March 19, 2003
HINCHEY DENOUNCES BUSH'S CALL FOR WAR
Kingston, NY -- We are witnesses to a watershed moment in the history of the American republic. It is too soon to know with certainty just how all this will turn out, but it is very clear that this Administration has radically changed the way our country behaves at home and in the world, and consequently, how others regard us. In just two years the Bush Administration has deconstructed the American economy, the nation’s civil liberties and our environmental protection. They have unilaterally withdrawn from the International Ballistic Missile Treaty, abandoned our European friends on the issue of global warming and walked away from the International Criminal Court.

And now, contrary to International Law and against every decent instinct, we are about to engage in what will come to be seen as a massacre in Iraq on the basis of the "Bush Doctrine" of preemption, which allows the United States to attack any other country, anytime we want and for whatever reason the President feels is justified.

Last week Mr. Bush at his press conference said he would insist on a vote in the United Nations Security Council on going to war in Iraq, declaring that he wanted all members to "show their cards" on the issue. But this week that has changed. All the bribery and bullying has not brought us close to the nine votes the Administration needs for Security Council sanction. So we are going in without it. History will include the United Nations as part of the "collateral damage" of Mr. Bush’s war. Is it any wonder that we have generated so much ill will in the rest of the world?

The criminal attacks of September 11, 2001, for all their horror and tragedy still provided us an unusual opportunity for insight and self-examination. They caused us to ask ourselves "why?" Why does anyone hate us so much as to do this to us and to themselves? It was a natural and intensely human response and it was being asked by people of every status and station.

If President Bush and his advisors had stayed with that question we would all be better off today. We would not be attacking a country that had nothing to do with the attack against us. We could have retained the support then gladly given by almost every country around the world. -- Remember the headline in the Paris daily? "We are all Americans now!" -- And most importantly, we would be in a position to lead the world to a better and safer place. But rather than experiencing an epiphany, we are in danger of becoming a pariah.

In the next days and weeks the Bush Administration will focus its attention on dissent at home. They will try to make it seem that criticism of their policy in Iraq shows disloyalty to our country and to our armed forces in the field. We must not fall victim to that trap.

We can support our military men and women and do all we can to insure their safety and security wherever they are sent, at the same time we may oppose the policy that sent them. Dissent is the essence of democracy. We must always be free to speak our minds on the critical issues of the day, no matter how lonely or isolated that position may seem at any moment.

March 17, 2004

HINCHEY STRONGLY OPPOSES IRAQ RESOLUTION AS PARTISAN, DIVISIVE AND DISHONEST

WASHINGTON -- "This resolution, which is intended to further divide the Congress and the American people, disingenuously lists Saddam Hussein's many offenses as the reasons why the United States attacked Iraq. In fact, as we all remember, the main reasons for war given by the president and his allies were the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction alleged to be present in Iraq and the alleged alliance between Saddam Hussein and the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks. All of the evidence now indicates that both of these dangers were fictional.

"One of the war justifications listed by the resolution is Saddam's 1998 use of chemical weapons, which resulted in the deaths of 5,000 Kurds. President Bush and his advisors have frequently used this rationalization once it became clear that the reasons they gave us before the war were without foundation. But these same advisors worked in both the Reagan and first Bush administrations to increase aid, cooperation, trade and intelligence sharing with Iraq after the gassing was known to have taken place."

"The Republican resolution also asserts that the United States and the world are safer because of the removal of Saddam's regime. The danger Saddam purportedly posed to the United States was his possession of WMD and his link to al Qaeda. Both have been shown to be phantoms. So how can we have been made safer from a threat that never existed? Indeed, our terrorism alert level was raised by the Department of Homeland Security following Saddam's capture. While the alert status has since returned to its pre-capture status, it is still no lower than it was before the war began. So the Bush Administration itself acknowledges that we are no safer."

"The Republican resolution is a piece of political damage control and revisionist history. The president's allies know that the world now sees through his misleading and deceptive methods of winning support for his war. Through this legislative measure they seek to erase the administration's misdeeds from the record. We must not allow them to succeed."

