A CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN speaks against the Iraq war [View All]

[WilliamPitt]

Received via email.

===

Congressman John Duncan Jr - REPUBLICAN, Tennessee

June 14, 2005

U.S. House of Representatives

I have come here tonight, first of all, to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Paul) for these remarks and for his leadership role that he has taken in this
regard. I also want to commend our colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Jones), because he feels so badly that he voted for this war and now he has seen
what has happened. And certainly the most unfortunate thing has been the more than
1,700 young Americans who have been killed there now, and the some 12,000 who have
been wounded, many of them severely wounded, maimed for life, in what was a totally
unnecessary war.

I told people before this war started that there was nothing conservative about this
war; that it was going to mean massive foreign aid, which conservatives have
traditionally been against; that it was going to mean huge deficit spending, which
conservatives have traditionally been against.

Lawrence Lindsey, who was the President's leading economic adviser, said before the
war started that it would cost $100 billion to $200 billion. Now, by the end of this
fiscal year, we are going to be at the astounding figure of $300 billion. And I
think the only reason more people are not upset about that is that it is humanly
impossible to truly comprehend a figure as high as $300 billion.

Of course Lawrence Lindsey lost his job over that. A few days before we voted on
this war back in October of 2002, I was called to the White House with five other
Members and was given a briefing by Condoleezza Rice; George Tenet, then head of the
CIA; and John McLaughlin, the Deputy Director. I asked about the Lindsey prediction
and was told by Ms. Rice, oh, no, the war would not cost near as much.

I asked them if you could get by the traditional conservative view against massive
foreign aid and get by the traditional conservative position of being against huge
deficit spending, and if you could get past the traditional conservative view that
the U.S. should not be the policeman of the world, was there any evidence of any
imminent threat?

I was told there was no evidence of any imminent threat, and that was later
confirmed the day after Mr. Tenet resigned. He gave a speech at Georgetown and he
said he told everyone all along there was no evidence of any imminent threat by
Saddam Hussein, who was truly an evil man. I asked at that time meeting at the White
House how much Saddam Hussein's total military budget was in regard to ours, in
relation to ours, and I was told it was a little over 2/10 of 1 percent of ours.

It just amazed me that we would be considering such a drastic action, and what
really impressed me later on, I read in Bob Woodward's book, and the briefing I had
was in October 2002. Some 2.5 months later on December 21, the President received
that same briefing from Mr. Tenet and Mr. McLaughlin and probably received more
information than I did. According to Mr. Woodward, the President's comment was, "Is
that the best we have? That will never convince Joe Public." And yet we went on to
this unnecessary war anyway.

One thing that disturbed me about this also, not as much as the deaths and the
woundings, but many people, I think, mistakenly thought this was a conservative war.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and I are two of the most conservative Members
of this House, as is the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), another one of our colleagues who voted against the
war.

Charlie Reese, a nationally syndicated conservative columnist, who was chosen
several years ago as the favorite columnist of C-SPAN viewers, said before the war
that it is ludicrous to think that a Third World country like Iraq is a threat to
the United States.

He went on to write, ``A U.S. attack on Iraq is a prescription for the decline and
fall of the American empire. Overextension, urged on by a bunch of rabid
intellectuals who wouldn't know one end of a gun from another, has doomed many an
empire. Just let the United States try to occupy the Middle East, which will be the
practical result of a war against Iraq, and Americans will be bled dry by the cost
in both blood and treasury.''

James Webb, President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy and a Vietnam veteran, wrote a
column in the Washington Post strongly opposing this war before it started. He said
if we went in, we would be there probably for 30 years.

A professor of international affairs at Sarah Lawrence College wrote in the
Washington Post before the war started, ``Initially, a military liberation of
Baghdad could unleash joy in the streets of Iraq. But unless the United States is
willing to forcefully police the new order for many years to come, Iraq will
fracture and descend into chaos, destabilizing its neighbors and giving rise to new
jihad groups that will attack Americans. Not only will there be no democracy in
Iraq, but U.S. vital interests will be in danger.''

The gentleman mentioned the word ``isolationist'' a few minutes ago. Anyone who
opposes any foreign adventure or misadventure is sometimes referred to as an
isolationist. But our policies and actions in Iraq have isolated us almost more than
anything else we have done from the rest of the world.

I have traveled in many foreign countries, and in almost every country I have been
told 75 to 80 percent of the people have been against the war. Dick Armey, the
Republican majority leader at the time we voted on the war, said before the war
started, ``I do not believe that America will justifiably make an unprovoked attack
on another nation. It would not be consistent with what we have been as a Nation. My
own view would be to let him bluster, let him rant and rave all he wants, and let
that be a matter between he and his own country. As long as he stays within his own
borders, we should not be addressing any attack or resources against him.''

Jack Kemp wrote before the war, ``If there is a lack of sufficient hard evidence
that Saddam Hussein has his finger on the trigger of a weapon of mass destruction or
is at least taking active steps to use one in the near future, are we prepared to
assert the moral and legal authority to invade and conquer Iraq preemptively because
we fear Saddam might use a weapon of mass destruction against us if he were able to
acquire one? Would the same apply, say, to Pakistan or Iran if we fear the current
regimes might fall and Taliban-like regimes take their place? What is the evidence
that should cause us to fear Iraq more than Pakistan or Iran in this regard? Do we
reserve the right to launch a preemptive war exclusively for ourselves, or might
other nations such as India, Pakistan or China be justified in taking similar action
on the basis of the fears of other nations? Based on the hard evidence I have seen,
I do not believe the administration has made a compelling case for the invasion and
occupation of Iraq.''

