Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007 - Continued
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007--Continued -- (Senate - September 06, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, listening to the comments of our friends across the aisle, you would think this is more about an election than it is about winning a war. The problem is not so much in the eyes of the critics or the Islamic extremists who attacked the United States time and time again, until we finally woke up on September 11, 2001, and realized we were at war. The problem is not them; the problem is us. It is America. It is America's leaders. We are the problem.
This is more important than any party. This is more important than any election. This is more important than any single person. This is about whether we will win this war that was declared against the United States that we finally woke up and realized was going on, on September 11. It dates back as long ago as 1979, when the U.S. embassy in Tehran was overcome and for 444 days American citizens were held captive by Islamic militants.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle would like to claim that this is all about Iraq and a mistake that was made going into Iraq, and but for that mistake the world would be rosy and we would be at peace. But that is revisionist history.
The fact is that in 1979, when our embassy was captured and Americans were kidnapped in Tehran, and in 1983, when 241 marines were killed in Beirut by Hezbollah, the same terrorist organization that has been lobbing Katyusha rockets, supplied by Iran through Syria, into Israel--yes, this is the same enemy that continued to attack American embassies in Africa in 2000, and killed 17 American sailors on the USS Cole. Yes, this is the same enemy that killed almost 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, in New York City and Washington, DC, and but for the brave actions of a few on Flight 93, perhaps thousands more would have been killed.
Recently, I attended a speech where the Deputy Secretary of Defense spoke. He asked the question:
Do you know why it was that these Islamic extremists killed 3,000 people on September 11, 2001? It was because they could not kill 30,000, and because they could not kill 3 million. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that an ideology that celebrates the murder of innocent civilians in order to accomplish their objective would stop at anything, use any weapon at its disposal to accomplish its ends?
Mr. President, I disagree with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this war is limited to Iraq and that if we were to withdraw our troops precipitously, the world would suddenly be a rosy place and we would live in peace.
Unfortunately, this debate seems to be more about criticizing those who are prosecuting the war. No, we are not going to be critical of the men and women in uniform, but our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are all too ready to criticize those who command them, the civilian leadership in the Department of Defense and the Commander in Chief. I am not saying they don't have a right to criticize them. I am not saying that they have been perfect and haven't made mistakes. But I think we need to keep our eye on the threat. The threat is not just Iraq, the threat is in Afghanistan, it is in Madrid, it is in Beslan, it is in London. It is a threat driven by an extreme ideology that celebrates the murder of innocent civilians to accomplish its goals. What would be the consequences of doing as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggest, leaving before the Iraqi security forces are able to provide security for their fragile and fledgling democracy? It would be the same mistake that we saw occur in Afghanistan. After the Soviet Union was defeated and Afghanistan became a failed state, we saw the rise of the Taliban and saw its partners in al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about a change in direction, fresh ideas, new direction. Those are campaign slogans. They are not about solving the problem. They are not about beating the enemy, defeating the enemy who declared war on us as far back as 1979.
I know that our colleagues have been critical. Again, they have every right to be. This is America. We believe in free speech. We believe in people being able to express their views no matter how mistaken, no matter how naive.
This administration and the Secretary of Defense have been criticized for saying we need to stay the course, we need to keep the faith, that what we are doing in Iraq and what we are doing in trying to fight and defeat this enemy of Islamic extremism is important to the security of this country because if we were to do as some of our friends on the other side of the aisle suggest and leave Iraq before the Iraqis are able to provide basic security, it would become another failed state. And, no, this is not George Bush's Vietnam because after Vietnam, the Vietcong did not follow us here. That is exactly the threat with which we are confronted today.
The Islamic extremists who have declared war on America and the West will follow us here unless we deal with them on the offensive there. And, yes, every time we seem to talk about the tools that are necessary to win this war, we run into a brick wall of opposition on the other side of the aisle, such as listening to international phone calls between al-Qaida operatives and their confederates here in the United States. Yet our friends on the other side of the aisle said: Foul; the President doesn't have the authority to do that. Only Congress has the authority to do that. So we get into a big food fight about who has the power, who has the authority, not about working together to solve the problem.
When it comes to the issue of how do we deal with those who have been captured on the battlefield and detained in Guantanamo Bay--sources of important intelligence that have disrupted and deterred terrorist attacks and saved American lives--it seems as if the focus is all too often on what should we be doing to make the detainee's life better rather than what should we be doing to get that intelligence which will allow us to detect, deter, and disrupt terrorist activities.
Now the world has turned an anxious eye toward Tehran once again, where the same radical ideology has caused them to supply, through Syria, weapons to Hezbollah, a terrorist organization that has killed more Americans than any other in the world, save and except al-Qaida.
Is there any doubt that if Iran had been able to supply biological, chemical or nuclear weapons to Hezbollah in order to achieve its stated goal of wiping Israel off the map, is there any question that they would have withheld their hand, that they would not have done so?
I have to say I think this must be a very strange picture to the civilized world, those who actually believe we are serious about fighting this enemy who has declared war against the West and against our way of life and against our values, that instead of focusing together on how do we defeat this enemy who declared war on us, we have somehow turned this into an election-year effort to discredit and vote no confidence for the Secretary of Defense. It is the wrong direction.
Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say there is no plan for success and, of course, there is. It is to provide training to the Iraqi security forces so they can provide security, and we can bring our troops home, allow this new Government in Iraq to resolve its differences after 30 years of tyranny, try to work through the sectarian conflicts by creating a coalition government, and then to allow the Iraqi people to enjoy the prosperity so they can see the benefits of self-determination and free and fair elections.
But our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to be long on criticism, long on complaints, and short on plans. They have yet to offer a single concrete idea about what they would do differently to win this war and defeat this enemy. I, as one Senator, would welcome their ideas, if they have ideas, so we can work together to defeat the common enemy because, as I said, this is more important than any election, than any party or any person. This is about the safety and security of our Nation and our hope and dream that the values we represent can be exported--and the blessings of liberty along with it--to other nations that have never known anything but the boot heel of a tyrant.
I hope our colleagues will reconsider and will not pursue this distraction, will not pursue this unwise and inappropriate vote of no confidence against the Secretary of Defense.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov