more adept at combating the insurgency, the nature of the struggle in Iraq has changed yet again. Long-simmering ethnic tensions, which had been suppressed under Saddam's totalitarian regime, have threatened to tear the country apart. While the full-scale civil war that many feared in the wake of the bombing of the Askariya mosque in Samarra has not yet come to pass, most observers believe the country is currently in the grip of a low-level civil war that could erupt into a full-scale conflict at any time.

   The ongoing sectarian strife has been exacerbated by the protracted struggle among and inside Iraq 's political factions over the formation of a permanent government. Last week's decision by the Shiite parties that make up the largest block in parliament that was elected 4 months ago to replace Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari with Jawad al-Maliki paves the way for the formation of a broad-based government. The question is now whether this hopeful development will be enough to pull Iraq back from the precipice.

   There is a broad census among experts here and abroad that Iraq 's future will be determined by politics and not by force. The formation of a permanent Iraqi Government, one that will have the power of legitimacy and vision to assume primary responsibility for securing and governing the country, is a necessary precondition to ending the insurgency, preventing a civil war, and allowing large-scale reconstruction to begin.

   Consequently, our role in Iraq must become more political and less military. For if there is one thing that Iraqis of every ethnic, religious, and political stripe can agree on, it is that they do not want foreign troops in their country indefinitely.

   I support a responsible redeployment of our troops during the course of 2006 so we are not drawn into sectarian conflict and so Iraqis are forced to take primary responsibility for securing and governing their country. A responsible redeployment of American coalition forces will have to be done in stages to build greater Iraqi sovereignty and control over security, not civil war. We should also publicly declare that the United States does not seek to maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq , and I have cosponsored legislation to prevent the establishment of permanent bases, which can only serve as a catalyst for the insurgency and for foreign jihadis.

   Devising and implementing a successful end-game in Iraq will be difficult, but an open-ended commitment to remain in the country is untenable and unwise. The American people want Iraq to succeed and for a representative government there to survive and to lead to a better future for the Iraqi people. But it will ultimately be the Iraqi people who must decide whether they wish to live together in peace as one country or continue to murder each other in large numbers. We cannot decide that for them.

   In the fight against the malicious al Qaeda in Iraq , foreign jihadis bent on destroying a government chosen by the Iraqi people, we are in solidarity with the Iraqi people who want a better life for their children. But, Mr. Speaker, we will not stand as a shield between Iraqi sects bent on killing each other. The new prime minister and leadership have the next 30 days to form a strong unity government. We hope they will be successful in that task, and we hope that the Iraqi leaders understand that the patience of the American people is running out.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. Speaker, the Iraq war is now in its fourth year and I, like many of my colleagues and millions of our fellow citizens, am deeply concerned about the direction that the conflict is taking.

   I have been to Iraq three times to visit with our troops there and I have spent time with our wounded here and in Germany . They have done everything that we have asked of them and they have done it magnificently.

   Tragically, these American heroes are still being killed and wounded daily. Over 2,300 troops have been killed and thousands more have been injured. American taxpayers are paying approximately $194 million a day for the war according to the Congressional Budget Office--that's more than a billion dollars a week. A new CRS report puts the current costs of continued operations in Iraq and Afghanistan at close to $10 billion a month, with most of that money going to Iraq .

   While we have a moral obligation to do whatever we can to avoid having Iraq spiral into all-out civil war, now is time for the Iraqis themselves to decide whether they wish to be one country. And, Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to take steps that will ensure that 2006 is a year of significant transition to full sovereignty for the people of Iraq .

   This is a conflict that has come to grief in so many ways. In the fall of 2002 I voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq because of the threat that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and because I was convinced that he had an active nuclear weapons program. If you go back and look at the debate in the House and Senate, this was a decision taken by the Congress to prevent Iraq from acquiring and using or transferring nuclear weapons.

   Months later, as American forces pushed across the Kuwaiti frontier and into Iraq , we were on a hunt for weapons of mass destruction. Delivering the Iraqi people from the brutality of Saddam Hussein was a noble act, but the promotion of democracy in Iraq was not our primary reason for going to war.

   Similarly, we knew that the Shiite majority had suffered terribly under the Ba'ath regime and freeing them from the oppression of the Sunni minority was an added benefit of the invasion. But reordering the ethnic balance of political power in Iraq was not our primary purpose for going to war.

   Soon after the fall of Baghdad , it became clear that many of the prewar assumptions that had guided the President and his advisors were wrong. There were no chemical or biological weapons; there was no nuclear program; and, while many Iraqis celebrated the ouster of Saddam Hussein, they did not line the streets of Baghdad to greet our troops with flowers. In fact, within days there emerged the beginnings of what would become an organized, deadly insurgency that would quickly put an end to General Tommy Franks' plan to pare down the 140,000 troops in Iraq in April 2003 to about 30,000 by September 2003.

   In recent months even as our military has become more adept at combating the insurgency, the nature of the struggle in Iraq has changed yet again. Long-simmering ethnic tensions, which had been suppressed under Saddam's totalitarian regime, have threatened to tear the country apart. While the full-scale civil

   war that many feared in the wake of the bombing of the Askariya mosque in Samarra has not yet come to pass, most observers believe that the country is currently in the grip of a low-level civil war that could erupt into full-scale conflict at any time. I am especially concerned by media reports that Shiite militias have been deploying to Kirkuk, Iraq's third largest city, in a bid to forestall any attempt by Kurds to assert control over this major center of Iraq's oil-rich north.

