SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleagues. I
have, this afternoon, the opportunity to respond to being charged as anti-Semitic when I proclaimed
the policy of President Bush in the Mideast as not for Iraq or really for democracy in the sense
that he is worried about Saddam and democracy. If he were worried about democracy in the Mideast, as
we wanted to spread it as a policy, we would have invaded Lebanon, which is half a democracy and has
terrorism and terrorists who have been problems to the interests of Israel and the United States. It
is very interesting that on page 231, Richard Clarke, in his book ÔÔAgainst All Enemies,ÕÕ cites the
fact that there had not been any terrorism, any evidence or intelligence of SaddamÕs terrorism
against the United States from 1993 to 2003. He says that in the presence of Paul Wolfowitz. He says
that in the presence of John McLaughlin of the CIA. In fact, he says: IsnÕt that right, John? And
John says: That is exactly right. The reason was when they made the attempt on President Bush,
Senior, back in 1993, President Clinton ordered a missile strike on Saddam in downtown Baghdad, the
intelligence headquarters, and it went right straight down the middle of the headquarters. It was
after hours so not a big killÑbut Saddam got the message: You monkey around with the United States,
a missile will land on your head. So, in essence, the equation had changed in the
Saddam-Iraq/Mideast concerns whereby Saddam was more worried about any threat of the United States
against him than the United States was worried about a threat by Saddam against us. I want to read
an article that appeared in the Post and Courier in Charleston on May 6; thereafter, I think in the
State newspaper in Columbia a couple days later; and in the Greenville NewsÑall three major
newspapers in South Carolina. You will find that there is no anti-Semitic reference whatsoever in
it. The reason I emphasize that upfront is for the simple reason that you cannot put an op-ed in my
hometown paper that is anti-Semitic. We have a very, very proud Jewish community in Charleston. In
fact, it is where reform Judaism began. The earliest temple, Kadosh Beth Elohim, is on Hasell
Street. I have spoken there several times. I had the pleasure of having that particular temple put
on the National Register. This particular Senator, with over 50 years now of public service, has
received a strong Jewish vote. Let me emphasize another thing because the papers are piling on and
bringing up again a little difference of opinion I had on the Senate floor with Senator Metzenbaum.
It was not really a difference. What had happened was we were discussing a matter, and we referred
to each¹s religion in order to make sure there would not be any misunderstanding or tempers flaring.
The distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Helms, referred to himself as the Baptist lay
leader, Senator Danforth as the Episcopal priest. I referred to myself as the Lutheran Senator. And
when Senator Metzenbaum came on the floor, I referred to him as the Senator from B¹nai B¹rith, and
he took exception. He thought it was an aspersion. I told him: Wait a minute, I will gladly identify
myself as the Senator from B¹nai B¹rith. I did not mean to hurt his feelings. I apologized at that
time but not for the legitimacy and the circumstances of the particular reference. Now here we go
again, some years later. The Senator from Virginia, Mr. GEORGE ALLEN, and I are good friends. Maybe
after this particular thing he might feel different, but I know his role as the chairman of the
campaign committee. And so I have an article here where Senator ALLEN denounces Senator HOLLINGS¹
latest political attack, Senator HOLLINGS¹ antisemitic, political conspiracy statement. Let me read
the statement here from the May 6 Post and Courier, and you be the judge: With 760 dead in Iraq,
over 3,000 maimed for life‹home folks continue to argue why we are in Iraq‹and how to get out. Now
everyone knows what was not the cause. Even President Bush acknowledges that Saddam Hussein had
nothing to do with 9/11. Listing the 45 countries where al-Qaida was operating on September 11 . . .
the State Department did not list Iraq. They listed 45 countries and at that particular date on
September 11, 2001, they did not even list Iraq. Richard Clarke, in ŒŒAgainst All Enemies,¹¹ tells
how the United States had not received any threat of terrorism for 10 years from Saddam at the time
of our invasion. On page 231, John McLaughlin of the CIA verifies this to Deputy Defense Secretary
Paul Wolfowitz. In 1993, President Clinton responded to Saddam¹s attempt on the life of President
George H.W. Bush by putting a missile down on Saddam¹s intelligence headquarters in Baghdad. Not a
big kill, but Saddam got the message‹monkey around with the United States and a missile lands on his
head. Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel¹s intelligence Mossad knows what¹s
going on in Iraq. They are the best. They have to know. Israel¹s survival depends on knowing. Israel
long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction . . . Let me divert for a second
there. I was here when Israel attacked the nuclear facility in Baghdad during the 1980s. In all
candor, when President Bush, on October 7, 2002, said, after all that buildup by Cheney, Wolfowitz,
Rumsfeld and everybody else, that facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait until the smoking
gun is a mushroom cloud, I thought we were attacking for Israel. I thought that they knew about some
kind of nuclear development there. And rather than getting them in further trouble with the United
Nations and the Arab world, that its best friend, the United States, would knock it out for them.