Georgie Ann Geyer, a nationally syndicated columnist, wrote after the war started,
``Critics of the war against Iraq have said since the beginning of the conflict that
Americans, still strangely complacent about overseas wars being waged by a minority
in their name, will inevitably come to a point where they will see they have to have
a government that provides services at home or one that seeks empire across the
globe.'' That seems to be what we are doing in this situation.

President Kennedy said in 1961, ``We must face the fact that the United States is
neither omnipotent nor omniscient, that we are only 6 percent of the world's
population,'' now 4 percent, ``that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94
percent of mankind, that we cannot right every wrong or reverse every adversity, and
therefore, there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.''

I can also tell Members that last year Robert Novak wrote a column and said
Republicans all over the country are ``distraught about the U.S. adventure in
Iraq.'' He quoted from a speech by Senator Roberts, who said, ``We need to restrain
our growing messianic instincts, a sort of global social engineering, where the
United States feels it is both entitled and obligated to promote democracy, by
force, if necessary.''

And of course we know, too, a few days ago that the godfather of conservativism
William Buckley came out and said it is time to exit Iraq. A few months before he
said if he had known in 2002 what he knows now, he would have opposed the war from
the beginning.

It has not been a conservative war from the start. It was totally unfair and
unconservative to put the total burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on our
taxpayers and our military. Conservatives have traditionally been the biggest
critics of the U.N.

I get back to the word ``isolationists,'' and say we should try to be friends with
every nation. I think most of us support helping out during humanitarian crises. We
should have trade and cultural and educational exchanges, but we should never go to
war except as a very last resort.

Another great, great conservative from many years ago, Senator Robert Taft, wrote,
``No foreign policy can be justified except as a policy devoted to the protection of
the liberty of the American people with war only as the last resort and only to
preserve that liberty.'' That is the true conservative position. The true
conservative position is to put our own country and our own people first, and we are
not doing that.

Most of what we have done in Iraq has been massive foreign aid. We have built or
rebuilt over 6,000 schools. We have been rebuilding roads, water systems, power
plants. We have set up a witness protection program, small business loan program,
and even Internet cafes. I know that the soldiers over there are proud of these good
things that they have done, but at a time when the Congress, and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Paul) and I do not vote to raise the national debt, but the Congress
voted recently to raise our national debt to $9 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, it is not going to be many years ago, they talk about 2046, but it is
going to be much sooner when we are not going to be able to pay all of our Social
Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Every article says Medicare and Medicaid are in worse
shape than Social Security. We have guaranteed 44 private pensions through an agency
called the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. We have added on a trillion-dollar
prescription drug benefit. There is nobody up here that I have talked to on either
side of the aisle who says we are going to be able to pay all of these obligations
in the near future.

So what will we do, first we will start printing more money, but that does not work
for very long. It is like a ball rolling downhill; it gets faster as it goes along,
and then they are going to have to cut benefits. At the most we have 12 or 15 more
years probably, and that is at the most.

A few days ago the pensioners of United Airlines woke up, and their pensions had
been cut in half. It will not happen that drastically with the government, but that
is the kind of future we are facing if we try to take on the obligations of the
entire world.

We went into Iraq, and I can tell Members this: In 1998, I voted to give the Iraqi
opposition $100 million to start the movement to take out Saddam Hussein. I was
convinced that we should have let them fight their own war instead of sending our
kids over there to fight and die. I think what we should do now, we should start,
and I wish the President would announce a phased and orderly withdrawal. I think he
could do this in a very positive way. He could say we have done far more for Iraq
than any other nation has done for another in the history of the world. He could
point to the $300 billion we have spent there, and he also could refer to the polls
showing almost all Iraqis view us as occupiers rather than liberators. Last year in
the last poll that the government took, it was 92 percent, and 78 percent in a poll
taken by CNN, that the Iraqis view us as occupiers rather than liberators. They do
not really appreciate what we have done. They do want our money. This is a country
that Newsweek said had a gross domestic product of $65 billion before the war, and
we have spent $300 billion in just a couple of years' time.

As I said earlier, some may say this is isolationist, but the truth is the war in
Iraq has isolated us from almost everyone except a few foreign policy elitists
around the world. When they use thoughtless cliches like we cannot cut and run, or
we must stay the course, we should ask, why? Is what we are accomplishing or not
accomplishing in Iraq worth one more young American being killed? Would it be worth
the life of your son and daughter, I would say to anyone who happens to be listening
to this?

Last June about this time I read in the Chicago Tribune a story about a young
soldier who had just been killed in Iraq. Just a few days earlier he had called his
mother and told her, this is not our war. We should not be here. I can tell Members
this: We changed the name of the War Department many years ago to the Department of
Defense. We should make it truly a Defense Department once again and bring our
troops home.

I can tell Members very few people in this Congress, I do not think anybody in the
Congress, really respects and admires the military more than I do, but I believe in
national defense. I do not believe in international defense, and if we take on the
defense obligations of the entire world, and that is another thing, conservatives
have never believed in world government. This is not a conservative war. We should
begin a phased, orderly withdrawal and stop the killing over there. It is such a sad
thing, and it is just not worth what we are going through.