July 21, 2005

HINCHEY CALLS OUT BUSH ADMINISTRATION  ON DANGEROUS IRAQ POLICY

WASHINGTON -- In the midst of debate over the Foreign Relations Reauthorization Act, Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) yesterday spoke in strong opposition to the Bush Administration's war in Iraq and its treatment of prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. Hinchey said the war has caused world opinion of the U.S. to plummet and that the ongoing occupation of Iraq has irresponsibly taken the country away from fighting the real war on terror against al Qaeda.

"The United States Congress has dramatically failed in its responsibility to hold the president and his administration responsible for their actions leading up to the war and its abuse and mishandling of prisoners," Hinchey said. "The Congress has not asked this administration the tough questions that it has the responsibility to ask regarding why the president fabricated the rationale of weapons of mass destruction for going to war and who in the administration authorized the torture of prisoners, which has been a rallying cry for terrorists in Iraq and around the world."

Hinchey spoke on the floor in opposition to two amendments to the Foreign Relations Reauthorization Act. The first amendment sought to condone the U.S. treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Hinchey noted that U.S. actions in Guantanomo Bay and Abu Ghraib are doing much more harm than good by further enraging the Arab world.

The second amendment to which Hinchey spoke in opposition dealt with the timing of U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq. The amendment essentially sought to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for a prolonged period of time and disregarded any notion offered by Hinchey and others that troops should be brought home as quickly and responsibly as possible.

During his floor presentation, Hinchey cited a new British think tank report that noted how the war in Iraq has weakened national security in Britain and the U.S. Hinchey quoted the Royal Institute of International Affairs report as saying, "There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism. It gave a boost to the Al-Qaeda network’s propaganda, recruitment and fundraising, caused a major split in the coalition, provided an ideal targeting and training area for Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists, and deflected resources and assistance that could have been deployed to assist the Karzai government and to bring bin Laden to justice."

Hinchey said, "The real threat to the United States' national security is al Qaeda and we should be using every resource available to capture or kill all al Qaeda members and prevent them from launching another attack against innocent people. The Bush Administartion's unjustified and illegal war in Iraq, along with the illegal treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo is provoking more terrorists to take up arms against our troops and is further destabilizing Iraq and the Middle East. It is in the best interest of our country to get out of Iraq and begin to refocus our efforts on al Qaeda."

Hinchey also noted that support even among U.S. allies has significantly waned as a result of the mishandling of the war in Iraq. According to the White House, on March 21, 2003 there were 48 countries that were members of the coalition in Iraq. By the end of the year, only 17 other countries will have troops on the ground.

January 30, 2006

HINCHEY, HOUSE COLLEAGUES URGE PRESIDENT TO FACT CHECK STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS TO AVOID MAKING FALSE CLAIMS AGAIN

Washington -- On the eve of President Bush's State of the Union address, Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) led a group of 10 House members today in calling for the president to fact check his speech before delivering it to the nation on Tuesday night. Hinchey and his colleagues wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to avoid a repeat of his 2003 State of the Union address that included the now infamous 16 words in which the president falsely claimed that Iraq sought uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons as part of a justification for going to war.

"Three years ago, you used this address to press Congress and the American people to war against Iraq. However, they now know that information you used in delivering this battle cry was false," Hinchey and his colleagues wrote to Bush in a letter faxed to the White House this morning. "After your delivery of incorrect information in the past, you must now take special care to ensure that every word you speak can be proven to be accurate. Such attention to detail is crucial to repairing the trustworthiness of your words and your presidency, as well as our nation's integrity and leadership on global affairs."

In his 2003 State of the Union address President Bush said, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The president made that claim despite widespread dissent within the intelligence community based on significant evidence disputing it. Earlier this month, the State Department declassified a secret memo from March 2002 -- more than 10 months before the 2003 State of the Union Address -- that showed intelligence officials believed then that an Iraq-Africa uranium deal was "unlikely" for a variety of political, economic, and logistical reasons.