   The ongoing sectarian strife has been exacerbated by the protracted struggle among and inside Iraq's political factions over the formation of a permanent government. Last week's decision by the Shiite parties that make up the largest bloc in the parliament that was elected four months ago to replace Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari with Jawad al-Maliki paves the way for the formation of a broad-based government. The question now is whether this hopeful development will be enough to pull Iraq back from the precipice.

   There is a broad consensus among experts--here and abroad--that Iraq's future will be determined by politics and not force. The formation of a permanent Iraqi government--one that will have the power, legitimacy and vision to assume primary responsibility for securing and governing the country--is a necessary precondition to ending the insurgency, preventing a civil war and allowing large-scale reconstruction to begin.

   Consequently, our role in Iraq must become more political and less military; for if there is one thing that Iraqis of every ethnic, religious and political stripe can agree on, it is that they do not want foreign troops in their country indefinitely.

   I support a responsible redeployment of our troops during the course of 2006 so that we are not drawn into sectarian conflict and so that Iraqis are forced to take primary responsibility for securing and governing their country. While the process of training Iraqi security forces has gone more slowly than many had hoped, recent reports have indicated that we are making progress and that every week more Iraqi units are capable of taking a greater role in combating the insurgency.

   A responsible redeployment of American and coalition forces will have to be done in stages to build greater Iraqi sovereignty and control over security, not civil war. In the first phase of the redeployment, our forces should be gradually withdrawn from insecure urban centers and moved to smaller cities where reconstruction is supported by the local population, and to remote bases where our troops will be able to support Iraqi units if necessary. Over time, these troops will be withdrawn from Iraq altogether and redeployed outside the country, either in the region or back to the United States. We should publicly declare that the United States does not seek to maintain a permanent military presence in Iraq and I have co-sponsored legislation to prevent the establishment of permanent bases, which can only serve as a catalyst for the insurgency and for foreign jihadis.

   Devising and implementing a successful endgame in Iraq will be difficult, but an open-ended commitment to remain in the country is untenable and unwise. The American people want Iraq to succeed, and for a representative government there to survive and lead to a better future for the Iraqi people. But it will ultimately be the Iraqi people who must decide whether they wish to live together in peace as one country or continue to murder each other in large numbers. We cannot decide that for them.

   In the fight against the malicious Al Qaeda in Iraq, foreign jihadists bent on destroying a government chosen by the Iraqi people, we are in solidarity with the Iraqi people who want a better life for their children. But we will not stand as a shield between different Iraqi sects bent on killing each other. The new Iraqi prime minister and leadership have the next thirty days to form a strong unity government. We hope that they will be successful in this task. But our hopes in Iraq have too often led to disappointment, and the Iraqi leaders must understand that the patience of the American people is running out.

THE SITUATION IN IRAQ -- (House of Representatives - April 25, 2006)

   Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 5 minutes and to revise and extend my remarks.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Iowa?

   There was no objection.

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) is recognized for 5 minutes.

   Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, with mounting sectarian tensions and unabated insurgent violence, I rise today to discuss the deeply troubling situation in Iraq and its implications for the national interests of the United States.

   Sometimes it is harder to know how to end a war than to start one. Just as it is important to think through the ``why'' of committing troops to a conflict, we must also think through the ``why'' of ending an engagement. Timing is a key element of both considerations.

   Perspective is always difficult to bring to bear on events of the day. Developments of this week, however, could provide Washington with a seminal opportunity to stimulate a rethinking about the philosophical basis for a war that we initiated, with the goal of assessing how a great power can and should disengage.

   Many people have noted analogies between America's involvement in Vietnam and the U.S. intervention in Iraq. My sense is that a number of these analogies are quite frail. But the one I am most concerned about relates to America's extraordinary difficulty in disengaging from Vietnam.

   A key problem for Washington in trying to wind down its commitment in Vietnam was how to develop a mutual accommodation with the other side that would lessen the prideful pitfalls that often occur when political figures are forced to reassess policies. In the end it was the Paris Peace Accord which facilitated the withdrawal of American troops.

   A negotiating avenue in a third-country capital does not appear to lend itself to a resolution of the Iraqi situation at this time. Nonetheless, I find it remarkable that in an autobiographical tome Henry Kissinger wrote that in December 1968, shortly after Richard Nixon had asked him to be his National Security Council Director, he met with the President-elect to discuss the direction of the new administration's foreign policy. They determined together, he noted, that their policy would be to get out of Vietnam.

   After reading this passage I asked him years later at a Library of Congress symposium why they did not just proceed to do that. Kissinger looked at me for a moment and then uttered words I will never forget. ``Young man,'' he said, ``we meant with honor.''

   I then asked him if honor required escalation. ``Absolutely,'' he responded.

   In the Iraq circumstance, the executive branch has provided three broad rationales for American intervention. First, it hinted that there was an Iraqi connection to the attacks on 9/11. Then it suggested that America and the world faced an imminent threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. When these two justifications for the U.S.-led invasion turned out to be without foundation, the administration fell back on the goal of spreading democracy in Iraq and the broader Middle East as the basis for ongoing U.S. engagement.

   From an American perspective, the case for extending the reach of democracy abroad always has a ring of validity, although many have concluded that imposing democracy from the outside is not a proven or necessarily compelling art form. Intriguingly, however, it would appear that today in Iraq democracy building provides a credible rationale for American disengagement even though it was a secondary and possibly flawed basis for original intervention.

