Speech from Majority Leader Tom DeLay

[jimnyc]

November 4 , 2003

Two days ago in Iraq, the United States lost 15 soldiers in a missile attack on an Army CH-47 Chinook helicopter. Twenty more American servicemen were wounded. All on board were heading to Baghdad, on their way to the airport and a well-deserved break from combat service. Today, we all mourn their loss, and offer our heartfelt prayers for the victims and their families.

But, Mr. Speaker, we will not run. The United States will stay in Iraq — along with our coalition partners — until the work there is done . Until innocent Iraqis are no longer threatened by thuggish holdovers from the old regime; Until state-sponsored murderers from neighboring countries no longer enter Iraq to terrorize its people; Until the citizens of Iraq have a democratic government to set their own course among the free nations of the earth . And until the nexus of weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism, and outlaw regimes can no longer threaten the United States from Iraq. These things — these long overdue and wonderful things — are going to happen.

Let there be no mistaking in this or any capitol around the globe: justice is coming to the Middle East, with hope and freedom riding close behind. We have always known that delivering these basic human rights to a region unfamiliar with them will be hard, but that is our mission — and one worth the sacrifice.

Just as it has been since we began debating the removal of Saddam Hussein from Iraq, this war remains a test of America's moral leadership in the world.
Are we serious about destroying international terrorism? Are we serious about holding outlaw regimes accountable for their sponsorship of it? Are we resolved to see our mission through to the end, despite the disproportionate costs and risks we must assume? And finally, is human freedom worth fighting for?

The answer to all of these, of course, is yes.

And so, we will not run. No matter how perilous our journey, we will stand and fight. And humanity will win. Iraq will be free. Terrorism will fall. Evil will be turned back. And the Chinook 15, Mr. Speaker, will not have died in vain.

 

[SLClemens]

I wonder if Mr. DeLay would be speaking so wishfully if he had children flying around Iraq in Chinooks. I'm sure many politicians from the comfort of Washington expressed similar sentiment in the late 60s when several US helicopters a week were going down in Vietnam. Well, sorry, but those guys died in vain. If the 'Chinook 15' are not to have died in vain I would suggest that Mr. Delay seriously start to look at a role for the UN in Iraq.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
I wonder if Mr. DeLay would be speaking so wishfully if he had children flying around Iraq in Chinooks. I'm sure many politicians from the comfort of Washington expressed similar sentiment in the late 60s when several US helicopters a week were going down in Vietnam. Well, sorry, but those guys died in vain. If the 'Chinook 15' are not to have died in vain I would suggest that Mr. Delay seriously start to look at a role for the UN in Iraq.

Are you insinuating only those with loved ones in Iraq can speak out?

I stated in another thread that our soldiers joined the military to defend our country and the reply I received was that they "did enlist to fight the war on terror knowing full well there was much talk of going into Iraq". So the soldiers apparently knew what they were getting into and went anyway. Do you think they were aware that there would be deaths? And if so, why did they choose to enlist anyway? So I DO think the soldiers find 'worth' in the fight for freedom in Iraq, even if it means some will give their lives to do so.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Are you insinuating only those with loved ones in Iraq can speak out?

I could be making a faulty generalization, but it does seem to me that those in favor of the invasion and occupation without loved ones there are more open to expending soldiers' blood and months of their lives in pursuit of vague ideals and basically unplanned strategies than those who have loved ones there or who might get called up.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
I could be making a faulty generalization, but it does seem to me that those in favor of the invasion and occupation without loved ones there are more open to expending soldiers' blood and months of their lives in pursuit of vague ideals and basically unplanned strategies than those who have loved ones there or who might get called up.

Those who get called up? Doesn't that go against what you said earlier, that a lot joined knowing they would most likely be going to Iraq?

I think on an overall scale you are correct. Naturally, those with loved ones involved in war are going to want them to return as soon as possible. I don't think they look at it as expending their lives, or not wanting to be there. Why did they join the military then? Every soldier who joins knows the risks involved and the possibility of war. They go forward anyway wanting to assist America. It's doubtful they are anit-war or anti-Iraq.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Those who get called up? Doesn't that go against what you said earlier, that a lot joined knowing they would most likely be going to Iraq?

I'm speaking more of their families than themselves. And while a lot of soldiers seemed very eager to fight in the invasion, not that many seem so eager to be part of the occupation, oddly enough.

 

[Bry]

I tend to think that most people who join the military just want a job or to pay for college. Those who enter for the "ideals" which the military represents are probably in the minority, or at least the "ideal" are a secondary priority.