That is why I voted for it. I got misled. Our attack on Iraq, the invasion of Iraq is a bad mistake.
I will get into that later. But let me read even further: . . . if there were any [weapons of mass
destruction] or if they had been removed. With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The
answer: President Bush¹s policy to secure Israel. Led by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles
Krauthammer, for years there had been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel¹s
security is to spread democracy in the area. Wolfowitz wrote: ŒŒThe United States may not be able to
lead countries through the door of democracy, but where that door is locked shut by a totalitarian
deadbolt, American power may be the only way to open it up.¹¹ Namely, invasion. That is Wolfowitz
talking. And on another occasion: Iraq as ŒŒthe first Arab democracy . . . would cast a very large
shadow, starting with Syria and Iran but across the whole Arab world.¹¹ Three weeks before the
invasion, President Bush stated: ŒŒA new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring
example for freedom for other nations in the region.¹¹ I referred to those three gentlemen because I
know them well. They are brilliant. I have been for years associated one way or the other with each
of them. I read Charles Krauthammer. I wish I could write like he can. With respect to Richard
Perle, he was sort of our authority in the cold war, best friend of Scoop Jackson. That is how I met
him 38 years ago almost. I followed him and I followed his advice, and that is in large measure how
we prevailed in the cold war. So I have the highest respect for Richard Perle. And, of course, the
other gentleman, Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Wolfowitz, I met him out in Indonesia when he was Ambassador.
He came back. We were good friends. He was looking around for a position, and I know I offered him
one‹in fact, we might go to the records and find temporarily he might have been on my payroll for a
few weeks. But I have always had the highest regard for Paul Wolfowitz. That is why I referred to
him. I had their sayings and everything else. But let me go, diverting for a minute, right to the
Project For The New American Century. I have a letter that was written on May 29, 1998, to Newt
Gingrich, the Speaker, TRENT LOTT, the Senate majority leader. These are the gentlemen who said
this: We would use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberating areas in
northern and southern Iraq, and we should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in
the region and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf and, if
necessary, to help remove Saddam from power. And that is signed by‹and I want everybody to remember
these names‹Elliot Abrams, William J. Bennett, Jeffrey Bergner, John R. Bolton, Paula Dobriansky,
Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Peter Rodman,
Donald Rumsfeld, William Schneider, Jr., Vin Weber, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey, Robert B.
Zoellick. There is a studied school of thought of the best way to secure Israel. We have been going
for years back and forth with every particular administration, you can see where we are now. But in
any event, the better way to do it is go right in and establish our predominance in Iraq and then,
as they say, and I have different articles here I could refer to, next is Iran and then Syria. And
it is the domino theory, and they genuinely believe it. I differ. I think, frankly, we have caused
more terrorism than we have gotten rid of. That is my Israel policy. You can¹t have an Israel policy
other than what AIPAC gives you around here. I have followed them mostly in the main, but I have
also resisted signing certain letters from time to time, to give the poor President a chance. I can
tell you no President takes office ‹I don¹t care whether it is a Republican or a Democrat‹that all
of a sudden AIPAC will tell him exactly what the policy is, and Senators and members of Congress
ought to sign letters. I read those carefully and I have joined in most of them. On some I have held
back. I have my own idea and my own policy. I have stated it categorically. The way to really get
peace is not militarily. You cannot kill an idea militarily. I was delighted the other day when
General Myers appeared before our Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and he said that we will
not win militarily in Iraq. He didn¹t say we are going to get defeated militarily but that you can¹t
win militarily in Iraq. Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield? Mr. HOLLINGS. Not until I complete this
thought. Time is running out on me. The papers are the ones that pointed out Wolfowitz, Pearle, and
Charles Krauthammer were of the Jewish faith. They are the ones who brought all this Semitism in
there. I can tell you that right now, I didn¹t have that in mind. I had my friends in mind and I
followed them. We had this in the late 1990s under President Clinton, when we passed a resolution
that we ought to have Saddam removed from power, have a regime change. I was wondering how it went.