   In the aftermath of elections held 3 months ago, the Iraqis have finally formed a government which will have under its jurisdiction, although perhaps not complete control, a newly formed Army and a fledgling police apparatus. Based on three elements, credible national elections, a new government and a new infrastructure of security, the U.S. is positioned to begin and, almost as consequently, to announce a steady process of disengagement.

   In the middle of the Vietnam War, Senator Aiken proposed that we simply declare victory and get out. This may have been good politics then, but there is no basis for suggesting victory was at hand. Ironically, the formation of a new government today may provide the most promising claim of some success in Iraq. Not to take advantage of the circumstance could be a lost opportunity. This may indeed be the last timely movement for decisive decisionmaking.

   Lyndon Johnson knew his Vietnam policy was failing, but he chose to pass it on to a successor who proceeded to escalate an already escalated conflict. To the degree there is relevance to Presidential precedent, it would seem far wiser for this administration to set the conditions and proceed with withdrawal rather than leave such a decision to a future President.

• [Begin Insert]

   The reason a democracy-based framework for disengagement needs to be articulated is that it allows the United States to set forth a basis for ending the occupation that is on our terms and on our timetable. If we don't develop and announce a plan and a rationale for disengagement, we could at some point find ourselves withdrawing with the other side claiming it forced us out through destructive anarchy, i.e., insurgent attacks and suicide bombings, or through the insistence of the elected government in Baghdad.

   Democracy implies consent of the governed and when a large percentage of the Iraqi people want us to leave, as opinion polls indicate is the case today, the U.S. should be hard-pressed to follow the original neo-con strategy of establishing and maintaining a semi-permanent military base in the country.

   Here a note about the Crusades is relevant. While Americans use the word loosely and conjure up quaint cartoon images King Arthur and his knights, citizens of the Muslim world consider the Crusades living history, and it is no accident that Osama bin Laden refers to us as crusaders. For al Qaeda, the pushing out of U.S. forces would be an extension of the Crusades, an act of multi-century consequences. That is why it is so important to apply reason and public reasoning to the disengagement process.

   This war has precipitated a great loss of confidence in and respect for the United States around the world. Quite possibly Iraq will be a better country because of America's intervention. But if we hang around too long, the Iraqi government and our government may suffer consequences even more negative than has so far been evidenced. Indeed, with

   each passing day of occupation, it appears our presence is increasingly inspiring more instability than stability.

   It is true that precipitous withdrawal might be counterproductive and that precise timetables have disadvantages. But it is difficult for me to believe anything other than the declaration of a credible plan and reason for disengagement, coupled with a steady drawdown policy, is the wisest course of action today.

   In a novel development, Congress has required the establishment of an ``Iraq Study Group,'' under the aegis of the U.S. Institute for Peace, to be chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Representative Lee Hamilton. At the risk of presumption, I would hope the perspective outlined above will be one of the approaches it and the Administration review. There are risks in too abrupt a departure; but a prolonged occupation leads too easily to the kind of retributive civilization clash that misserves America as well as peoples of the region.

  SADDAM HUSSEIN CHARGED WITH GENOCIDE -- (House of Representatives - April 04, 2006)

   (Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)

   Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, the Iraqi tribunal recently announced additional charges against Iraq's former dictator. These include genocide, crimes against humanity, and the use of chemical weapons on thousands of innocent civilians.

   The new case involves Saddam's role in ``Operation Anfal,'' which resulted in 5,000 men, women and children being murdered through a gas attack on their village.

   One of the pieces of evidence to be presented at the trial is a government decree signed by Saddam in 1987 in which he ordered special artillery bombs to kill as many people as possible in the Kurdish area.

   This new case clearly shows that the world is indeed a safer place without Saddam Hussein, and it shows the progress being made in Iraq as the Iraqi people are finally able to seek justice through their legal system.

AMERICA'S POLICIES IN IRAQ -- (House of Representatives - March 30, 2006)

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) is recognized for 5 minutes.

   Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I just returned from Iraq on a congressional delegation trip with Senator McCain. And I wanted to report to my constituents.

   The first thing that I have concluded in looking at the situation there and in visiting there is that we need a special envoy sent by the President of the United States to move forward with a national unity government.

   Things on the ground are not going well. Things are deadlocked. There has been no government since 3 months after the election. We have a lame duck government, and we have a crucial international situation going on.

   The current government is riddled by corruption and inertia. So, Mr. President, we need to send a special envoy.

   Secondly, I visited the troops in Iraq, some New Mexicans and many others from across the country. And when I think of what they have done since the invasion over 3 years ago, it makes me very proud. Saddam Hussein and his sons are out of commission. We have held three elections, and the Iraqis have adopted a constitution.

   We have trained over 224,000 troops to the highest levels of training, more than 100,000 police and security personnel. We have spent billions of dollars in reconstruction.

   The Iraqis have made progress, and I do not know what more we can ask of our troops. But overall this visit solidified my belief that it is time for the Iraqi people to step forward and take control of the situation in their country.

   Our troops are caught in the middle of religious and ethnic disputes. Sectarian violence is rampant in many areas. Iraqis must step up to the plate and resolve these disputes themselves.

   As President Kennedy said of South Vietnam in the summer of 1961, ``In the end, it is their country, and they are going to have to fight for it.''

   Therefore, we need a change of course in our foreign policy. Staying the course is no longer acceptable. We need to take two actions: One is announce a phased redeployment of our troops outside of Iraq. This redeployment should be complete by the end of this year, by 2006. Number two, we need to put the Iraqis on notice that they must assume responsibility. Of course, as we phase this redeployment, we need to assist them and train them and do everything we can during that period to make sure they have the best chance of success.