Deeply troubled by what he believes was a deliberate attempt by President Bush to mislead the Congress and the American people into thinking Iraq posed a nuclear threat to the security of the United States, Hinchey led a group of 40 House members in September 2005, requesting a criminal investigation into whether the president violated two criminal laws. It is a crime to knowingly make false and fraudulent statements to Congress and to obstruct the functions of Congress. Hinchey and his colleagues sent the request for a criminal probe to Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who is handling the CIA leak case in which members of the Bush Administration revealed the identity of a CIA operative, Valerie Plame, to the news media. Hinchey and his colleagues believe that the motive for releasing Plame's name was retaliation against her husband, a former U.S. Ambassador sent by the CIA to investigate a possible Iraq-Africa uranium deal, who wrote an op-ed for The New York Times declaring that there never was any truth to those uranium claims.

"The State of the Union address is the most prestigious and widely viewed speech the president gives each year, which is why it is absolutely critical that it contains only the complete truth and is free of any misleading statements or blatantly false information," Hinchey said. "In 2003, President Bush misled the Congress and the American people into thinking that Iraq was a nuclear threat, which ultimately helped pave the way for this country to go to war on what is now known to be false information. This country cannot afford to deal with the ramifications of another false statement from the president during the State of the Union address, which is why we are urging him to carefully check the facts in his speech before delivering it to the nation and the world."

January 10, 2007

HINCHEY STATEMENT ON PRESIDENT BUSH'S NATIONAL ADDRESS ON IRAQ
Washington, DC  -- "President Bush just doesn't get it. He does not understand the scope and the dynamics of the disaster he's created in Iraq. First of all, what the president calls a new plan for Iraq is not new at all. It's more of the same failed policy that has resulted in the deaths of more than 3,000 American troops, injuries to tens of thousands of others, and the deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, while creating utter chaos in Iraq. There have been previous escalations in troops to the level the president is now talking about as new, including an increase to 160,000 American troops in Iraq in the fall of 2005 around the time of the constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections. As we've seen with those previous troop level spikes, an increase in the number of troops in Iraq is not the answer that will lead to long-term peace and stability in that country. The president is once again continuing his falsification of information about Iraq in order to advance his political needs rather than acting in the best interest of the American people and our troops.

"Plain and simple, no additional U.S. troops should be sent to Iraq and the responsible phased withdrawal of troops must begin. A recently released National Intelligence Estimate, the findings of the Iraq Study Group, and the military's top Middle East commander, General John P. Abizaid, have all said that an escalation of U.S. troops is not the answer and would instead incite more violence in Iraq by acting as a magnet and a call to arms for insurgents.

"The only possible course for peace and stability in Iraq is through diplomacy -- something President Bush has said takes too long. The president, however, forgets that military action in Iraq has been going on for nearly four years now. There is no question that the diplomatic approach to the situation in Iraq is exactly the way to go. We must engage in diplomatic discussions with the different sects in Iraq and neighboring countries to find common ground from which to move forward. More troops is not the answer. The idea of increasing the number of military personnel in Iraq is reminiscent of what happened in Vietnam. Presidents Johnson and Nixon said the answer was to increase the number of troops and it didn't solve the problem.

"My colleagues and I in Congress will aggressively fight any increase in troop levels in Iraq. I am cosponsoring legislation that would prevent any escalation of troops in Iraq unless Congress approves such an increase. We cannot allow President Bush to operate as if he were king. This is a democracy with checks and balances after all, and the Congress must have a voice. The only new policy for Iraq should be one that winds down our military presence in that country to bring our troops home, while opening up avenues of diplomacy that can ultimately lead to peace and stability in the region."

February 14, 2007

HINCHEY DELIVERS REMARKS FROM HOUSE FLOOR ON IRAQ RESOLUTION

Washington, DC -- Madam Speaker, as a veteran of the United States Navy, I am very, very honored to be a Member of this House of Representatives. And today I am very proud and pleased to stand here in support of this very important resolution, which needs to be adopted as the final first step of this Congress in dealing with this unjust, illegal, unnecessary invasion of Iraq and the subsequent disastrous occupation.

In October of 2002, when the resolution authorizing this invasion came to the floor, 133 Members voted against it. 127 Democrats and six Republicans voted against it. Most of us voted against it because we knew that the so-called logic or rationale that had been presented by the administration was untrue, that there was no connection between Iraq and the attack of September 11, that there was no evidence that there were chemical or biological weapons left in Iraq, even though we know that previous administrations of this country had supplied those weapons.