I had to find my old file‹ on this Project For The New American Century. Now, going back to my
article: ŒŒevery President since 1947 has made a futile attempt to help Israel negotiate peace. But
no leadership has surfaced amongst the Palestinians that can make a binding agreement. President
Bush realized his chances at negotiation were no better. He came to office imbued with one
thought.¹¹ Mr. ALLARD. I wonder if the Senator will yield, preserving his time, for a unanimous
consent request to move forward with the judge vote we have at 5:40. Mr. HOLLINGS. Without losing my
right to the floor, I will yield. UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT‹EXECUTIVE CALENDAR Mr. ALLARD. Mr.
President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:30 today the Senate proceed to
executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc on today¹s Executive Calendar: No.
556, the nomination of Raymond Gruender to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit; and
Calendar No. 557, the nomination of Franklin S. Van Antwerpen, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Third Circuit. I further ask unanimous consent that following 10 minutes of debate, equally divided
between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, or their designees, that the
Senate proceed to consecutive votes on the confirmation of the nominations, with no further
intervening action or debate; further, that following the vote, the President be immediately
notified of the Senate¹s action, and the Senate then return to legislative session. The PRESIDING
OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the Senator modify his request so
that the statement of the Senator from South Carolina will stop at 5:40, and the rest of the
unanimous consent kick in at 5:40, rather than 5:30, so we will be voting at 5:50. Mr. ALLARD. I am
willing to modify it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr.
President, let me again read from my article: President Bush came to office imbued with one thought:
reelection. I say that advisedly. I have been up here with eight Presidents. We have had support of
all eight Presidents. Yes, I supported the President on this Iraq resolution, but I was misled.
There weren¹t any weapons, or any terrorism, or al-Qaida. This is the reason we went to war. He had
one thought in mind, and that was reelection. I say that about President Bush. He is a delightful
fella, a wonderful campaigner, but he loves campaigning. You cannot get him in the White House or
catch him there, hardly. He doesn¹t work on these problems at all. I have worked with all of the
Presidents. I know the leadership goes to the White House and tries to work with him. He is
interested in one thing, and that is to be out campaigning. So he had one thought in mind, and that
was reelection. Again, let me read: Bush thought tax cuts would hold his crowd together and that
spreading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take the Jewish vote from the Democrats.

Is there anything wrong with referring to the Jewish vote? Good gosh, every 1 of us of the 100, with
pollsters and all, refer to the Jewish vote. That is not anti-Semitic. It is appreciating them. We
campaigned for it. I just read about President Bush¹s appearance before the AIPAC. He confirmed his
support of the Jewish vote, referring to adopting Ariel Sharon¹s policy, and the dickens with the
1967 borders, the heck with negotiating the return of refugees, the heck with the settlements he had
objected to originally. They had those borders, Resolution No. 242‹no, no, President Bush said: I am
going along with Sharon, and he was going to get that and he got the wonderful reception he got with
the Jewish vote. 

There is nothing like politicizing or a conspiracy, as my friend from Virginia,
Senator ALLEN, says‹that it is an anti-Semitic, political, conspiracy statement. That is not a
conspiracy. That is the policy. I didn¹t like to keep it a secret, maybe; but I can tell you now, I
will challenge any 1 of the other 99 Senators to tell us why we are in Iraq, other than what this
policy is here. It is an adopted policy, a domino theory of The Project For The New American
Century. Everybody knows it because we want to secure our friend, Israel. 