I haven't seen any numbers, but has anyone else seen if more people started applying to join the army since the war appeared on the horizon?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bry
I haven't seen any numbers, but has anyone else seen if more people started applying to join the army since the war appeared on the horizon?

Maybe we can ask SLClemens where he got his data from.

"But some of them most certainly did enlist to fight the war on terror knowing full well there was much talk of going into Iraq."

 

[RMW]

I find Mr. Delay's speech very disturbing for a number of reasons.

First, he implies the uprising in Iraq is due to " thuggish holdovers from the old regime." Yet, political analysts at the University of Baghdad have evidence which shows the insurgents are from across the Iraqi political/religious spectrum, not just Baathists. In fact, the Iraqi people seem to be growing increasingly distrustful of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team, and this distrust deepened when Bush put Iraqi assets up for sale, without the consent of the people. Bush has no right to do this, and Americans should be outraged.

And that leads into the line about " Until the citizens of Iraq have a democratic government to set their own course among the free nations of the earth."

To the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team, democracy and freedom mean nothing less than imposing their far-right-wing economic ideology, a most radical form of 'free' market theory and social policies, onto the backs of the Iraqi people. These same privatization, deregulation, ‘free' trade restructuring policies have devastated Russia as well as the majority of the Third-World people upon whom they've been imposed by the IMF and World bank for the past 50 years. That is why peasants are uprising against the IMF, World Bank, 'free' trade, which is not free at all, and US interference. Only the supra-rich businesses and their political allies get rich.

Next, Mr. Delay mentions coalition partners, but we basically have no partners. We could have partners, but George Bush refuses to give up economic control of Iraq, and that should make everyone suspicious. As it is billions of American taxpayer dollars directed to Iraq cannot be accounted for, and billions from the Iraq Oil for food fund are likewise missing.

Third, terrorists did not exist in Iraq before the Bush team failed to secure post-Saddam Iraq. This catastrophic failure was the direct result of arrogance and haste. Anyone with expert knowledge about what to expect and how to prepare were either retired or fired. Rumsfeld tired to run the operation as a partly privatized affair, leaving our soldiers without water, decent food, and sufficient equipment.

Despite our obligations to Iraq, someone should remind Mr. Delay and Geroge Bush that we did not elect them to define our morality for us. This is not a monarchy, where the King sets the morality and the people are sent into battle for it.

If they're really such moral beings, than they'd allow the Iraqi people to determine their own economic and socia destiny. They'd concede economic control of Iraq to the UN; and work with Germany and France and other allies to assist Iraq in building its government and its future. These guys failed and we shouldn't leave the future of Iraq or the US solely in their hands.

RitaW
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by RMW
Third, terrorists did not exist in Iraq before the Bush team failed to secure post-Saddam Iraq.

???????????? PLEASE tell me you don't truly believe this? Iraq was a hornets nest for terrorists LONG before Saddam was removed.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
???????????? PLEASE tell me you don't truly believe this? Iraq was a hornets nest for terrorists LONG before Saddam was removed.

To say that Iraq was free of terrorists begs the question what definition are you using for terrorist. I think your response begs the same question.
Al-Qaeda terrorists? That's the connection GWB has stated. Evidence here is thin, Ansar al-Islam, who were fighting his enemies in northern Iraq is considered a terrorist group and were present in numbers but have no demonstrated link to Al-Qaeda. If links to any terrorist organizations is the bar than we'll have to clean out every government in the ME (including Isreal).

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
???????????? PLEASE tell me you don't truly believe this? Iraq was a hornets nest for terrorists LONG before Saddam was removed.

How much terrorism, outside Iraq, was Iraq responsible for from 1992-2001? How many foreign nationals were killed by Iraqis during this time?

 

[jimnyc]

To say that Iraq was free of terrorists begs the question what definition are you using for terrorist. I think your response begs the same question.

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

And again, Iraq had an abundance of terrorists on their soil long before the US occupation.

How much terrorism, outside Iraq, was Iraq responsible for from 1992-2001? How many foreign nationals were killed by Iraqis during this time?

Not sure, but I don't see how that's relavent to my statement. My statement was that "Iraq was a hornets nest for terrorists LONG before Saddam was removed." And it was.

 

[dijetlo]

>>"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."<<
Camp X-ray, extra-judicial kidnappings, extra-judicial executions, the use of heavy ordinance on civilian targets for that end.

"with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments"

Do we add the US to your list of terrorist countrys? No, we have a reason we have to do these things, right? An imperitive that overrides the adherence to norms of world society. They are neccessary for the greater good, we must triumph over this evil. If you agree, the next sentence applies to you.

Congratulations, you've just captured the thoughts of a suicide bomber.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

And again, Iraq had an abundance of terrorists on their soil long before the US occupation.