We knew that the rationale presented for the development of a nuclear weapon in Iraq was completely falsified. The documents were forged.

On the 19th of March, this administration carried out an illegal, unnecessary, unjustified invasion of Iraq. We will soon mark the fourth year of that action. In all of that time, this Congress has done nothing significant or substantial to stand in the way of the illegal, unjustified actions of this administration, in spite of the fact that they have caused the death of now more than 3,000 American servicemen and women, more than 23,000 physically injured, unknown numbers psychologically injured, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed.

In spite of all of that, and in spite of the fact that, increasingly, every Member of this Congress has begun to understand with greater and greater clarity, how the information was falsified, how what the Intelligence Committees told the White House, the Defense Department, the State Department, and others in this administration, had been twisted and distorted and turned around purposely and specifically to carry out this disastrous invasion and subsequent occupation, nothing has been done.

The previous leadership of this Congress failed to step forward and take any kind of action against this administration. And we hear people on this side of the aisle, tonight, speaking against this resolution saying it doesn't do anything significant. It doesn't do enough.

Well, let me tell you something. This is the first step of a new majority in this Congress taking the right kind of action on the basis of our obligations and responsibilities under the Constitution to stand up to the actions of this administration and to put this country back on the right track. Not just in the case of what is going on in Iraq, even though that is so terribly disastrous, but the consequences here in our own country, the intimidation of people, the internal spying, the elimination of habeas corpus, all of the impingements on the American Constitution, based upon the culture of fear cultivated purposely by this administration for their own personal and political objectives. No one in the previous leadership, no one in the previous majority, stood up to this administration in any kind of a constructive way.

So, if you want to correct the failures that have existed in this Congress since that resolution came to the floor and since the 19th of March in 2003, when this administration carried out that illegal, unnecessary and unjustified invasion, then you will support this resolution, recognizing that it is the first important step taken by a new majority here in this Congress to deal with the consequences of all of that falsehood.

If you fail to do so, you will continue to leave the door open for further violations of law and constitutional principles by this administration, perhaps next in Iran, because that may be the next illegal step of this administration.

If you want to make up for what you failed to do, if you want to do the right thing for this country, for our people, and for our military personnel, please, support this resolution.

March 23, 2007
Hinchey on House Passage of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act

"Today, the House passed a critical piece of legislation that finally sets a timeline for getting our troops out of Iraq and bringing them home. This measure provides an honest and sensible solution to the occupation of Iraq, which has been going on under false pretenses for more than four years now. Thousands of U.S. troops have lost their lives, tens of thousands have been injured, and many more innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed. Setting a timeline for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq has been long overdue and I am very pleased that we accomplished that today.

"Until just two months ago, Republicans controlled Congress and failed to conduct any oversight of the Bush administration as it led this country deeper and deeper into a disastrous occupation of Iraq. With Democrats now in control, the Congress has conducted strong oversight of the Bush administration and its extraordinary and wide ranging failures in Iraq. While this bill is not perfect and I would have much preferred to vote for a bill that would withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of this year, voting down this measure would have been far worse. Had we not passed this bill today, the Congress would have essentially been forced to hand the president a massive check to continue the occupation of Iraq with no benchmarks for success and no timeline for withdrawal. We had to build a consensus in the House and we did that by just reaching the 218 vote threshold needed to pass the bill.

"It is clear that the Bush administration continues to conduct its illegal occupation of Iraq without any type of plan or exit strategy. Today, the House provided a plan. We have set political and military benchmarks for the president to meet. If he fails to meet them then our troops will be home by the end of this year. If those benchmarks are met then our troops will be home and redeployed out of Iraq no later than the end of August 2008. For the first time since the invasion of Iraq, our country has begun to set goals and a timeline for withdrawal. This is an extraordinary accomplishment.

"Additionally, this bill supports our troops by providing valuable funds for the equipment they need to effectively do their job while staying as safe as possible. The bill also provides important funds for our troops when they return from Iraq and enter the veterans' health care system. With this bill we respect and protect our troops who are bravely serving in Iraq, care for them when they return home, and provide a timeline for an end to this disastrous occupation. I am proud to have helped pass this very important measure."