If we can get in there and
take it in 7 days, as Paul Wolfowitz says, then we would get rid of Saddam, and when we got rid of
Saddam, now all they can do is fall back and say: Aren¹t you getting rid of Saddam? Let me get to
that point. What happens is, they say he is a monster. We continued to give him aid after he gassed
his own people and everything else of that kind. George Herbert Walker Bush said in his book All The
Best in 1999, never commit American GIs into an unwinnable urban guerrilla war and lose the support
of the Arab world, lose their friendship and support. That is a general rephrasing of it. The point
is, my authority is the President¹s daddy. I want everybody to know that. I don¹t apologize for this
column. I want them to apologize to me for talking about anti-Semitism. They are not getting by with
it. I will come down here every day‹I have nothing else to do‹and we will talk about it and find out
what the policy is. Let me go back to this particular column: But George Bush, as stated by former
Treasury Secretary Paul O¹Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days before
the Inauguration. There is no question, he got a briefing. That was the first thing he wanted out of
former Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen. Then the nominee, about to take the oath of office as
President of the United States, wanted to be briefed on Iraq. They had this policy in mind coming to
town. 

Mr. President, 9/11 had nothing to do with it, and we all know it now. We have to understand
it because that is the only way really to help Israel and get us out of the soup. Everybody is
worrying about Iraq. We better worry about Israel because we certainly have put her in terrible
jeopardy with this particular initiative. Without any Iraq connection to 9/11, within weeks
President Bush had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq. He was determined. President Bush
thought taking Iraq would be easy. Wolfowitz said it would take only 7 days. 

Vice President Cheney
believed that we would be greeted as liberators, but Cheney¹s man, Chalabi, made a mess of de-
Baathification of Iraq by dismissing Republican Guard leadership and Sunni leaders who soon joined
with the insurgents. Worst of all, we tried to secure Iraq with too few troops. In 1966 in South
Vietnam, with a population of 16 million, General William C. Westmoreland, with 535,000 U.S. troops,
was still asking for more troops. In Iraq, with a population of 25 million, General John Abizaid,
with only 135,000 troops, can barely secure the troops, much less the country. If the troops are
there to fight, there are too few. If they are there to die, there are too many. To secure Iraq we
need more troops, at least 100,000 more. The only way to get the United Nations back in Iraq is to
make the country secure. Once back, the French, Germans, and others will join with the U.N. to take
over. 

With President Bush¹s domino policy in the Mideast gone awry, he can¹t keep shouting
ŒŒTerrorism war.¹¹ Terrorism is a method, not a war. We don¹t call the Crimean war, with the charge
of the light brigade, the cavalry war, or World War II the blitzkrieg war. There is terrorism in
Northern Ireland, there is terrorism in India, and in Pakistan. In the Mideast, terrorism is a
separate problem, to be defeated by diplomacy and negotiation, not militarily. Here, might does not
make right. Right makes might. Acting militarily we have created more terrorism than we have
eliminated. 

The title of this article is ŒŒBush¹s failed Mideast policy is creating more terrorism,
ŒŒ and, I could add, jeopardizing the security of Israel. They say: He talks like a big fan of
Israel. I am. I have a 38-year track record. I will never forget some 34 years ago meeting with
David Ben- Gurion. He talked about little Israel, less than 3 million at that time in a sea of 100
million. Let¹s say Israel has 5 million people there now, but there are 150 million Muslims
surrounding it. If you punch the particular buzzer I did with Yitzhak Rabin 1 day down on the Negev
to scramble the air force, I think it was 21 seconds they were up in the air, and in a minute¹s
time, they were outside over Jordan. Militarily, Israel is a veritable aircraft carrier. You can
hardly fly and you are out of the country, and everybody has to understand that. You cannot play the
numbers game Sharon plays. He thinks he can do it militarily. I want to remind you, it was in that
6-day war‹the book is ŒŒSix Days of War¹¹ by Michael Oren. Look on page 151, and Major Ariel Sharon
says: Look, we are going to decimate the Egyptian army and you will not hear from Egypt again for
several generations. And Levi Eshkol, the Prime Minister, on page 152 says: ŒŒMilitarily victory
decides nothing. The Arabs will still be here.¹¹ That is my theme. I have watched it over the years.