   But this is their fight at this point.

WAR PLANS LEAKED TO SADDAM -- (House of Representatives - March 30, 2006)

   (Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, last week a disturbing report was released showing evidence of a security breach at U.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar.

   According to the report, Iraqi documents now in our possession show that Russian officials provided Saddam Hussein with intelligence on U.S. strategic planning during the lead-up to the war in Iraq. The documents say Russians provided the intelligence through ``their sources inside the American Central Command in Doha,'' specific details 2 weeks before our troops entered Iraq.

   Mr. Speaker, this is not a small matter. U.S. CENTCOM in Qatar is the nerve center of our operations in Iraq. That's why it is absolutely vital that we have full confidence in the security of our operations there. With troops on the ground and in harm's way, it is essential that we seek to find out how this information was leaked and whether or not such leaks could still be happening.

   While military officials have been slow to investigate, Congress should not be. Getting to the bottom of this should be a top priority of the House and Senate Intelligence and Armed Services Committees. Nothing less than the security of our troops is at stake.

REPUBLICAN OVERSIGHT FAILURES -- (House of Representatives - March 29, 2006)

   (Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

   Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the Iraq war, House Republicans have rubber-stamped every war supplemental the President has sent to Congress with very few questions about how the money is being spent.

   House Democrats have repeatedly tried to get Republicans to join us in supporting the creation of a select committee to investigate government contracting.

   The committee would be similar to the Truman Committee during World War II, which, under Democratic Senator Harry Truman's leadership, held hundreds of hearings and fact-finding missions into contracts approved by the Democratic Roosevelt administration.

   Truman did not see this as a partisan issue, and said, unlike Republicans today, he took his oversight responsibilities seriously.

   The Truman investigation saved the American taxpayer an estimated $15 billion. Just think how much money we could save the American taxpayer today. Under Halliburton's two largest Iraq contracts, Pentagon auditors found $1 billion in questioned costs and $400 million in unsupported costs, and these discoveries are from Pentagon auditors.

   Just think what we could discover from a real congressional investigation. It is time for the Republican rubber-stamping to end.

THIRD ANNIVERSARY OF THE WAR IN IRAQ -- (House of Representatives - March 28, 2006)

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes.

   Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, last week, on March 19, our Nation marked a somber milestone. We began the fourth year of the Iraqi war. It is becoming quite clear that this falsely conceived war is proceeding disastrously, with no end in sight. The administration's repugnant use of the phrase as bombing began, ``shock and awe,'' has deteriorated into a ``knockdown and raw, last man left standing'' war of attrition.

   The situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate precipitously. In the last month alone, there has been an escalation of sectarian violence. Dozens of suicide bombings, insurgent attacks and the like have left almost 1,000 more people dead since a bombing destroyed the dome of Samarra's Golden Mosque, a sacred and holy site to Shiite Muslims.

   Iraq is still without a functioning government, as the Iraqi parliament has convened just once and for only 30 minutes. Moreover, there was an automobile ban in place throughout Baghdad to prevent car bombings that same day. A city-wide ban on cars, Mr. Speaker, is not a safe city. A nation where journalists cannot travel to report is not a safe country.

   Headlines from newspapers around the globe have the same theme, civil war in Iraq. The administration, however, does not seem to see it that way. The President was in Ohio last week and made the following comment: ``Americans look at the violence that they see each night on their television screens and wonder how I can remain so optimistic about the prospects of success in Iraq. They wonder what I see that they do not.''

   Well, I think the President has it the other way around, Mr. Speaker. The world sees a lot this President doesn't. Three years ago, we saw the administration did not have a plan to win the peace, and he and his narrow group of advisers led us down the path to war. We also see what he cannot see today, that our presence in Iraq has led to an increase in violence and terrorist activities in the Middle East and around the world, making us less safe as a nation.

   Three years ago, on the eve of the invasion, I warned, and I quote myself, ``Even if we take the ground, we do not share the culture. In the end, we have to learn to exist in a world with religious states that we may not agree with, and find ways to cooperate.''

   So the President has traded a brutal sectarian regime for an unstable nation that looks more and more every day like a dawning theocracy.

   Events in the last few weeks seem to show this is indeed becoming the case. By refusing to prepare for the possibility that we would be considered occupiers rather than liberators, these architects of this war never afforded an opportunity to truly win the peace. Hospitals and medical services were ignored. Iraqi organizations open to the West were never consulted. Western media was not culturally appropriate inside that region. The seeds for unrest were sown before U.S. troops even entered Iraq.

   Achieving military success without winning the hearts and minds of the public is a hollow victory, and now the President tells us troops will remain in Iraq until he leaves office in 2009, who knows when.

   May I remind the body this President held a theatrically staged press event on a U.S. aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, with a ``Mission Accomplished'' banner flying in the background. Major combat operations in Iraq have ended, he announced.

   Two weeks ago, the United States launched the largest aerial assault in Iraq since 2003. More than 1,500 of our soldiers were deploy in the Samarra region to root out insurgent strongholds and seize weapons caches and the like. That sounds like a major combat operation to me, and it sounds like we are losing ground rather than making progress.

   Statements by those in the administration prior to the invasion show how wrong the Bush administration has been. Donald Rumsfeld in February 2003 said, ``It is unknowable how long the conflict will last. It could be 6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months.''

   Vice President Cheney in March 2003 said, ``We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. I think it will go relatively quickly ..... (in) weeks rather than months.'' We are into the fourth year, almost as long as it took to fight World War II.

