October
5, 2004
'Keeping Hopelessness Alive' in Iraq
By Senator
Jon Kyl
(Note: The following is an abridgement of a statement
Senator Kyl delivered on the floor of the Senate on September
29, in response to remarks by Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts
that echoed numerous partisan attacks against President Bush.)
"The Senator from Massachusetts has made
a pretty vicious attack, I would say, on the President of the
United States, contending that he hasn't leveled with the American
people. The Senator began by reciting why, in his view, the outlook
is so 'bleak', that we're 'losing the war.' I see in these remarks
and others that I've heard recently a steely determination to
keep hopelessness alive. That, I don't think, should be the policy
of the United States.
The President has a vision about how to bring
the war against militant Islam to a conclusion; but there were
no constructive alternatives from the Senator from Massachusetts,
no ideas about how we could do better, just an attack on the President,
and an assertion that we're losing the war, the implications of
which were left hanging.
The Senator accused the President of painting
a rosy picture. I think he forgets two things: First of all, President
Bush has said repeatedly from the very beginning that this would
be a very long and very difficult conflict. In fact, he's tried
to inspire the American people to continue to persevere. You don't
inspire people by wringing your hands and talking about how we're
losing the war. Think about what kind of a message that sends
to our troops and to the families who are sacrificing. What kind
of a message does it send to our allies, who some people say they
could convince to come into this conflict? That's not exactly
going to persuade them. And finally, what kind of a message does
it send to the enemy to suggest that they're winning and we're
losing?
I think Senator Kennedy has confused violence
in Iraq with his claim of less security at home. One of the reasons
we are all more secure and we haven't been attacked for more than
three years at home is because we've taken the fight to the enemy.
Secondly, the Senator from Massachusetts alleges
that there was no relationship, no connection between the terrorists
and the Saddam Hussein Regime. I want to try to debunk this myth
right now. Let me quote from the CIA: 'We have solid reporting
of senior-level contacts between Iraq and Al-Qaeda going back
a decade.' No relationship? 'Credible information indicates that
Iraq and Al-Aaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the
presence in Iraq of Al-Qaeda members, including some that have
been in Baghdad.' Again quote: 'We have credible evidence that
Al-Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq that could help them
acquire weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has provided training
to Al Qaeda leaders in the making of conventional bombs.' And
finally, 'Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians,
coupled with a growing relationship with Al-Qaeda, suggests that
Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase even absent U.S. military
action.'
No relationship? No contact? No connection?
How about the 9/11 Commission? What did it say?
Here's a quotation from Chairman Thomas Kean: "There was
no question in our minds that there was a relationship between
Iraq and Al Qaeda." The commission's report said: "With
the Sudanese regime acting as an intermediary, Bin Laden himself
met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in late 1995. Bin
Laden is said to have asked for space to establish training camps
as well as assistance in procuring weapons. The ensuing years
saw additional efforts to establish connections... In July 1998
an [Iraqi] delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with
the Taliban and then with Bin Laden... According to reports, Iraqi
officials offered Bin Laden safe haven in Iraq. The reports describe
friendly contacts and indicate common themes on both sides, particularly
a hatred of the United States."
"To date, we have seen no evidence that these
or other contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational
relationship," the report also says. That's a critical distinction.
The president never alleged an operational link, or that Saddam
Hussein helped plan the 9/11 attack. But there is plenty of evidence
of connections between Al-Qaida and Saddam Husein. According to
a CIA report called Iraqi Support for Terrorism, 'the general
pattern that emerges is one of Al-Qaeda's enduring interest in
acquiring chemical, biological, and nuclear expertise from Iraq.'
This is exactly what the president has talked about: concern that
this relationship would someday - if we didn't act against Iraq
- blossom into full-blown support from Iraq to Al-Qaeda.
Finally, as to the suggestion that Iraq is a diversion
from succeeding in Afghanistan, that we haven't finished the job
there - we were very successful in defeating the Taliban and killing
a lot of Al-Qaeda and in establishing a regime there which is
going to be holding elections. Prime Minister Karzai made it very
clear when he came to this country; he expressed his appreciation
just as Prime Minister Allawi of Iraq has to the American and
allied forces. I think there's a misconception here that the only
Al-Qaeda are in the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and
because we haven't captured every single one of them, including
Osama Bin Laden, therefore, somehow or other, our activities in
Iraq are responsible. There's been no evidence of that. As a matter
of fact, our military commanders make the point that it isn't
true.
I conclude with this point: to those who convey
a sense of panic, that everything is going badly. Those of us
who support the President's policy are not saying everything is
rosy. I don't know anyone who has. But as contrasted with those
who create this sense of panic, the President has a vision. His
commanders have a strategy. When I saw General Abizaid on television
last Sunday, he didn't paint a rosy picture. It was a very realistic
assessment. But he also showed a calm confidence that if we can
persevere, we can prevail. And that's what he asked of the American
people: To allow their military commanders as well as the Commander-in-Chief
to carry out the vision here to defeat militant Islamic terrorists,
wherever they are. This war has many fronts. We've fought simultaneously
to try to gain support from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Libyan
regime, from Syria, in Yemen and the Sudan and so on. There are
still some places to go. But the bottom line here is you can't
just isolate one little place in the world and say we have to
do that first and win every possible goal before we can do anything
else anywhere else.
So let's consider that the military commanders
might know what they're talking about. It does no good to wring
our hands and paint a picture of panic. Realistic assessments?
Absolutely. Truth to the American people? Absolutely. But leadership
that presents a vision and a strategy for winning the wider war
on terrorism, that's what the President has provided; and that's
why I'm very proud to support his efforts.