You have to learn not to kill together, but to live together. The finest piece I ever read was right
in this morning¹s paper. There is still hope. I refer to an article: ŒŒIsraeli Arabs Exalting in a
Rare Triumph.¹¹ There are a million Israeli Arabs. They won a soccer match in Tel Aviv. The majority
of the team was of Israeli heritage, and they held an Israeli flag, if you can imagine that in the
political United States of America. They are living together. Every Prime Minister since David
Ben-Gurion has realized that fact: that they have to learn to live together. They all moved, and
they almost had it under Ehud Barak and President Clinton. Arafat proved he did not want peace. He
did not accept it. That was our one chance. Unfortunately, rather than working on that one chance
and continuing, Ariel Sharon went in their face at Temple Mount, the intifada started, and he has
been killing 10 to 1. He plays the numbers game, almost like we had in Vietnam. He thinks he can
eliminate by moving the ball some, getting some more settlements, bulldozing a house, but he is
creating terrorism. I had a headline the other day. When I saw it, I showed it to my staff. I said:
You all come in here, I want to ask you something. ŒŒIsrael plans to destroy more Gaza dwellings.¹¹
You see that headline? I asked staff members: Suppose they bulldoze your daddy¹s home. Wouldn¹t you
want to cut their throat? They said: In a New York minute. How do you create terrorists? Where is
the front line in the so-called war on terrorism? I learned the answer recently on a trip I was on
with the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee. We talked for over an hour with the King of Jordan. He finally cautioned at the
very end, when we stood up, he said: You have to settle this Israel-Palestine question. That is the
only way to get on top of this. We went over to Kuwait to the Prime Minister when he got through, he
said: You have to settle the Israel-Palestine situation. I will quote Mr. Musharraf, the President
of Pakistan. When we got there, he cautioned if you can settle the Israel-Palestine question,
terrorism will disappear around the world. Then we came in on a Friday evening to make a little
courtesy call with the French. The distinguished Senator from Virginia with Lafayette‹and I have
slept in Lafayette¹s bed over there in Richmond, VA, and I helped with that particular thing because
I believe and remember the French help. I will never forget‹everybody is going to the 60th
anniversary of D-Day, but I was at the 50th anniversary and we went over to Ste-Mere-Eglise, where a
major, who was a Citadel graduate, had broken through the line and saved us from having to leave the
beachhead and go back to England. They made a movie of it. A shell burst killed him. They laid him
down on their side. He is buried on the side of the chapel. We went to the services. We had talks
there. This little old lady came. She was about 80 years old, walking with a cane. I was listening
to the mayor, and she pulled my jacket and she said: Thank you, Yank. If you had not come we would
be goose-stepping. I turned to her and I said, thank you, madam, because if you had not come, we
would still be a colony. The majority of the troops on the field at Yorktown with the surrender of
Cornwallis were French troops. We had French troops that helped us get this so-called freedom. All
this anti-French stuff, do not give me french fries and everything else, is crazy. I was proud to
appear with the Senator from Virginia. But Chirac, he said, look, we have to have western
solidarity. We have to work together now and we have to watch this competition from China in the Far
East, and we in the western world have to stick together. He said he wanted to help in Iraq, but he
needed a U.N. resolution to cover. He said what we have to do is do something about Israel and
Palestine. I said, what would you do? He said, I would put a peacekeeping force. I said, would
French troops come? He said, French troops would come immediately. We would be part of it and we
would separate them from killing each other every day. My position is, and I believe in this
particular policy as strongly as I know how, might does not make right, but right makes might. We
have lost our evenhanded posture and reputation in the Mideast. We are in worse off shape with
Israel, our principal interest in the gulf. Sharon has not helped us at all. We see him going back
and forth. They say, oh, no, it is negotiation. But we are throwing over the United States- Israel
policy of some 35 years insofar as negotiating the settlements and the refugees. We are saying
forget about all of that, let Sharon keep bulldozing them. Now in the morning paper on the front
page one sees the killing of children, they are saying, we are defending Israel. That is the U.S.
policy. That is not just Israel¹s policy. They are coming in there with U.S. equipment, U.S. gun
helicopters, U.S. tanks that are bulldozing. That is our policy. That is the reason for 9/11 and
Osama. He said, I do not like American troops in Saudi Arabia, get the infidel out. That is why they
went right into that thing. Where do you think we get all this talk about hate America? I do not buy
that stuff. I have traveled the world. They love Americans. Recently we met with the Ambassadors of
Germany and France, and Britain in our policy committee and they said the young people are
disillusioned. They always look to the United States for the moral position and taking and defending
that particular position. They do not look there anymore. We are losing the terrorism war because we
thought we could do it militarily under the domino policy of President Bush, going into Iraq. That
is my point. That is not anti-Semite or whatever they say in here about people¹s faith and
ethnicity. I never referred to any faith. I should have added those other names from the Project For
The New American Century, but I picked out the names I had quotes for. And for space, I left other
things out. Mr. President, on May 12 of this year, I had printed in the RECORD the article in its
entirety. I diverted from the reading of the article several times, so for the sake of accuracy I
wanted the whole article printed. This particular op-ed piece appeared in the Post and Courier.