   The toll this war has taken is staggering. Since March 2003, 2,322 U.S. soldiers have died, another 18,000 troops have been injured as a result of hostilities, with numbers doubling between 2003 and 2004 and increasing again in 2005.

   Mr. Speaker, this evening I wish to place in the RECORD names of Ohioans, 104 of them, brave patriots who have died in service to our country in Iraq. God bless them.

   Ohioans Dead Through Operation Iraqi Freedom (as of March 4, 2006):

   Anderson, Nathan Richard; Andres, Joseph John Jr.; Barkey, Michael Christopher; Bates, Todd Michael; Bell, Timothy Michael Jr; Benford, Jason A; Bernholtz, Eric James; Biskie, Benjamin Walter; Boskovitch, Jeffrey A; Bourdon, Elvis; Bowen, Samuel Robert; Brownfield, Andrew David; and Buryj, Jesse Ryan.

   Christian, Brett Thomas; Cifuentes, Michael Joseph; Conover, Steven Daniel; Davids, Wesley Graham; Derga, Dustin Alan; Deyarmin, Daniel N Jr; Dixon, Christopher Robert; Dowdy, Robert John; Dyer, Christopher Jenkins; Eckert, Gary Andrew Jr; Eckfield, Robert Franklin Jr; Erdy, Nicholas Brandon; and Etterllng, Jonathan Edward.

   Finke, Michael Wayne Jr; Fitzgerald, Dustin Robert; Ford David, Harrison IV; Garmback, Joseph Martin Jr; Gilbert, Richard Alan Jr; Godwin, Todd Justin; Grella, Devin James; Gurtner, Christian Daniel; Hardy, Richard Allen; Harper, Bradley Jared; Hawkins, Omer Thomas II; Hines, Timothy James Jr; Hodge, Jeremy Michael; and Hoffman, Justin Fenton.

   Ivy, Kendall Howard II; Johnson, Adam Robert; Keeling, Thomas O;Kinney, Lester Ormond II; Kinslow, Anthony David; Knight, Timothy Allen; Knop, Allen James; Kreuter, David Kenneth John; Kuhns, Larry Robert Jr; Landrus, Sean Gregory; Large, Bryan William; and Lyons, Christopher P.

   Martin, Ryan Abern; McVicker, Daniel M; Mendezruiz, David A; Mendoza, Ramon Juan Jr; Messmer, Nicolas Edward; Meyer, Harrison James; Miller, James Hoyt IV; Mitchell, Curtis Anthony; Montgomery, Brian P; Morgan, Richard Lynn Jr; Murray, Jeremy Enlow; Neighbor, Gavin Lee; Nolan, Allen Duane; and Nowacki, Andrew Walter.

   Oberleitner, Branden Frederick; Odums, Charles Edward II; Ott, Kevin Charles; Pintor, Dennis Lloyd; Pratt, Daniel Joseph; Prazynski, Taylor B; Prince, Kevin William; Pummill, Richard Thomas; Ramey, Richard Patrick; Ramsey, Joshua Adam; Reed, Aaron Howard; Reese, Aaron Todd; Rock, Nathaniel S; and Rockhold, Marlin Tyrone.

   Schamberg, Kurt Daniel; Schroeder, Edward August II; Scott, David Allen; Seesan, Aaron N; Seymour, Devon P; Shepherd, Adam Roger; Shepherd, Daniel Michael; Sloan, Brandon Ulysses; Smith, Kevin Scott; Smith, Michael James Jr; Souslin, Kenneth Clarence; Spann, Jacob D; Sparks, Jason Lee; Squires, Brad D; Swaney, Robert Adam; and Swisher, Tyler Bobbitt.

   Tipton, John Edgar; Van Dusen, Brian Keith; Vandayburg, Allen Jeffrey; Webb, Charles Joseph; Wightman, William Brett; Wilkins, Charles Langdon III; Williams, Andre L; Wobler, Zachary Ryan; and Zimmer, Nicholaus Eugene.

   Ohioans Dead Through Operation Enduring Freedom (as of March 4, 2006):

   Egnor, Jody Lynn; Foraker, Ryan Dane; Freeman, Daniel Jason; Goare, Shamus Otto; Good, Alecia Sabrina; Hickey, Julie Rochelle; Jones, Darrell Ray Jr; McDaniel, William Louis II; Oneill, Michael Christopher; and Owens, Bartt Derek.

DEMANDING DOCUMENTS ON PR CONTRACTS USED TO ``SELL'' THE WAR -- (House of Representatives - February 16, 2006)

   (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.)

   Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, the taxpayers of the United States of America have a right to know whether or not their tax dollars were or are being used to manipulate the news, falsify intelligence, or mislead the public.

   Very serious questions have been raised about a number of contracts that have been given to public relations firms, firms that then went ahead and devised a whole plan to try to sell the war in Iraq to the American people. I have introduced a resolution of inquiry in the House of Representatives that demands all documents pertaining to contracts that the United States Government has signed with the intent to sell the war in Iraq.

   This resolution directs the President, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense to provide the House with certain documents relating to any entity which the United States has contracted with for public relations purposes concerning Iraq.

   The people of this country have a right to know if there was an effort to deliberately mislead them, and the taxpayers have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent. Support the resolution of inquiry. Reclaim the power of Congress.

U.S. MILITARY PERSONNEL SERVING IN IRAQ -- (Senate - November 18, 2005)

   Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to share with my colleagues another positive story from a member of the U.S. Armed Forces currently serving in Iraq. His story, once again, depicts the frustration that so many of our servicemembers have with the lack of public attention in the U.S. to the humanitarian and military successes of their work in Iraq.

