Expressing The Sense Of Congress On Iraq--Motion To Proceed

EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF CONGRESS ON IRAQ--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - February 05, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as I try to count up the number of positions of Senators articulating either for or against the various resolutions, I count at least six, and maybe there are more.

There are some who say, yes, that the President's plan--basically, that General Petraeus, the architect of that plan, will have responsibility for implementing--that plan ought to get a chance.

Then there are those who say: No, we disagree with that plan. We do not believe that General Petraeus should get the additional five brigades that the plan calls for, but we do think in Anbar Province additional troops ought to go in to fight al-Qaida in Iraq.

Then there is a third position I count that says we think there shouldn't be additional troops, and we want to cap the number of troops, period, and we want to set a timetable for their withdrawal. That would actually be No. 4.

Some of the distinguished Members of this Senate have said these nonbinding resolutions are shooting with blanks. What we ought to do is have a vote on cutting off funds because that is the sole way that Congress can have a definitive impact on what is happening. We do not believe any funds should be appropriated for this effort. That is a fifth position, as I count it.

Then there are those--and I find myself in this group--who say: No, we shouldn't cut off funds that support our troops during a time of war. In fact, we ought to give this a chance.

Some of these positions may have some commonality and some may merge and diverge, but the point is, for the majority to say we have one vote on one resolution, in spite of the fact there are at least six positions, as I count them, on this issue is asking Members to accept

limited debate and does not reflect the diversity of views in this Senate.

The vote we are going to have at 5:30 tonight--and I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia and others who, perhaps, share a different view from me on the substance of the resolution, for supporting our right to have a fair process and to have all the various resolutions or, I should say, at least two, in opposition that ought to be offered, that Senators ought to be given the chance to vote for.

Senator Reid, the majority leader, on the floor earlier asked rhetorically: What makes the Baghdad security plan different from the ones that have come before? Let me mention the specific answer to his question. First of all, this is an Iraqi-initiated plan for taking control of the capital of Iraq. No. 2, there will be adequate forces--Iraqis supported by American and coalition forces--to hold neighborhoods cleared of terrorist extremists. Third, there is a new operational concept, one devised not just to pursue terrorists and extremists but actually to secure the city once they are cleared. Fourth, new rules of engagement will pursue that Iraqi and U.S. forces can pursue lawbreakers, regardless of their communities or sect. Five, security operations will be followed by economic assistance and reconstruction aid, including billions of dollars in Iraqi funds, offering jobs and the prospect for better lives.

The reason I support the plan General Petraeus is largely the architect of, and the very same commander whom we have confirmed by unanimous vote about a week or so ago, is because I think it represents the last best chance for success in Iraq. I don't know anyone who believes the status quo is acceptable.

The question is, Are we simply going to give up and see a regional conflict? Are we going to see ethnic cleansing occur? Are we going to see countries that have Sunni majorities come to the aid of their Sunni brothers and sisters who might be the subject of ethnic cleansing by the Shia majority? Are we going to allow Iraq to become another failed state which will then serve as a launching pad for future terrorist attacks, perhaps including against the United States? The risks of that happening by doing nothing or by simply saying what we have been doing now is not working so we are simply going to refuse to endorse any alternative plan because we are not sure it is going to be successful is giving up before we should.

While opinion polls should not govern our conduct, it is significant the one question I have heard, when asked by Opinion Dynamics Poll on the process we are engaged in today, the question was: Congress has been considering a nonbinding resolution expressing opposition to the President's plan to send more troops. By almost two to one, Americans think passing a resolution would do more harm than good; 47 percent in this poll that was reported February 1, 2007, say it is likely to encourage the enemy and hurt troop morale compared with 24 percent who think it would make a positive difference to the policy of the United States toward Iraq.

Regardless of the sincerely held beliefs that I know Senators have on this very important topic, the last thing we should be forced to do would be to vote on a single resolution when there are so many different points of view that deserve full and fair debate on what is the most important issue that conflicts our country and, literally, the world at this time and that is the global war on terror, the central front of that war in Iraq and what we are going to do about it, whether we are going to give up or whether we are going to try to secure that country in a way that will allow it to govern and defend itself.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/