Never would they have thought, having read it, if it was anti-Semitic, that they would have ever put
it in there. Nor would the Knight Ridder newspapers in Columbia, SC. Nor would the Metro Media
newspapers in Greenville, SC. But the Anti- Defamation League picked it up and now they have given
it to my good friend, Senator ALLEN of Virginia. I have his particular admonition how I am
anti-Semitic and I cannot let that stay there. My staff knew I was coming over and waiting my turn
in order to talk under the Pastore rule. I know I am as vitally interested as anybody can be about
this issue. Our distinguished colleague from Washington, Senator CANTWELL, knows this subject
backward and forward. The reason I had not known or gotten all fired up is I have been doing some
other work and South Carolina has already looked to me for everything at that Savannah River plant.
I am on the Energy Appropriations Subcommittee and we have gotten all the money‹do not worry about
money. This is a policy of nuclear waste disposal, high- level waste, being reclassified under an
end-around-end deal of trying to make it low-level waste and, as Senator CANTWELL says, pouring in
some sand and concrete on top of it. The scientists say, watch out, the remains in these tanks are
50 percent as deadly and dangerous as the entire tank container.

Back to Saddam, everybody is glad we have gotten rid of Saddam, but we can see what has happened.
There is an old saying we learned in World War II that no matter how well the gun is aimed, if the
recoil is going to kill the gun crew, you do not fire. Did this White House and administration ever
think of the recoil? It severely injured the gun crew. Yes, ordinarily to get rid of Saddam, like
they put a missile on the intelligence head, they could have put a missile on him any time they
wanted, but they did not want to do that. They wanted the domino policy to ensue. No, no, getting
rid of Saddam was not worth almost 800 dead GIs and over 3,500 maimed for life. Some say every time
we want to criticize the policy, we are weakening the GIs. I am strengthening the GIs. I said let¹s
get enough in there so they can secure themselves. We have 135,000 now. A third of those are
guarding the other third, and that means leaving a third, 35,000 or 40,000 troops, running out like
a fire drill to any particular trouble and coming back in and eating. I have been there. You can see
it in Rafah. They are building a big old thing like in Kosovo, where we hunker down and act like we
are in charge of Kosovo. The Albanians are in charge of Kosovo. You can¹t force-feed democracy. It
has to come from within. We helped liberate Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, 60- some years ago, and
Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia have not opted for democracy, nor has Libya, nor has Egypt, nor has
Lebanon, nor has Syria, nor has Iraq, nor has Iran, nor has Afghanistan, nor has Pakistan, nor has
Jordan, nor has Yemen, nor has Aden, nor has Saudi Arabia, nor has the organization of Arab states.