So in other words terrorism is violence when somebody else uses it or uses it without our approval?

 

[jimnyc]

Do we add the US to your list of terrorist countrys? No, we have a reason we have to do these things, right? An imperitive that overrides the adherence to norms of world society. They are neccessary for the greater good, we must triumph over this evil. If you agree, the next sentence applies to you.

No. This has been the oldest argument in the book. It hasn't ever held water. Clearly their is a difference between people who torture people over years & perform suicide missions.

Congratulations, you've just captured the thoughts of a suicide bomber.

Mmmm, no. The last step is strapping a bomb to yourself and killing innocent civilians ON PURPOSE.

Sorry, I don't see the USA on the same level as terrorists. Hell, I don't see dogs on the same level as them.

 

[dijetlo]

>>Clearly their is a difference between people who torture people over years & perform suicide missions.<<

Not qualitatively.

>> I don't see the USA on the same level as terrorists. <<

I don't either, the parrallels are disturbing none the less.

 

[RMW]

Originally posted by jimnyc
???????????? PLEASE tell me you don't truly believe this? Iraq was a hornets nest for terrorists LONG before Saddam was removed.

I appreciate your point. I was careless in using that word, because its meaning seems to be defined by ones point of view. I meant to denote they type of terrorism to which Delay made reference in his speech.

Delay speaks of "...state-sponsored murderers from neighboring countries no longer enter Iraq to 'terrorize' its people."

And later he refers to Iraq as a "nexus of international terrorism and outlaw regimes" and implies that these had threatened the US from Iraq. And that had not been true before the fall of the Saddam.

Now, Delay doesn't really say that this type of terror existed before Saddam fell, he's speaking in the present tense, but it seems to me that what he does say reinforces some wide-spread misconceptions among the populace about Iraq, 9/11 and Saddam/Al-Queda/WMDS.

I raise the issue because I think it would be better for the administration if they didn't try to confuse these issues. It makes people distrustful, and it is very upsetting for many Iraqis when they read misleading stuff coming out of the mouths of American leaders.

Your comment to my post and the responses it generated are thought-provoking. I won't use the word 'terrorism' again without thinking about it.

regards,
rmw

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

I think I can explain the difference between the terrorists and the
military action of the United States.

The definition used was:
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a
person or an organized group against people or property with
the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments,
often for ideological or political reasons."

The conflict probably comes in with the word, "unlawful."
The definition doesn't tell us who has the authority to
say what is lawful and what is not.

I'll argue however, that our action was, indeed, lawful.
First of all, it was supported by an agreement that
The United States and Iraq agreed to as soverign nations.
That cease-fire agreement that ended the first gulf-war.

Secondly, it was given approval by our congress. We
acted within the rules laid out by our government.

The terrorists, on the other hand, followed no law,
had no soverignity. They broke both international
law and the laws their countries agreed to.

Therein lies the main difference.

I would also argue that there is a difference in intent,
but I will save that for when I have more time. Class calls!

 

[dijetlo]

Hey, XP. Enjoy your posts, welcome to the board.

Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
our action was, indeed, lawful.
First of all, it was supported by an agreement that
The United States and Iraq agreed to as soverign nations.
That cease-fire agreement that ended the first gulf-war.

We now control Iraq, which of the agreements was he in breach of? Which can be proven with evidence from the conquered nation? The only one that comes readily to mind is the long range missiles, which were being destroyed at the request of the UN.

Secondly, it was given approval by our congress. We
acted within the rules laid out by our government.

If you think back, the Administration asked for the vote as a show of US solidarity to the Hussein regime in an effort to get him to comply with UNSCRs' and the afore mentioned cease fire accord. Now the Dems were dogs to lay down on this one, especially considering every one of them knew it could result in the current situation. The underlying premise for the attack, though, was that Iraq had the capability and intent to attack the US through terrorist links with WMDs'. GWB made this argument. Unfortunately for him, no solid evidence of that capability or intent has been found in post-war Iraq.

They broke both international law and the laws their countries agreed to.

The doctrine of pre emption is a violation of international law.

"We reserve the right to attack you if you might one day pose a threat to the US."

Can any country do that or do you just have to be the worlds only super power? If Guatemala proclaims Honduras is supporting rebels in the hills, will we allow them to unilateraly invade and set up a puppet regime (lets think this through...).
The situation in Guantanamo may or may not be a violation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court will shortly hear arguments on the question.

I would also argue that there is a difference in intent,

I would agree except that your restating an argument I first heard a long time ago, "the ends justify the means". I rarely find that to be true and it has the added onus of being a favorite rationale for destructive nations throughout history.