9:45 a.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.
Thereafter, resume consideration of S.2845, the Intelligence Reform Bill.
I'll be posting HARKIN from yesterday soon...........
Posted on 09/07/2004 4:13:07 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
9:45 a.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.
Thereafter, resume consideration of S.2845, the Intelligence Reform Bill.
[Page: S9696] GPO's PDF
---
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I also wish to speak for a few minutes about the mess in Iraq. Last week, Prime Minister Iyad Allawi came to Washington to join in President Bush's campaign of relentless happy talk about the war in Iraq. President Bush says:
We're making progress. We're making progress.
Meanwhile, back in the real world--the world that American soldiers confront on the ground in Iraq--the chaos gets worse and worse. Entire regions and many provincial capitals are under the insurgents' control. Virtually every day we see car bombings, kidnappings, assassinations, beheadings.
As we learned last week, the CIA has produced a formal National Intelligence Estimate that says that, at best, the current level of violence will continue and, at worst, Iraq will plunge into a civil war. As Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged yesterday, it is getting worse in Iraq. But amazingly, President Bush insists that this mess in Iraq has made us safer, and the President and his political allies have been relentless in using the war on terror for their own electoral purposes.
Their message to the American people is simple: Be afraid, President Bush will protect you; his opponent will not.
Vice President Dick Cheney also took this line of attack 2 weeks ago when he darkly warned with his Darth Vader-type voice that if John Kerry is elected President, then ``the danger is we'll get hit again, that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating.'' That was Vice President Cheney.
Last Tuesday, the senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch,
said that terrorists ``are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry.''
Last Monday, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said terrorists in Iraq ``are trying to influence the election against President Bush.''
If these gentlemen have such excellent access to the terrorists' thoughts, they are not doing a good job of turning that knowledge into effective policy against the terrorists. At key junctures, this administration has made disastrously wrong choices. Repeatedly, these decisions have played into the terrorists' hands. Let's look at the record.
[Page: S9697] GPO's PDF
It is a fact that the September 11 attacks happened despite repeated warnings to Mr. Bush from the CIA that al-Qaida was planning to attack America. Those warnings included an August 8, 2001, President's daily briefing which he received while he was vacationing in Crawford, TX. The report was titled ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.'' That is not a subhead or a sentence in the memo, that is the title of the memo: ``Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.'' [OMG!]
Let's look at the rest of the record.
On President Bush's watch, the U.S. botched the single best opportunity to capture bin Laden at Torah Borah in Afghanistan. A political decision was made to allow Afghan warlords to carry the brunt of that siege, and bin Laden escaped.
It was President Bush who 3 years ago pledged to smoke bin Laden out of his cave, but has utterly failed to do so. Instead, by successfully defying President Bush, bin Laden has become a folk hero across the Muslim world. He has attracted not only thousands of new recruits, but dozens of imitators, new bin Ladens who are forming their own terrorist organizations to attack America and Americans.
It was President Bush who diverted our military intelligence resources and certain military hardware, such as the Predator aircraft, the unmanned aerial vehicles, took them out of Afghanistan, away from the hunt for bin Laden and sent them to Iraq.
It was President Bush whose taunt, ``Bring it on,'' did indeed bring it on--a nationwide insurgency in Iraq, an urban guerrilla war that has trapped our Armed Forces in a quagmire.
It was President Bush whose unilateral approach on Iraq alienated many of our oldest allies and turned world opinion against the United States.
It was President Bush whose invasion and occupation of the second largest Arab country has outraged much of the Muslim world and has been a recruiting bonanza for Islamist terrorists.
This is an astonishing record of mistakes, misjudgments, and mismanagement. It is an astonishing record of George W. Bush again and again playing into Osama bin Laden's hands. It is like Wile E. Coyote chasing the Road Runner, only this time it is not funny. It is a colossal tragedy. It has put our Nation at even greater risk of terrorist attack.
