Iraq

IRAQ

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this morning's newspapers across America have lead stories that I think are a grim reminder to us of the reality of life in Washington and the challenges we face. The lead stories in most newspapers across America relate to a vote on the Senate floor yesterday. I believe it was a historic vote. By a vote of 79 to 19, Republican and Democratic Senators said it is time for change in this administration's policy in Iraq.

Certainly, when you look at the statistics, it is understandable: Over 2,060 of our best and bravest soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq. Over 15,000 have been gravely wounded, some of them with injuries that will change their lives. And, of course, 25,000 or 30,000 innocent Iraqis--innocent Iraqis--have died during the course of this war.

This war has gone on for over 3 years, after the administration promised us, in the words of Secretary Rumsfeld, that he could not imagine we would be there for more than 6 months. It is now beyond 3 years; no end in sight.

The American people are frustrated, as they should be; frustrated by the fact that this administration made a case for the war in Iraq that was false. You can recall it, as I do, the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, Condoleezza Rice, even Secretary of State Powell, making statements about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that were a threat to the Middle East and to the world that could easily fall into the hands of terrorists; statements over and over again about nuclear weapons, Condoleezza Rice talking about mushroom clouds that we could fear if we did not invade Iraq and stop Saddam Hussein; and, of course, linking our national tragedy of 9/11 with Saddam Hussein, saying that somehow he had connections with al-Qaida.

Well, it turned out all of those things were false--every single one of them--so false to the point where the President had to do something I do not think has ever been done in the history of this Nation. He had to apologize and recant a remark he made in his State of the Union Address about this yellow cake coming from Niger in Africa so the Iraqis could use it to make nuclear weapons. It turned out it was a phony. It was not true.

So we were drawn into a war under false pretenses. We all knew how terrible Saddam Hussein was, but we certainly came to understand that the specific reasons given for the invasion of Iraq turned out not to be true, one after the other. Weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, connections with al-Qaida, yellow cake from Niger, so-called mobile biological weapons laboratories--all of these things turned out to be totally false.

It is understandable the American people are concerned about it because if you measure an abuse of power by a government, could there be an abuse of power any worse than misleading the people of a country into believing that a war is necessary?

That is, of course, why the Senate Democrats took to the floor just 2 weeks ago and demanded that the promised investigation of this administration for the potential misuse of intelligence be completed by the Senate Intelligence Committee. It has been over 20 months--20 months--since we were promised that this honest investigation would take place, and nothing has happened.

There have been small parts of it that have been addressed, but I think we all know what the story is. The Senate Intelligence Committee, under the control of the President's party, does not want to open that door and look inside. Well, why should we? Why should we reflect and dwell on the past? Some say: Let's look forward. But if we do not get to the heart of this issue, the truth of the matter, if we are not honest with the American people and straightforward as to what happened leading up to that invasion of Iraq, then I think we are derelict in our constitutional responsibilities.

This Congress is designed as one branch of Government to serve as oversight of the executive branch of Government. The failure of the Senate Intelligence Committee, for more than 20 months, to produce this intelligence analysis, which they promised, is proof positive they are dragging their feet, unwilling to accept the responsibility which they have publicly proclaimed.

So yesterday we passed on the floor, by a vote of 79 to 19, a clear statement to this administration that the policy in Iraq must change. No. 1, we said the year 2006 will not just be another year in Iraq, another year of casualties, another year of death, another year of our despondency over whether this is going to end well. It will be a year of significant transition. That is what the Democratic amendment said. That is what was adopted.

Secondly, we served notice on Iraqis that it is their responsibility, not the American responsibility, to secure their own country and to build a political coalition that can defeat the insurgency. I had hoped we would have even stronger language to say to the Iraqis: We are not here indefinitely. We want to bring our troops home. The Republican side watered down that language, but the message was still clear.

The third element is important as well. Accountability is essential. This administration must be held accountable for whether we were prepared not only for the invasion of Iraq but for what occurred afterwards. You know what happened afterwards. Secretary Rumsfeld visited with our troops, and a soldier came forward, held up his hand to ask a question, and said: Mr. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, why is it that we soldiers have to scavenge through junk piles to find pieces of armor to stick on these humvees to protect ourselves? A moment of great embarrassment for the Secretary, but I am glad that soldier had the courage to stand up and say what we already knew.

We were not prepared. We sent our troops into combat without the necessary humvee armor, without the necessary body armor, without the necessary protection for our helicopters. It was done, and in some respects too late and too little. We lost American soldiers' lives and many were injured because we did not have the right equipment in place.

So now what we are saying is that this administration must be held accountable, to report to Congress every 90 days to tell us in Congress the progress that is being made in protecting our troops, in preparing the Iraqis to defend their own country, in moving that country toward stability, and in moving us to the point where American soldiers can start coming home. That was passed yesterday, 79 to 19.

As the President stood on Veterans Day and in an unprecedented political speech attacked his Democratic critics for saying they did not agree with his war policy, this Senate, on a bipartisan basis yesterday, 79 to 19, said to the President: Your policy in Iraq must change. We need to start looking to bring American soldiers home. And 2006 is the year to begin that process in earnest.

That is why it was a historic vote. Of course, as we look at the statements made in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, there is a recurring theme. It turns out that the major sources of intelligence that were passing through the administration and to the American people were passing across the desk of Vice President Cheney.

Lieutenant Colonel Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, referred to a cabal, a cabal led by Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, a cabal which set the stage for the invasion of Iraq. The man speaking was not a partisan Democrat. He was the chief of staff to the Secretary of State in the Bush administration, Colin Powell. I think it makes clear that throughout the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, our Vice President, RICHARD CHENEY, was making statements that did not reflect the truth of what was occurring in Iraq.

Repeatedly, he said Iraq had links to al-Qaida, and that was proven false. Repeatedly, he said Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States, and that was proven false. Repeatedly, Vice President Cheney said Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and that was proven false.

On ``Meet the Press,'' on March 16, 2003, the Vice President said: ``And we believe he [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' False.

In addition, there were statements made about whether Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Africa, statements made by the Vice President which turned out to be false, and statements, of course, relative to aluminum tubes. I knew something about that debate because as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I listened as the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy debated whether these aluminum tubes were really all about nuclear weapons. There was a real division within the administration, and I would walk outside the Senate Intelligence Committee room and hear statements made by the Vice President saying: There is no debate. It is all about nuclear weapons.

Now, I could not repeat what I had heard in the Senate Intelligence Committee. I was prohibited from saying it publicly. I knew what he said was false. It is one of the reasons I voted against that resolution to go to war in Iraq.

But again and again the Vice President was taking information, intelligence information, giving it to the American people selectively, making certain that it was always the strongest spin toward the immediate need for a war, and that is how we ended up in the position we are in today.

It is a lot easier to get into a war than it is to get out of one. And we have learned that with the cost in human lives and the cost to America's Treasury.

http://thomas.loc.gov/