   I recently received a letter in the mail from Ms. Ann Sensenich of Boiling Springs, PA. Ms. Sensenich wrote to me:

    DEAR MR. SANTORUM: Enclosed is a copy of a letter I received from one of our soldiers serving our country in Iraq. I am forwarding this to you as I feel this is a letter that should not be viewed by only my eyes.

   I have been sending packages to my employer's son in Iraq and he forwards them on to his soldiers and this is one of the responses I received.

   Please share this letter with anyone you feel would appreciate the service of this and all our U.S. soldiers defending our country and keep in mind he indicated he would go back seven times before he would let terrorists on our soil.

   Thank you for reading this and please share his words with others.

   Sincerely,
ANN B. SENSENICH.

   Attached to Ms. Sensenich's correspondence is the letter that a deployed servicemember wrote to her when her package was shared with fellow servicemembers. He wrote:

    DEAR ANN SENSENICH, I am deployed with the 3/3 ACR. We received your package, and I just wanted to take a little bit of my time to say thanks.

   Your package helped with the morale of a lot of soldiers. Due to the negative feedback we get from the media and people back home, it is nice to receive a package from someone who supports us and what we do.

   People like you are the reason why we fight this war. We sit over here day to day risk getting shot at or having mortar rounds dropped in on us so that the people back home (like yourself) can keep on enjoying the freedoms that a lot of people take for granted everyday. I, myself used to take those things for granted also until I was deployed to fight for our freedom. This is my second deployment, and this is the first time that we have received a package from someone in the states. So, thank you for your unselfishness, and don't ever feel bad for the soldiers that are over here fighting this war. This is our job! This is what we were trained to do. I would come back over here seven more times before I let these terrorists on our soil. You can sleep safe in your home tonight, enjoy every warm meal you have, enjoy your warm shower tonight, and wake up to a free world tomorrow because we are over here fighting for you and your family.

   Once again--Thanks! I just wanted you to know that your package that you sent did not go unnoticed.

   Mr. President, these stories need to be told. Our soldiers are sacrificing their lives for us; they are putting themselves in harm's way each and every day over there, and missing valuable time with their families and loved ones. They need to know that we support them, and that their bravery and hard work is not going unnoticed.

   We cannot allow critics here in the United States to influence the mentality of our troops. They need to know that we stand with them and that we support their invaluable mission.

AFGHANISTAN -- (Senate - November 18, 2005)

   Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, freedom continues to advance in Afghanistan. Of course, they are a great ally in the war on terror. In fact, I recall visiting Afghanistan just a little over 2 years ago with the current occupant of the Chair, and we had an opportunity to see firsthand the progress they had made at that time, not to mention how far they have come since.

   A few days ago the results of that country's historic parliamentary elections, held in mid-September, were officially certified. At the time that Senator Burns and I were there, they had not yet had the election of the President, not officially. They have since had that election. Now they have had a parliamentary election. Those results are now certified. A joint Afghan and United Nations election commission has declared the winners in races for 249 seats in the lower parliamentary house, as well as members of 34 provincial councils around the country.

   Afghanistan's continued progress toward democracy is obviously a victory in the war on terror. Four years ago, the ruthless Taliban regime ruled Afghanistan with an unyielding, murderous intolerance, and they laid down that country's welcome mat to all the terrorists to ``come on in.'' I would like to remind my colleagues that 4 short years ago Afghanistan was ruled by a regime so intolerant that as part of an effort to erase any trace of Afghanistan's history before the rise of Islam in the seventh century, the Taliban destroyed two priceless Buddhist statues. These statues had been carved into the face of a cliff outside the Afghan city of Bamiyan. These ancient wonders that had endured for centuries were instantly turned into dust. The Taliban was literally trying to erase history. But now the Taliban itself is history.

   America's quick defeat of the Taliban, the rescue of the Afghan people out from under their wicked thumb and the quick transformation of Afghanistan into a burgeoning democracy in just 4 years is nothing short of amazing.

   Today, a democratically elected parliament and a democratically elected, President Hamid Karzai, are charting a new course for their country. I am proud to say that a new day has dawned in Afghanistan. Where there was repression, now there is liberty.

   For instance, reports indicate that 68 of the new legislators are women. Four years ago little girls weren't allowed to go to school, and women had no rights whatsoever. Four years ago women were second-class citizens, blocked from jobs and educational opportunities by the Taliban. These 68 women legislators make up over a quarter of their chamber. That is significantly higher than the proportion of women in our Congress in the United States.

   Afghanistan will continue to make progress toward freedom and democracy. The provincial councils are now in the process of selecting 68 members of the House of Elders, which is the upper parliamentary house. Those selections will be completed soon. Then with President Karzai's selection of an additional 34 members to the upper house, the full Afghan Parliament is scheduled to convene for the first time in the third week of December.

   I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting the people of Afghanistan as they move forward toward freedom and democracy. I ask all of us to join in pledging the full support of the United States as the people of Afghanistan continue to fight the last vestiges of an extreme terrorist element, and as they continue to stand with the grand coalition of free nations who are waging the war on terror.

IRAQ -- (Senate - November 18, 2005)

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as we look out the window in most of our great country, we can witness the season change, the change in the season, and we can feel it. The air has become crisp with autumnal chill. The leaves on the trees change their color; from the exuberant, green lushness of the summer months to the tired, brown, yellow, and red of the autumn, much like the graying hair of a man advancing in age.