Ironically, President Bush's father, George Herbert Walker Bush, warned against the folly of invading and occupying Iraq. Listen to this. On February 28, 1999, speaking to a group of Desert Storm veterans at Fort Myer, VA, former President Bush said:
Had we gone into Baghdad--we could have done it, you guys could have done it, you could have been there in 48 hours--and then what?
The first President Bush continued:
Whose life would be on my hands as the Commander in Chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power--America in an Arab land--with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous.
That is the first President Bush. That is not me. That is an exact quote from the first President Bush, 1999. I would say to this President: You do not have to listen to us, just listen to your father. He would have told you what you are getting into in Iraq.
This is what his father said:
We're going to be an occupying power--America in an Arab land--with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous.
It is disastrous. Of course, we heard the same prophetic warnings from Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, and other foreign policy experts. But this President Bush and his partner Dick Cheney and the neoconservative intellectuals thought they knew better. They reveled in words such as ``slam dunk'' and ``cakewalk.'' And so now the disaster that Bush 41 warned against has become a reality under Bush 43.
The Iraq invasion has set back, rather than advanced, the war on terrorism and al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden remains at large--an imminent danger to our homeland. Our Armed Forces are bogged down in Iraq, with casualties rising above 8,000, and they are not able to respond to real threats to the United States. Our moral authority and credibility on the world stage are at rock bottom.
The other day I was watching former President Carter at the Carter Center answer a question. He said he has been, I believe I am not mistaken, in over 120 countries. He said never in the history of the United States has our country been at such low esteem and moral authority in the rest of the world--never in the history of our country.
Despite President Bush's blustery threats about the so-called axis of evil, on his watch, North Korea has acquired nuclear weapons and Iran appears to be proceeding with impunity to develop its own nuclear weapons. This is an extraordinary record of mistakes, misjudgments, miscalculations, and missed opportunities.
As a consequence of President Bush's choices over the last 4 years, America is weaker, America is less secure, America is more vulnerable.
I say to my friend and colleague from Utah, whom I quoted earlier, look at the record. Look at this record and come to only one conclusion: The single best recruitment poster for al-Qaida and the terrorists is our policy in Iraq. Quite frankly, the architect of that policy, the person who is carrying it out, is President George W. Bush. No, it is not John Kerry, I say to my friend from Utah. It is not John Kerry. George W. Bush's reckless, stubborn policy is the single best recruiter for al-Qaida, and this must end so that our people can truly be made secure; that we can go after the terrorists; that we can get out of this quagmire in Iraq; that we can once again become the moral authority, the shining city on a hill that America has been to the rest of the world. I am sad to say it will not happen on this President's watch. That is why a change is in order.
I ask unanimous consent that an article that appeared September 26, 2004, in the Los Angeles Times be printed in its entirety in the RECORD.
Hummmmmm I'd call that a personal attack.
McConnell up now tearing into Kerry [again].
DA' SWIMMER UP defending Kerry...........
Good god.............he's off his rocker....
Thanks for the reports ... what did Teddy say now?
9:30 a.m.: Resume consideration of S. 2845, the Intelligence Reform Bill.
IRAQI ELECTIONS MUST GO FORWARD -- (House of Representatives - September 28, 2004)
[Page: H7582] GPO's PDF
---
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of January 20, 2004, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, a country was looking for free, democratic elections. Yet, a violent insurgency controlled about one-third of the nation's territory. Insurgents mined roads to prevent transportation and potential voters had to dodge sniper fire just to vote. Yet people by the hundreds of thousands risked their lives to have the opportunity a chance to vote, a chance for freedom.
For those that may not recognize this piece of history, the year is 1982, and the country is El Salvador, and 2 years later the people of that country had to risk the same peril to vote. This situation sounds familiar, does it not.
I doubt many can forget the horrible atrocities committed during the Civil War in El Salvador that claimed over 75,000 lives. The insurgents in that day were no less ruthless than those at the interim government that Afghanistan and Iraq are facing. Violent efforts were increased before and on the day of election to prevent the people of El Salvador from choosing their destiny. The reason was simple. Elections, as pointed out in a recent New York Times article, ``suck the oxygen from a rebel army.''