Come on. So we have to go out and not speak sense with respect to policy, and when you want to talk
about policy, they say it is anti-Semitic. Well, come on the floor, let¹s debate it. Because my
friend from Virginia admonishes me. Referring to me he says, ŒŒI suggest he should learn from
history before making accusations.¹¹ I didn¹t make any accusations. I stated facts. That is their
policy. That is not my policy. Mind you me, when we went into Iraq, the only people in the world who
favored that policy were the people of the United States and the people of Israel. The people of
Jordan, Iraq, Britain, Spain, Poland, Italy, Japan, everywhere around the world said you just don¹t
invade a sovereign country no matter how bad the rascal is. We have Kim Jong of North Korea‹he has
weapons of mass destruction, but we don¹t do anything there. Don¹t give me this about how we saved
this and we did this or did that. We have to sort of learn that the front line now is not the
Pentagon but the State Department. We have to work through diplomacy. We live in a global economy
and a global world. That is only going to come about economically, politically, diplomatically, and
by negotiations. The United States, until this invasion and this domino policy for Israel‹ don¹t
tell me it is otherwise, about spreading democracy. They know what they are talking about. They are
insisting on it. It is not a Jewish policy or a Semite policy. It is their domino policy. That is
exactly what it is. But they know how to make you tuck tail and run. Not the Senator from South
Carolina. We don¹t run, we don¹t win, we are not right, we are wrong a lot of times, but I have
thought this out as thoroughly as I know how, and it worries me that here we are. I said after we
got into that thing in Vietnam with the Gulf of Tonkin‹I came there at that particular time, in
1966, went to Vietnam when we were under fire three times‹actually over into Cambodia before and
that kind of thing. We finally came up with McNamara writing a book saying he was wrong. I¹ll never
forget, McNamara comes out to Allie Richenberg near Saint Albans to get his tennis lesson at 7
o¹clock, and Bob Mcnamara turned to Allie and said, ŒŒAllie, what do you think about my book?¹¹ He
said, ŒŒIt¹s as bad as your backhand. You should not have written it.¹¹ But we had to wait 20 years
for that one, and we killed 58,000 Americans. Now we have killed almost 800, maimed for life
thousands of others. Are we going to just continue on? What would the Senator from South Carolina do
if I were king for a day? Yes, I would put the troops in to get security, and I would step up the
election. I can tell you right now, I have run for all kind of offices, 20-some statewide offices
and campaigns. But don¹t put me in on that temporary coalition. That fellow, El Baradei, who is
running around the United Nations to get a temporary coalition or government to turn power over to
on June 30‹don¹t put me in that. I immediately have to repudiate the United States, that I am not a
stooge for the United States. We just have our fingers crossed that we can hold law and order so we
can have an election. But don¹t wait until 2005, or December; by September 30, let¹s get that
election going. Let¹s realize we are in real trouble. Saudi Arabia is in trouble. Israel is in
trouble. The United States is in trouble. I am going to state what I believe to be the fact. In
fact, I believe it very strongly. They just are whistling by on account of the pressures that we get
politically. Nobody is willing to stand up and say what is going on. It was a mistake like Vietnam.
We got misled with the Gulf of Tonkin, we got misled here, and we are in that quagmire. ŒŒMunicipal
guerrilla war and a quagmire,¹¹ that says George Herbert Walker Bush. I will end on my
authority‹President George Herbert Walker Bush said: Never commit U.S. troops into an unwinnable
urban guerrilla war and turn off the Arab world. Look in that book of his and you will see exactly
what I am talking about. He is not anti-Semitic. He is sensible. He didn¹t go in. Yes, Colin Powell,
General Powell said if you are going in, let¹s have enough troops. They tried to do it on the cheap.
They were ill advised. My friend Paul Wolfowitz said you will do it in 7 days. Come on. And they let
the Republican Guard back into the city of Baghdad and into the Sunni triangle, and the next thing
you know, when Chalabi, who has now been demoted or set aside‹he did away with their leadership and
everything, so they got turned off and they buddied up with the insurgents, and now we have hell on
our hands. Everybody knows that. So it has been ill prepared, ill advised, and ill administered. The
entire thing is a mess. Don¹t give me ŒŒsupport the troops, support the troops.¹¹ I have been with
troops, about 3 years in combat, so don¹t tell me about troops. I have always supported the troops.
You ask how many Senators have gotten a Woodward Award from the U.S. Army. They don¹t give that out
lightly. I have been with every Secretary of Defense until this one, and I think he is brilliant,
but I think he has made a mistake going along with this domino policy. We have it now out on the
table, and we will all talk about it, and we will be around and ready to debate it. I appreciate the
colleagues yielding to me. I wish I had all the time to put all these articles in. I want to
thank‹and I am going to sit here and support my friend from Washington. She has done a magnificent
job stating what the issue is. It is simply under the auspices of an accelerated disposal plan going
around end to reclassify‹and it is around end. I had not heard anything about it. I have been
handling everything at Savannah River for 30 some years. I called up the South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Control‹DHEC‹and they were adamantly opposed and gave me the brief they
signed a few weeks ago adamantly opposing it, with the assistant attorney general¹s name on it. They
say this is DHEC policy. I talked to two members of DHEC and they said it was never brought up at
their meetings. They do not know anything about it. So, yes, it is a little rider for one special
State that is injurious not only to the State itself‹I say that advisedly‹ but also to the United
States. I yield the floor. VerDate May 04 2004 01:56 May 21, 2004 Jkt 029060 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt
4624 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\G20MY6.104 S20PT1