   Nature can sometimes mimic human events with a subtlety that no words can quite convey. As our country heads into the season that is celebrated with the love of family and the love of home, Americans should also look across the landscape of America and reflect upon the loss of so many young Americans in the 12 months since autumn last fell upon us.

   Think about it. In the past year, more than 820 servicemembers have lost their lives in Iraq.

   The evening news features pictures of American troops who have perished in service to our flag, in service to our country. I am struck by these colorful mosaics of these troops, amen; the green and blue of their uniforms set against the background of the bold colors of our flag, Old Glory, Old Glory. Each of these proud troops holds an expression of pride and courage, even though many of them appear to be so young. Note their ages--18, 19, 20, 21--just starting out in life, having one full glance of what is around them.

   I can only imagine the grief of their loving families during this time of the year, as the somber tones of fall contrast with the joy of being with family during the upcoming holidays. I pray that God, Almighty God, will comfort those who have suffered losses, that He will bless the fallen in their everlasting life, and that His hand will protect those who still serve in harm's way.

   That so many have sacrificed during this war in Iraq is reason enough to ask questions about our Government and about our Government's policy in that faraway land. Our troops continue to shed their blood, and our Nation continues to devote enormous sums of our national wealth to continue that war.

   The Constitution protects the American people from unjust laws that seek to stifle the patriotic duty to question those who are in power. But it is the courage of the American people that compels them to actually speak out when those in power call for silence. If anything, attacks on patriotism of freedom-loving Americans may result in even more Americans fighting against attempts to squelch the constitutional protections of freedom.

   Since our country was sent to war on March 19, 2003, 2,073 American men and women have been killed.

   Yes, 2,073 Americans have died. Nearly 16,000 troops have been wounded.

   Our military is straining under the repeated deployment of our troops, including the members of the National Guard. They come from all walks of life. They are lawyers. They are teachers. They are preachers. They are coal miners. They are farmers. More than $214 billion has been spent in Iraq and the end is not in sight. More than $214 billion spent in Iraq and the end is not in sight. Urban combat takes place each day, every day, in Baghdad, all day long. Every day and night.

   Veterans hospitals in our own country are threatened by budget shortfalls, and yet Americans are still left to wonder, when will our brave troops be coming home? When?

   I opposed this war in Iraq from the outset. From the beginning I spoke out against our entry into this war. I pleaded with my colleagues. I pleaded with the White House. I asked questions that have not been answered. I spoke out against the invasion of a country which did not pose an imminent threat to our national security. I said so then--and I was right. I opposed the war in Iraq from the outset. From the word go, I opposed it. But our troops were ordered to go to Iraq and they went.

  The question is, now, when will they come home? The administration has so far laid out only a vague policy, saying our troops will come home when the Iraqi Government is ready to take responsibility for its country. When our troops are no longer needed, when the job is done, they will come home. We will not stay a day longer than we are needed.

   That sort of political doublespeak is small comfort to the mothers and the fathers of our fighting men and women, the mothers and fathers who turn and toss upon their pillows, whose tears wet the pillows, whose prayers break the silence of night. Oh, when will they come home? Bring my boy home. Oh, God, this awful war.

   Wednesday evening the Vice President of the United States, even claimed that criticism of the administration's war in Iraq was dishonest and reprehensible. Did you hear that? Hear me, now; let me say that again: On Wednesday evening the Vice President of the United States, the man who is within a heartbeat of being the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States even claimed that criticism of the administration's war in Iraq was ``dishonest and reprehensible.''

   Since when are we not to lift our voices? Are the American people not to lift their voices in criticism of the administration's war in Iraq? Is it dishonest on the part of the American people to do that? Is it reprehensible on the part of mothers and fathers of sons and daughters who were sent to that most dangerous country in the world? Is it reprehensible? Did the Vice President measure his words? The Vice President's comments come on the heels of comments from President Bush, who said:

   What bothers me is when people are irresponsibly using their positions and playing politics. That's exactly what is taking place in America .

   Listen to that. The President and the Vice President need to reread the Constitution, take another look at that inimitable document. Asking questions, seeking honesty and truth, and pressing for accountability is exactly what the Framers had in mind. What would George Washington say? What would Alexander Hamilton say? What would James Madison say? What would Gouverneur Morris say? What would James Wilson say?

   Questioning policies and practices, especially ones that have cost this Nation more than 2,000 of her bravest sons and daughters, is the responsibility of every American and is also a central role of Congress as our duty as the elected representatives of a free people. We--you, you, you and I--we are the elected representatives of the American people, the people all over this vast land, its plains, its prairies, its mountains, it valleys, its lakes, its rivers, its seas. Yes, we are the men and women who are tasked with seeking the truth. Is that irresponsible to seek the truth?

   But instead of working with the Congress, instead of clearing the air, the White House falls back to the irksome practice of attack, attack, attack; obscure, obscure, obscure; attack. The American people are tired of these reprehensible tactics. If anything is reprehensible, it is these tactics.

   Circling the wagons will not serve this administration well. What the people demand are the facts. They want the truth. They want their elected leaders to level with them. And when it comes to the war in Iraq , this administration seems willing to do anything it can do to avoid the truth, a truth I believe will reveal that the Bush administration did, indeed, manipulate the facts in order to lead this Nation down the road to war. War. War.

   The administration claims that the Congress had the same intelligence as the President before the war and that independent commissions have determined there was no misrepresentation of the intelligence. But neither claim is true. The intelligence agencies are under the control of the White House. All information given to the Congress was cleared through the White House. And the President had access to an enormous amount of data never shared with the Congress. There was a filter over the intelligence information the Congress received. That filter was the administration, which is actively engaged in hyping the danger and lusting after this war, this terrible war in Iraq .