Interim Prime Minister Allawi knows this as well as Afghanistan President Karzai. Prime Minister Allawi was on this floor last week and stated emphatically that despite the naysayers in the media, and the supporters of Senator Kerry, Iraq will have free elections next year. Yet, not a day goes by that some pundit or some strategist talks about conditions in Iraq and says that the country is not ready for elections.
However, Madam Speaker, I think it would be worthwhile for those who say they are experts to listen to the Iraqi people. According to some Arab news media reports and Iraqi blogs, only a small portion of Iraq is under control of the insurgents. We are talking about a country that is roughly the size of California, and only a small portion remains vulnerable to the insurgencies.
Allawi is right to move forward with the elections. Iraqis are beyond fed up with these terrorist acts and may surprise many with their resilience in the face of these attacks.
Look at the Iraqi police and National Guard. Despite being persistent targets of these extremists, Iraqi citizens continue to risk their lives to sign up for
[Page: H7583] GPO's PDF
I think these so-called experts on elections in Iraq and Afghanistan are in for a rude awakening. Afghanistan's elections are set for October 9. Also, next month, Iraqis will begin registering to vote with election scheduled for January of next year. Will it be difficult? Most definitely. Will the insurgents try to disrupt this process? Yes. We have already seen that they will increase their attacks.
But the fact is the insurgents are scared. They know that a legitimately elected leader can put an end to this illegitimate insurgency. An elected leader can offer his people peace, stability and prosperity. Insurgents can only offer hate, fear and death.
An elected leader can undermine an insurgency by reaching out and addressing the perceived ills for which they are supposedly fighting for, or expose their motives as pure extremism. An elected leader can transform his country for the better.
Madam Speaker, it will not happen overnight. It took years for El Salvador but it can happen. It is a task that the United States must continue to support without hesitation.
Let me refer to two other examples. Violence and unrest were prevalent in Indonesia. Yet, recently, Indonesia conducted its direct presidential elections, orderly, peacefully, without disruption to voters' access.
Finally, I think we can all remember the problems in Serbia with Milosovic and what happened with his military action. On June 13 and 27 of 2004 this year, Serbia held presidential elections which is a welcome change in the political direction of Serbia and its relationship with the international community.
Remember what Prime Minister Tony Blair said when he addressed this body. Here is his quote which I think rings a very positive note: ``How hollow would the charges of American imperialism be when these failed countries are seen to be transformed from states of terror to nations of prosperity, from governments of dictatorship to examples of democracy, from sources of instability to beacons of calm.'' He went on to say, ``Why America? The only answer is because destiny put her in this place in history at this moment of time and the task is ours to do.''
We must take these words to heart and stand with a universal toughness. Democratic institutions continue to spread in the world. They are our true defense against the illegitimate attempts of Islamic fanatics to force their own distorted views of the world.
The Insurgency Buster
Conditions were horrible when Salvadorans went to the polls on March 28, 1982. The country was in the midst of a civil war that would take 75,000 lives. An insurgent army controlled about a third of the nation's territory. Just before election day, the insurgents stepped up their terror campaign. They attacked the National Palace, staged highway assaults that cut the nation in two and blew up schools that were to be polling places.
Yet voters came out in the hundreds of thousands. In some towns, they had to duck beneath sniper fire to get to the polls. In San Salvador, a bomb went off near a line of people waiting outside a polling station. The people scattered, then the line reformed. ``This nation may be falling apart,'' one voter told The Christian Science Monitor, ``but by voting we may help to hold it together.''
Conditions were scarcely better in 1984, when Salvadorans got to vote again. Nearly a fifth of the municipalities were not able to participate in the elections because they were under guerrilla control. The insurgents mined the roads to cut off bus service to 40 percent of the country. Twenty bombs were planted around the town of San Miguel. Once again, people voted with the sound of howitzers in the background.
Yet these elections proved how resilient democracy is, how even in the most chaotic circumstances, meaningful elections can be held.
They produced a National Assembly, and a president, José Napoleón Duarte. They gave the decent majority a chance to display their own courage and dignity. War, tyranny and occupation sap dignity, but voting restores it.
The elections achieved something else: They undermined the insurgency. El Salvador wasn't transformed overnight. But with each succeeding election into the early '90s, the rebels on the left and the death squads on the right grew weaker, and finally peace was achieved, and the entire hemisphere felt the effects.
I mention this case study because we are approaching election day in Afghanistan on Oct. 9. Six days later, voter registration begins in Iraq. Conditions in both places will be tense and chaotic. And in Washington, a mood of bogus tough-mindedness has swept the political class. As William Raspberry wrote yesterday in The Washington Post, ``the new consensus seems to be that bringing American-style democracy to Iraq is no longer an achievable goal.'' We should just settle for what JOHN KERRY calls ``stability.'' We should be satisfied if some strongman comes in who can restore order.
The people who make this argument pat themselves on the back for being hard-headed, but the fact is they are nai 4ve. They've got things exactly backward. The reason we should work for full democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is not just because it's noble, but because it's practical. It is easier to defeat an insurgency and restore order with elections than without.
As we saw in El Salvador and as Iraqi insurgents understand, elections suck the oxygen from a rebel army. They refute the claim that violence is the best way to change things. Moreover, they produce democratic leaders who are much better equipped to win an insurgency war.
It's hard to beat an illegitimate insurgency with an illegitimate dictatorship. Strongmen have to whip up ethnic nationalism to lure soldiers to their side. They end up inciting blood feuds and reaping the whirlwind.
A democratically elected leader, on the other hand, can do what Duarte did. He can negotiate with rebels, invite them into the political process and co-opt any legitimate grievances. He can rally people on all sides of the political spectrum, who are united by their attachment to the democratic idea. In Iraq, he can exploit the insurgents' greatest weakness: they have no positive agenda.
Of course the situation in El Salvador is not easily compared to the situations in Afghanistan or Iraq. On the other hand, over the past 30-odd years, democracy has spread at the rate of one and a half nations per year. It has spread among violence-racked nations and to 18 that are desperately poor. And it has spread not only because it inspires, but also because it works.
It's simply astounding that in the United States, the home of the greatest and most effective democratic revolution, so many people have come to regard democracy as a luxury-brand vehicle, suited only for the culturally upscale, when it's really a sturdy truck, effective in conditions both rough and smooth.
McCONNELL ~~ 12 . FOUR-PART PRESIDENTIAL PLAN FOR IRAQ
LOTT ~~ 14 . SENATOR KERRY AND AMERICA'S CHALLENGES (HUGE LIST OF KERRY FLIP-FLOPS!!!)
KENNEDY ~~ 15 . THIRTEEN REASONS WHY WE ARE NOT SAFER (Left wing talking points rant, says "nuclear" 19 times)
DURBIN ~~ 17 . CHALLENGES FACING AMERICA (QUOTE: "9/11 was the reason and the excuse that was needed to attack Iraq. This irrational passion to go after Saddam Hussein in Iraq, whatever the threat against the United States, has led us to a point where we find so many of our best and brightest and bravest Americans dying and facing severe injuries and wounds in Iraq every single day. ")
Da' Swimmer up now................Iraq's a quagmire.
Kyl up now about to smack down Kennedy...
Did I just hear 200 Amendents, from the dems, on the NID bill?!?!
I don't know .. I missed it
Sorry :0(
9:30 a.m.: Resume consideration of S. 2845, the Intelligence Reform Bill.
192: Motion to Table the Specter amendment #3706:
Tabled, 79-18
| Unanimous Consent: H.R.982, Bond Authority for American Samoa S.Res.444, a resolution congratulating and commending the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States H.R.4259, Homeland Security Financial Accountability S.2639, Congressional Awards Act Reauthorization (with Craig amendment) S.1601, Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention S.2436, a bill to reauthorize the Native Americans Program (with Inouye amendment) H.R.4115, Salt River - Pima Maricopa Indian Reservation lands S.Res.443, Legal Counsel representation H.J.Res.107, Continuing Resolution (to November 20, 2004) |
Thanks
Kennedy up now............
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.