   Remember the talk of weapons of mass destruction? Remember the talk of mushroom clouds? Remember? Remember the talk of unmanned drones? The so-called proof for war was massaged before it was sent to Congress, to scare Members, and leaked to reporters to scare people.

   No independent commission has stated that the case for war was indisputable. Commissions have looked at how the intelligence fell short, but none have yet examined possible political manipulation.

   Even the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence slowed its examination, stalled its examination of possible White House manipulation. My colleague from West Virginia, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Jay Rockefeller, is rightly pressing for answers.

   Right now we are engaged in a mission with no definition. That is troubling because without a clearly defined mission, it is impossible to determine when our effort is truly accomplished.

   This week, the Senate had the opportunity to establish some very basic benchmarks for progress in Iraq , benchmarks that would have clearly outlined goals and provided accountability in meeting those goals. The proposal, offered by the senior Senator from Michigan , Senator Carl Levin, was a modest, flexible approach that would have given our troops, their families, the American people, and the Iraqi people some basic guidepost. Unfortunately, the Senate turned its back. It could not see the wisdom of this approach. It could not bring itself to see the wisdom of the approach.

   So, my fellow Senators, it is vital that we have benchmarks against which to gauge our progress. That is how we can measure effectiveness and, most importantly, how we know when the job is done. The administration's strategy of keeping our troops in Iraq for as long as it takes--have you heard that before? Keeping our troops in Iraq for as long as it takes?--that is the wrong strategy. Who knows how long it will take for the Iraqi Government to institute order in that fractured, unhappy, miserable country?

   Unfortunately, the questions that the American people are asking about the missteps and the mistakes in the war in Iraq are not being answered by this White House, not being answered by the administration. Vice President Cheney has dismissed these important questions as ``making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war.''

   Now, listen to that. The Vice President of the United States has dismissed these important questions as ``making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war.'' How about that?

   Perhaps the Vice President should question White House aides about using war for political advantage. For example, on January 19, 2002, the Washington Post reported that Karl Rove--get this--advised Republicans to ``make the president's handling of the war on terrorism the centerpiece of their strategy to win back the Senate and keep control of the House in this year's midterm elections.'' Does the Vice President have anything to say about that?

   Let me say that again. On January 19, 2002--I read about it at the time; I did not miss it--the Washington Post reported that Karl Rove advised Republicans to ``make the president's handling of the war on terrorism the centerpiece of their strategy to win back the Senate and keep control of the House in this year's midterm elections.'' That was said on January 19, 2002. That was quoted in the Post on that date. Yes, does the Vice President have anything to say about that?

   The Vice President also lashed out at those who might deceive our troops:

   The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out.

   Now, listen to that. Was the Vice President trying to clarify some of his past statements on Iraq ? Was he?

   On March 24, 2002, the Vice President said that Iraq ``is actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.'' There was no doubt about it, to listen to the Vice President--no doubt.

   On August 26, 2002, the Vice President said:

   Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

   Let me go back and read the quote. Let me repeat it.

   On August 26, 2002, here is what the Vice President said:

   Simply stated, there is no doubt--

   Get that--

   Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.

   That is the end of the quotation.

   On March 16, 2003, the Vice President said:

   We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

   Do you remember that?

   On March 16, 2003, there it is, the Vice President said:

   We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

   Are these the ``pernicious falsehoods'' that the Vice President believes our troops have been subjected to? That is, of course, a rhetorical question. Far from questioning his own statements about the war in Iraq , the Vice President's comments are a ham-handed attempt to squelch the questions that the American people out there are asking about the administration's policies in Iraq . The American people should not be cowed. They should not be intimidated. And Senators should not be intimidated by these attempts to intimidate. The American people should not allow the subject to be changed from the war in Iraq to partisan sniping in Washington .

   Instead, the American people must raise their voices--hear us--the American people should raise their voices--hear us, listen to us--the American people must raise their voices even louder to ask the administration the same simple questions: What is your policy for Iraq? Answer that. What is your policy? Is it stay the course? When will the war be over? How many more lives will this war cost? When will our troops return home?

   Mr. President, the holiday season is almost upon us. Americans will soon sit down at their Thanksgiving tables. They will gather together to give thanks to Almighty God, give thanks to Him for the blessings that have been bestowed upon America's families. As we gather, there will be an empty seat at many tables. Some chairs will be empty because a service member is serving his or her country in a faraway land. Other seats will be empty as a silent tribute to those who will never, never return.

   Each of these troops has fought to protect our freedoms, including the freedom of Americans to ask questions--yes, the freedom to ask questions. Our troops have fought for that freedom--people back home, their families, might ask questions, their friends might ask questions--the freedom to ask questions of their Government, the people's Government.

   The whole picture, the truth is that the continued occupation of Iraq only serves to drive that country closer to civil war. They do not want us there. They do not want us there.

   How would you feel, Senators, how would you feel if our country were invaded by another country? You would want them out. You would do anything you could to get them out. American troops are now perceived as occupiers, not as liberators. The longer we stay, the more dangerous Iraq becomes, and the more likely it is we will drive the future government further from a democratic republic and closer to religious fundamentalism and, not insignificantly, the more American and Iraqi lives will be lost--forever.

   I, for one, believe that it is time to say ``well done''--``well done''--to our brave fighting men and women. May God bless them one and all. Let us say, job well done, and start to bring the troops home.